2017 second hottest year on record, so far

by Chris Becker

There’s more sobering news from the NASA with 2017 already shaping up as the second warmest year on record, with average temperatures up 0.9C already, and could outpace the warmest year ever – 2016.

More from The Guardian:

2017 hasn’t had the warming influence of an El Niño event. El Niños bring warm ocean water to the surface, temporarily causing average global surface temperatures to rise. 2016 – including the first six months of the year – was influenced by one of the strongest El Niño events on record.

Now the first six months of 2017 have been 0.3°C hotter than 1998, despite the former having no El Niño warming influence and the latter being amplified by a monster El Niño. In 1998, there was also more solar energy reaching Earth than there has been in 2017.

Total solar irradiance data (red) and linear trend (orange) since 1950 from the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics Solar Irradiance Data Center at the University of Colorado.
 Total solar irradiance data (red) and linear trend (orange) since 1950 from the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics Solar Irradiance Data Center at the University of Colorado. Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli

In terms of El Niño and solar temperature influences, 2017 thus far has been most similar to 2006, but 2017 has been 0.3°C hotter than 2006 as well.

Global average surface temperature data from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
 Global average surface temperature data from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli

This puts the IPCC’s and the Paris Accords target of a 2C capping by the end of the century well into doubt as a recent study by the University of Washington, published in Nature, showed that the probability of maintaining that target is dwindling fast:

The recently published Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections to 2100 give likely ranges of global temperature increase in four scenarios for population, economic growth and carbon use.

We find that the 90% interval for cumulative CO2 emissions includes the IPCC’s two middle scenarios but not the extreme ones.

The likely range of global temperature increase is 2.0–4.9°C, with median 3.2°C and a 5% (1%) chance that it will be less than 2°C (1.5°C).

Not a good outcome, particularly when this study uses different variables and methods, focusing on the economic and population impacts. And its not a certainty – nothing in science is – but it adds to the probability of increasing economic damage due to climate change and thus insurance measures need to be enacted. Quickly.

 

Comments

  1. WTF, Chris. Now all the RW climate deniers are gunna be posting L, R and centre on how we’ve all be conned and it’s just a conspiracy etc and that they know because they have a Bsc Dentistry / Data / Computing etc. And they remember what the weather used to be like.

    Thanks for nothing!

    • Deniers is an instant most used word used by climate Nazi to kill any debate.
      Personal bias gibberish et cie.

      In science *everyrhing* is open for scrutiny and debate, forever. It’s what makes science advance.

      • In science *everyrhing* is open for scrutiny and debate, forever. It’s what makes science advance.

        Yes, but you and other deniers sprouting rubbish is not ‘scientific debate’. Scientific debate is done by reviewing and critiquing scientific publications and presenting your own scientific publications for peer review. There are over 10,000 papers with no ‘arguments’ from the scientific community to say they are ‘wrong’.

        Yes everything is up for debate. But the following things are now scientific fact:
        – The world is warming.
        – Humans releasing C02 is the cause of the world warming.
        To say otherwise without a without a peer reviewed scientific publication to back it up is Denying Science.

  2. Well I, for one, think it’s a good thing, what with the gas and electricity prices and all. Also it’s always minus twelve in Canberra,
    so…

  3. Lol. People view the whole climate change hysteria in the wrong way. Very simply, either:

    1. It’s a pile of shite and we’ve collectively wasted a vast amount of economic and intellectual resources (and time) on a threat that doesn’t exist, or …

    2. It’s all true and we’ve not done anywhere near enough to ‘combat’ climate change i.e. introducing energy efficient light-bulbs isn’t going to do the trick because of the 800lb domestic home gorilla: 2 x 60 inch plasma TVs in most homes, multiple computers, laptops, tablets, smart phones, air-conditioners, oil heaters etc etc ad infinitum … oh, and did I forget, 2/3 cars per family and so on and so on …

    In other words we’re doomed anyway. Why worry about a fate you really have no control over (no, seriously, you don’t) and just enjoy life 🙂

    • 1. If you believe it is a pile of shite then you are either a) paid to say that or b) dumber than a box of hammers.

      2. You do know that if power is generated via non-carbon producing methods and we are driving electric cars then we can use as much power as we want and drive as big a car as we like?

      We are only doomed if paid astro turfers make enough noise so that no action is taken on carbon emissions. But hey, your boss, the Billionaire fossil fuel barons will not lose any money – that is the important thing right?

      • You got me , I’m paid by a Russian slush fund.

        And Dominic how about #3 the part where climate science itself is not settled nor is the mathematics of AGW as the basic equations of how much warming per X amount of gas is truly unknown.

        Also the part where the earth is billions of years old and a Centuary of measurements isn’t even a day in the earths existance and everything we see is a subjective view point of a sliver of history.

      • glamb, I’m so glad you chimed in!

        Why because I’m curious to know what it is you think is going to produce all this electricity the cars will run on? When I last suggested “the farts of vegetarians”, the response was a tsunami of vitriol from various frothing, spitting climate nazis.

        Here’s a little clue for you lot: the Chinese are pushing the electric car agenda very hard at present and it’s not because they’ve become the conscience of the climate change movement, as many have suggested. It’s all to do with energy security and China’s reliance on imported oil. They don’t have any oil but they do have a LOT of coal and they’re keen to have that coal power their vast fleet of domestic vehicles. Guess how? I’ll leave it to you to work out ….. enjoy!

    • bolstroodMEMBER

      If you were boarding an aircraft and 90% of flight engineers said it had 50% chance of crashing , would you take the flight?

