Brian M
Yet we continue with increasing populations and industrial growth. Its beyond belief that some governments/leaders are still in denial (mentioning no names!) of the evidence.
Even if global warming is not directly related to greenhouse gases (there are some other possible but unlikely causes), then reducing greenhouse gases would help mitigate whatever the other cause might be.

There are various methods to measure temperature and they have changed over the years. Next time you go to a store that sells any type of thermometer, take a look at the readings on each one. You will always see a variation of at least 2 degrees Fahrenheit across several different ones. For years even scientific instruments were not guaranteed to be accurate to more than plus or minus 2% in a given range. Even the most accurate have a + or - range.
From the article: "2018 was found to be the fourth warmest year on record, with 2016 still topping the list...". In other words, Cooling Trend Continues!
Douglas E Knapp
I am beyond sick of all these anti-global warming fools. I know the people that decided to launch a propaganda campaign to make people question global warming and thus shift the blame away from big energy companies. They don't want to pay!
So they pay for internet trolls to attack every scientist or scientific publication and try and bring doubt into peoples minds. They also pay for fake science. People are all about fake news but have yet to wake up to oil firms fake science. You would think they would have learned after all the smoking is good for you BS of the past.
The world is warming up on average. It is clearly tied to CO2 and you can tell where the CO2 came from! It is also a fact that all the ice is melting and melting FAST. It is also a fact that all the corals are dying or dead! Corals are where most fish begin life. Without it the food chain that we eat from is in big trouble! The oceans are higher, this is a fact.
Learn to ignore the propaganda trolls!
Douglas Bennett Rogers
95% of the greenhouse effect on the Earth is due to water vapor. The remaining 5% is split between CO2 and methane. The non condensibles leverage the water vapor. Desert irrigation and evaporative cooling has a larger effect. The Sahara desert being highly reflective, near the equator, hotter than the rest of the Earth, and having high infrared emisivity, is a major route of return of energy to space. A small increase in path length water will have a large effect on this.
Anything NASA says I take with a salt shaker. They are notorious for their censorship. Also, their involvement in the Geo engineering chem trails make me wonder who is really running this country. I think there ought to be an external investigation of NASA so that we, the lilliputians, can know the hidden agendas that "agency" has in their play book.

Robert in Vancouver
If the world is getting so warm why aren't glaciers and polar ice sheets melting more than normal?
If they were melting more than normal, we would see a drop in sea levels, not a rise. Water volume expands 9% when it freezes and drops 9% when it melts. That's why a glass jar filled with water breaks when it freezes.
Okay, so there's a bit of ignorance evident here. Nobody - you can be fairly sure that NASA, NOAA and other scientific organisations don't buy their temperature measuring equipment at a store, so they don't have to worry about the differences between various thermometers. robo - the glaciers and ice sheets are melting more than normal. Ice that floats leaves about 10% of its volume above sea level, so when it melts there's no change in sea level. Melting ice sheets (such as those on Greenland, Antarctica) and glaciers (such as in the Himalayas) are mostly above sea level and so when they melt, sea level rises.
Johannes, I have spend years buying and developing scientific measuring instruments and I assure you that the +or- of 2% certification has been true for many years. You can buy more accurate instruments but no matter how much you pay there will always be a +or- variation. Even the location of the weather stations makes a difference. My local NOAA station was in the country until a few years ago and now it is surrounded by a subdivision. So now instead of being surrounded by fields and woods, it is surrounded by buildings and pavement. Will the temperatures be the same? I don't think so. Statistical data is the most deceptive of all.
Concerning sea surface temperatures. Note that in the decades before the advent of the significant coverage of the oceans by the buoy networks, the ocean temperature data was acquired in the main by ship's engine room water inlet temperature data or by measuring the temperature in buckets thrown over the side on a rope. Ship's engine cooling water inlet temperature data is acquired from the engine room cooling inlet temperature gauges by the engineers at their convenience, there is no protocol for the recording of the temperatures. There is no standard for either the location of the inlets with regard especially to depth below the surface, the position in the pipework of the measuring instruments or the time of day the reading is taken and the position of the temperature sensor may be anywhere between the hull of the ship and the engine cylinder head itself. The instruments themselves are of industrial quality, their limit of error in °C per DIN EN 13190 is ±2 deg C. for a class 2 instrument or sometimes even ±4 deg. C, as can be seen in the tables here: DS_IN0007_GB_1334.pdf . After installation it is exceptionally unlikely that they are ever checked for calibration. It is not clear how such readings can be compared with the readings from buoy instruments specified (optimistically IMO) to a limit of error of tenths or even hundreds of a degree C. or why they are considered to have any value whatsoever for the purposes to which they are put, which is to produce historic trends apparently precise to 0.001 deg. C upon which spending of literally trillions of £/$/whatever are decided. But hey, this is climate "science" we're discussing so why would a little thing like that matter?