I don't doubt some global warming but the numbers are obviously biased. The local weather reporting station in my area was several miles out in the rural country 30 years ago. It is now surrounded by subdivisions, factories, shopping centers and parking lots. It is no surprise that the average temperature is now a couple degrees higher. This is also true of every other government reporting station within a hundred miles. Private weather stations in the rural areas are still reporting slightly cooler temperatures.
@Bob -- you may be talking about a supposed 'urban heat island effect" but guess what? A possible UHI has been thoroughly investigated - and had to be dismissed. Scientists have been very careful to ensure that UHI is not influencing the temperature trends and have compared the data from remote stations to more urban sites. Result: The difference between ideal rural sites compared to urban sites in temperature trends has been very small. Plus the UHI should match where most people live. But the greatest difference in temperatures are the far northern latitudes and not where major urbanisation has occurred.
Yeah, right...
NOAA and NASA will still be claiming "hottest year since whenever" even as the next Ice Age commences and the glaciers roll over their offices.
So, "2017 ranked ... warmest..."? Oh, of course it was. And here's something to bet on: 2018 will be, too. Because those doing the ranking have an agenda. And that revolves around YOU, dear reader: you are not sufficiently panicked about Global Warming. This, despite you being yelled at for a quarter century!
At least they have stopped saying the science is settled. With 20 years of data in disagreement with the climate models that made Al Gore rich, we now know "climate science... is complex and ever-changing".
Still, the global lower atmosphere temperature for December was +0.41°C warmer than the mean for 1979-2017. Yikes! Give all your money to the government now!
"But the greatest difference in temperatures are the far northern latitudes and not where major urbanisation has occurred."
Not only that, there aren't many weather stations either and the weather satellites generally operate between 80 deg latitude North and South, so the "climate scientists" use a technique called "Kriging"** AKA "Making Stuff Up"..
Curious thing that, the less thermometers there are, the higher the temperature is.
**Originally devised in South Africa to estimate the value of gold claims in the absence of any proper assaying surveys, and caused a lot of credulous people to lose all their money.
If you look at the map, you will notice that all the red zones are in locations where there have not been much in the way of historical measurements.
Isn't it strange that most of the "dramatic" "heating" has taken place where few historical records exist and the data is largely made up?
Douglas E Knapp
I am so sick of reading this blah blah blah global warming is made up BS. I know the person that lead the attack or perhaps I should just say she initiated it, to make people think global warming is false. It is pure propaganda. If you believe global warming is false then you have been successfully conned.
I live in Poland. We used to have winters with snow etc. Now it's almost gone. Winters are so warm that none is going to prove me there is no clime warming. The best place to see it are regions with temperate climate. The strange thing is that it's enough to rise temperature by 1 C degree and make such big difference
@Bob UHI is known to scientists. They subtract certain amount from the readings
Interesting how many critics didn't seem to notice that I didn't dispute some degree of global warming and I only referred to biased data coming from my area compared to 30 years ago. I have worked with statistics for over 30 years and have never found a study that didn't include some level of data bias including errors in the choice of variables and their weighing factors. Anyone truly knowledgeable about statistics knows that they can be subtly manipulated. I am always amazed by people who think the math purifies the data and the biases don't matter.
OHMYGODWEREALLGONNADIE! Thanks once again, NASA and NOAA, for your thoroughly biased, fully-agenda-laden reports which have been proven wrong year after year after year after year after year. But it's a religion to you Hansenites, isn't it? Put back all those weather stations he took out (cooler ones?), and de-"normalize" all that data you hacked, and move the urban-heat-island-affected stations to give us the REAL data once again. Maybe a few people might start believing your input once again. I dare not hold my breath waiting for you to do that.