2017 was second or third warmest year, behind 2016 – U.N.

OSLO (Reuters) – Last year was the second or third warmest on record
behind 2016, and the hottest without an extra dose of heat caused by an
El Niño event in the Pacific Ocean, the United Nations said on Thursday.

Average surface temperatures in 2017 were 1.1 degree Celsius (2.0
Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times, creeping towards a 1.5C (2.7F)
ceiling set as the most ambitious limit for global warming by almost 200
nations under the 2015 Paris climate agreement.

Last year was indistinguishable, so far, from 2015 as the second or

third warmest behind 2016, making 2017 “the warmest year without an El
Niño”, the U.N’s World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said.

Temperatures in both 2016 and 2015 were lifted by an El Niño, a natural
event which can disrupt weather patterns worldwide every few years and
releases heat from the Pacific Ocean into the atmosphere.

“When even the ‘colder’ years are rewriting the warmest year record
books, we know we have a problem,” said Professor Dave Reay, chair in
carbon management at the University of Edinburgh.

Seventeen of the warmest 18 years since records began in the 19th
century have now happened since 2000, confirming that ever more
greenhouse gases are driving up temperatures, the WMO said.

Among extreme weather events last year, the Caribbean and the United
States suffered a battering from hurricanes, the Arctic ended 2017 with
the least sea ice for mid-winter and tropical coral reefs suffered from
high water temperatures.

“Arctic warmth has been especially pronounced and this will have
profound and long-lasting repercussions on sea levels, and on weather

patterns in other parts of the world,” WMO Secretary-General Petteri
Talaas said in a statement.

The findings, which match a projection by the WMO in November, now have
full-year data including from NASA, the U.S. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Britain’s Met Office with the
University of East Anglia.

In the United States alone, weather and climate-related disasters cost
the United States a record $306 billion in 2017, especially western
wildfires and hurricanes Harvey, Maria and Irma, NOAA said last week.

The 2015 Paris agreement, which seeks to shift the world economy from
fossil fuels this century, aims to limit temperatures to “well below” a
rise of 2C above pre-industrial times while pursuing efforts to limit it
to 1.5C.

U.S. President Donald Trump, who doubts climate change is caused by
man-made emissions, plans to quit the Paris accord.

A leaked draft of a U.N. scientific report shows that warming is on
track to breach the 1.5C goal set by the 2015 Paris climate agreement by
mid-century, unless governments make unprecedented economic shifts from
fossil fuels.

About the author

Comments

  • Concerned

    … Let’s see what the global temps are over the next few years.

    • Harold

      It is better to wait for the Debate amongst all climate scientists rather than to listen to the select few that the world is listening to right now. What I read here is utter BS when you look at their Climate Change Models. Based upon their three climate change models, compliance to their climate agenda along with all of the Tax dollars collected by the year 2025 they will reduce global warming by 0.0038, 0.00024, or 0.00005 of a degree which is very close to zero, and that is only if the data that they are currently feeding the model is 100% correct. Furthermore, they totally dismiss the “Dinosaur era” in their accounting of climate change history where at that time carbon levels and global temperatures were very much higher than they are today. There is a history of climate change and now there is a separate history of climate change (a segment) that suits the alarmists and their own agenda; how convenient. A few scientists of political alarmism have had their public say, but the history of climate change did not start in the 19 century. The same few scientists of political alarmism cannot yet answer to what degree of temperature that human involvement has contributed separate to that of natural occurrences and that measure of involvement. It was interesting how profoundly ignorant the article became of natural weather cycles and patterns; they present weather cycles as though they were manmade whenever it suits them and deny the same cycle when it does not suit them or the agenda. The granddaddy of the global warming hysteria, Al Gore – the inconvenient truth, sayer – predicted back when that by today all of the Ice caps would be gone and presented a fiction of a world in a state of chaos; Al Gore claimed that this was the TRUTH and that truth is obviously a lie. It is interesting to note that Al Gore was a politician (not a scientist) which means that his source of information came from credible scientists and in contrast, it is all of the same politicians and same science sources of today who want your Tax dollars. Moreover, Global temperatures are captured in 15 year increments and those measurements, and are not relevant to weather cycles of cold or hot, wet or dry, winds or calm, within that period of a single 15 year cycle. In other words, they check the temperature every 15 years and that is the proof that the earth has warmed or if it has not. To place the stick of measurement at the19 century and forward denies the existence of any previous climate change history. The illusion creates a fear and that fear has taken the public’s focus off of the Industries who are in fact polluting the world with chemicals and the focus away from the Government’s attempt to rob the public of their hard earned money through taxation. Fighting climate or weather is an entity that no human can fight, but on the other hand, fighting Industry pollution and the government is an entity that any human or humans can in fact fight and can gain a success by doing so and begs the question of which is more important and a greater cause for humans to be involved in and to belong to? We fear the power of Government and their enforcement, we fear for not contributing to the Industry and their Elite, and we fear a Climate change. It is interesting to note that all those who do not fear any of them, how in a ceremonious and calamitous manner they are publicly shamed, discredited, ridiculed, dismissed by those who are fearful and all for the sake of government and Industry and now climate change indoctrination. The fact that no global warming equals – no government control over us – no government tax – no Paris accord – should weigh heavily on people’s minds but the fear based agenda prevents them from gaining the vision of this more than obvious conflict of interests. What government in the world would not like to have complete power and control over all of the people and not have as many tax dollars as they can possibly get a hold of and what industry would not want a piece of the same action? The public are doing a poor job in their task to regulate the government and regulate the Industry.