      • After being stranded on the island of dr. Moreau for years and If you were boarding an escaping aircraft and 90% of flight engineers said it had 50% chance of crashing , would you take the flight?

      • Absolutely not bolstrood,

        some would say we are allready on that plane, id trust their conclusions about a microsecond aboard that flight and ask for help pushing several billion economy passengers out the backdoor.

        People do unimaginable things to survive, your religion is the most dangerous of them all.

      • Drawing parallels between something you can you prove with a degree of certainty versus, er, ‘consensus science’.

        You guys slay me — keep it coming.

        “I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had..”
        – Michael Crichton

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Drawing parallels between something you can you prove with a degree of certainty versus, er, ‘consensus science’.

        You mean “consensus science” like, say, Evolution ?

        The term “consensus” is grossly misrepresented by those trying to discredit science because they don’t like the political and ideological implications of it. It doesn’t mean “because a bunch of people think this, we all do”, it means “because a bunch of people have data and experiments verifying this, we assume it is correct until someone shows otherwise, and therefore build further research off that assumption”.

        Nobody has managed to mount any challenge to the underlying science of climate change. Nearly all the “dissent” from the denialist crowd is either playing god of the gaps (you can’t tell me exactly what temperature it’s going to be on August 15th 2035 ? Climate change is a scam !), or trying to assert a multi-national, multi-generational, multi-discpline conspiracy, with comically politicised motivations is a more likely possibility than “it’s actually happening”.

        The only real questions left in climate change are “how bad” and “how soon”.

      • drsmithy

        “The only real questions left in climate change are “how bad” and “how soon”.”

        Oh really ? So how about this one – exactly how much human activities contribute to global warming ? You know, it’s it’s 95% Sun and 5% people whatever you do won’t matter, but it very well might be other way around. Surely you would have some data you can show.

        And about scientific consensus – it took only 1200 years to disprove Aristotle’s theory of gravity which was very much a scientific consensus back then. It did not make it any less wrong.

      • Evolution is a scientific therory in the correct sense, and anyone denying AGW is moronic until proven otherwise.

        With that said, “Scientific consensus” as a form of proof is basically oxymoronic and needs to dissapear from the English lexicon.

        The concensus is a con census which drowns out the required non hysterical conversations.

      • @Dain “xactly how much human activities contribute to global warming ?”

        Ahh – you guys just don’t understand science and maths!

        Humans contribute about 3.5% of the emissions each year. The trouble is that we have a fairly closed system and a system that has been in equilibrium. So c02 output and c02 absorption was constant so the t02 concentrations in the atmosphere did not rise. So the temperature did not rise.

        Now humans come along and are add an additional 3.5% of C02 into the atmosphere each year. – about 1% of that is not being off-set. So that is adding 1% EXTRA C02 a year. If you know maths, that 1% is compounding (adding on top of adding). You start with 100, yr1=101, yr2=102.01,…..yr41=200. That increase of only 1% a year will double the amount of c02 in the atmosphere every 41 years.

      • glamb

        “Humans contribute about 3.5% of the emissions each year. ”

        That’s not what I asked isn’t it ? I don’t care how much CO2 is in atmosphere right now and how much will be in 50 years and whether it’s good or bad, I’m asking extremely simple question – how much of 1 degree Celsius temperature increase in last XX years is a direct consequence of human activities ? Do you have an answer, link to peer reviewed study, hearsay, anything at all or are you a climate science denier ?

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Oh really ? So how about this one – exactly how much human activities contribute to global warming ? You know, it’s it’s 95% Sun and 5% people whatever you do won’t matter, but it very well might be other way around. Surely you would have some data you can show.

        https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=57

        Knock yourself out. Plenty of resources linked from there.

        And about scientific consensus – it took only 1200 years to disprove Aristotle’s theory of gravity which was very much a scientific consensus back then. It did not make it any less wrong.

        I love the way people write things like this as if it actually means something.

        That’s not what I asked isn’t it ? I don’t care how much CO2 is in atmosphere right now and how much will be in 50 years and whether it’s good or bad, I’m asking extremely simple question – how much of 1 degree Celsius temperature increase in last XX years is a direct consequence of human activities ?

        Oh, look, a “you can’t tell me exactly what X will be if Y, therefore your science is wrong” argument. What a surprise.

        Do you similarly think Evolution is a scam because nobody can tell you exactly what mutations will happen next ?

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        With that said, “Scientific consensus” as a form of proof is basically oxymoronic and needs to dissapear from the English lexicon.

        What “form of proof” are you talking about ?

      • @Dain “That’s not what I asked isn’t it ? I don’t care how much CO2 is in atmosphere right now and how much will be in 50 years and whether it’s good or bad, I’m asking extremely simple question – how much of 1 degree Celsius temperature increase in last XX years is a direct consequence of human activities ?”

        “Ahh – you guys just don’t understand science and maths!” (again)
        If a system is in equilibrium (c02 emission and absorption) and humans come along and add ADDITIONAL c02 into the system then, of the 1C of warming caused by humans is ALMOST ALL OF IT

  4. The discussion has been had and further discussion is now totally irrelevant. We can continue coming up with all sorts of consipracy theories, or we simply accept that the world is doing this and start to invest in order to get a piece of the pie.

  5. It was QLD Labor that gave the green light to the Adani mine right? So it’s hard to care when that happens.

    I say we go nuclear. Put a massive reactor in the desert. Hook up everyone to it, and if it blows up well it’s in the desert so it shouldn’t hurt much if at all. France is about 50% nuclear.

  6. DarkMatterMEMBER

    With respect, most of this thread has been inane. For most of us, climate change is the least of our worries.