  • bufford54

    It certainly isn’t the warmest weather here in Cuba. Cold and rainy.

  • Monkeeworks

    So to make a complicated headline simple. 2017 was cooler than 2016.
    And, “Average surface temperatures in 2017 were 1.1 degree Celsius (2.0Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times around 1850”, which is cooler than the previous years. Funny how the UN worded that, huh?
    Have you noticed how our Federal Government environmental dept. Ms. McKenna is changing the wording from carbon taxes to greenhouse taxes? (is this more proof that carbon is not the enemy and never was) It also seems over the past 10 years as global temperatures rose CO2 levels remained the same. Only now are the levels rising again, slowly. Which means that thousands of climate scientists may be right that CO2 follows temperature, just like the Greenland Ice bores and Antarctic Ice bores have told us over and over with natural climate change, “CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around.” No matter how you look at it, humans can adapt to a warming planet. Not so for a cooling one.

  • Dean

    Why is the the Western Producer publishing garbage that is written by the United Nations?

    • Hi Dean,

      Thanks for taking the time to write.

      We publish stories like this from reputable sources because the subject matter is of interest to our readers.

      You obviously feel it’s “garbage,” others may not.

      Personally, I think it’s important to read about issues from a variety of sources – even if I may disagree with the assertions those sources put forward – in order to be as well-informed as possible.

      Reading only stuff that agrees with my point of view only leaves me vulnerable to confirmation bias.

      That’s my 2 cents worth!

      Cheers,
      Paul – WP web editor

      • Dean

        Thanks for the reply, Paul. Reading stories from a variety of sources is an important informative way to be unbiased. The problem I have with certain “reputable” authors is that they have already proven themselves to be biased, and/or agenda driven. In situations like this, it would be nice to see publishers display more than one perspective on highly contested topics. Perhaps, display the alternate views of two separate authors on a divisive topic on the same page providing readers with additional insight?

    • Harold

      Like you, I have never seen a piece written and signed by a scientist of any of the sciences of climate. There are currently more than 6,000 (PHD) climate scientists who are skeptics and although the media claims to be unbiased, they have never published any of their reports. There is one door “to science” and another door beside it entitled “to all about the opinions of science” and there is no doubt in my mind which door the Media is leading us through. I’m as keen to notice as you are that the public is being constantly fed blanket statements forwarded by those who are in a conflict of interest to the public. The United Nations for one, are in a conflict of interests because to become united as being one world nation, you must have one concept that all humans will follow. One world concept denies to all of the worlds countries, including Canada, their Right as a country to be self- determined and undermines the Countries own Democracy – the will of the people. United is a dictatorship and any world dictatorship has to have clear boundaries that do not allow the entity the power to over-reach. When the UN invites science into their own dictatorship they are over-reaching and like you I could care less what this dictatorship has to say in regards to science. A world dictatorship is of value only if they are kept within the boundaries of upholding global human rights and freedoms and those things such as liberty which are common to all mankind no matter where they reside in the world. However, the true nature and deceit of the UN was exposed to the public when the United States recently moved their Embassy, but in response, the members of the UN in a majority defiantly voted against the USA’s decision. Does that not draw a red flag? Trump in keeping with the USA’s Right to be self-determined, ignored the dictatorship of the UN and moved their embassy just the same. Trump was not defying the UN; he was upholding USA’s Right to self-determination. I should point out that although the USA has a seat at the UN, Trump as a leader pointed out to the UN by his actions the boundary that he will not allow the UN (the world dictator) to cross over – and rightfully so. (any media attention to the truth behind it all?) To further expose the UN, the UN accepts truck loads of money from the USA in support and to add insult to injury for the money the USA is rewarded by the UN turning against them and their Democracy. To have a seat at the UN, the Country has to give up the Right to be self determined and it is no surprise that Dictator Trudeau, who recently it was proven that he cannot understand the ethics of his own office, wants a seat on that UN Council. How would Trudeau have voted – his lack of freedom to side with the USA displays the effects of world domination over our democracy. Any entity can be called reputable and the UN certainly has a reputation don’t they? Unlike some who call the UN a reputable source by default because the term “united” in United Nations sounds good, fuzzy, and warm, I have read the UN’s own mandate.The UN are about placing all aspects of world humanity under their own roof and gaining the power to control and dominate all of mankind; they are not structured to be about freedom and liberty. I can agree that your term “garbage” was an adequate description especially when you take the time to look into the bag and discover that it isn’t a lunch bag.

  • old grouchy

    Hmmmmmmmmmmmm – – – as the origin of the baseline temperature used is never discussed what one has with this ‘science’ is an incredible lack of rigor! But then as this ‘science’ has never been about science and only about perception and taxation and control – – – its veracity is not only suspect but largely spurious!

explore

Stories from our other publications