Thursday, January 19, 2017

2016 is the hottest year on record - three in a row now

Sou | 3:45 AM Go to the first of 72 comments. Add a comment
A short while ago the data showed that 2016 temperatures for the troposphere (upper air) were the highest on record. Today, we've got results for the surface, from NASA and NOAA.

You will not be surprised to know that 2016 was yet another hottest year ever recorded in the instrumental record, beating 2015 by 0.12 °C.

That's more than I expected. (2015 beat 2014 by 0.13 °C and that seemed a big jump.)

Dr Gavin Schmidt, Director of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), NASA and Deke Arndt, Chief, Climate Monitoring Branch, NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information in Asheville, North Carolina are currently giving a press conference to announce the annual average global surface temperature results and discuss the most important weather and climate events of the year.

This article is based on NASA GISTemp, and all data is shown as an anomaly from a 1881 to 1910 baseline instead of the 1951-1980 baseline. All that means is that the average temperature for the period 1881 to 1910 is taken as zero, and every year is shown as the difference from that zero baseline. It's mostly above the baseline. The last year below that baseline was in 1929, almost 90 years ago.

I've done it this way so that it's easier to see how much hotter it is now than at the beginning of the twentieth century. If you take the pre-industrial temperature as being not too different, you can also easily see how close we're getting to the 1.5 °C target. (Feel free to quibble. It's been argued the temperature averaged lower still up to the industrial revolution.)

It is now 107 years since there was a "coldest year on record". The last one was in 1909. See for yourself:

Figure 1 | Annual global mean surface temperature. Anomaly from the 1881-1910 mean. Data source: GISS NASA.

The average global temperature in 2016 was:
  • 0.12 °C hotter than last year (2015) 
  • 0.25 °C hotter than in 2014 
  • 1.46 °C hotter than the coldest year in the record (1909) 
  • 0.35 °C hotter than the average for 1998 
  • 1.25 °C hotter than the 1881-1910 average.
    If you would like to see the actual average temperature anomaly for each year, hover the cursor over the chart below. It's the same as the one above except that it's interactive, and not quite as garish pretty :)

    Figure 2 | Global mean surface temperature, average of 12 month periods to May each year. Data source: GISS NASA

    Changes in 10 year averages

    Because most people are interested in the pace of climate change, rather than year to year differences in weather, it helps to bracket the averages over ten year periods and compare them over time. The last three years in particular have been pulling the 10-year average upwards. Below is a chart showing changes for 10 year periods, starting from each year ending in 7 to each year ending in 6, with the last ten year period being 2007 to 2016 inclusive. The long term trend is up - it's getting hotter very quickly.

    Figure 3 | Global mean surface temperature in ten year averages. Anomaly from the 1881-1910 mean, from 1887-1896 to 2007-2016. Data source: GISS NASA

    Where did it get hot and where was it colder?

    To see where it's been extra warm this past 12 months, here is the map from NOAA showing the land and ocean temperature percentiles, with the record warmest. The map only shows one spot with a record coldest. I've added some arrows.

    Figure 4 | January–December 2016 Blended Land and Sea Surface Temperature Percentiles Source: NOAA

    The map from NASA (below) shows anomalies - note that this time the anomalies are from the 1951 to 1980 mean.

    Figure 5 | Map showing mean surface temperature anomalies 2016, from the 1951-1980 mean. Source: GISS NASA

    The chart below is of latitude vs temperature anomaly and highlights the extraordinary rise in temperatures in the Arctic region.

    Figure 6 | Global mean surface temperature anomaly for 2016 by latitude. The base period is 1951-1980. Data source: GISS NASA

    Hottest years in order

    The next chart shows the hottest years in order, starting with 2016 on the left. As the chart and the table underneath show, sixteen of the seventeen hottest years were this century.

    Figure 7 | Twenty hottest years on record. Anomaly from the 1881-1910. Data source: GISS NASA

    The table shows the hottest 17 years in order:

    Data source: GISS NASA
    Anomaly from 1881-1910 mean (°C)
    1 2016
    2 2015
    3 2014
    4 2010
    5 2005
    6 2007
    7 2013
    8 2009
    9 1998
    10 2002
    11 2006
    12 2012
    13 2003
    14 2011
    15 2001
    16 2004
    17 2008

    Watch the world warming

    A video from NASA, showing the warming from 1880 to 2015. If there's an update I'll replace the video:

    For anyone who still is unsure about global warming

    If after all that, you're still not sure if the world is warming, here's a video with Gavin Schmidt, Director of GISS at NASA, explaining how we know it is. It's science: physics and chemistry (and biology) and observation - and not just observation of the land and ocean surface temperature.

    References and further reading

    From the HotWhopper archives


    1. I prepared the framework for this article a few hours ago, with charts ready to be populated with the latest data. I was surprised that I had to change the range on the charts because this year was hotter than I expected. This year's data wouldn't fit on the charts as I had them originally.

      Also, the press conference is worth listening to if you get a chance. Some of the questions were very basic, probably to get quotes for readers rather than because the journos didn't know better. There were some good questions, however it seemed as if Gavin Schmidt and Deke Arndt were giving a climate change primer to kindergarten children for some of the time. You'd think by now people would be more up to speed on the subject than is the case.

      Maybe I expect too much.

      There's a lot else going on in the world right now, but climate change remains the most pressing matter.

      1. “it seemed as if Gavin Schmidt and Deke Arndt were giving a climate change primer to kindergarten children”

        Rumor has it that Watts and Monckton were in the room……..

      2. We are all breathlessly waiting to see how WUWT has "debunked" this latest piece of fake science.

        Only problem is I refuse to click on the site.

      3. They must be down to adjustments, UHI and Russian steam pipes. Although, now they are friends with Putin, the last may have morphed into Chinese steam pipes.

      4. And then the damned Chinese went and closed down 100 planned and even in-process-of-building coal projects to ruin that argument as well this week. http://www.businessinsider.com/r-china-halts-over-100-coal-fired-power-projects-caixin-2017-1

        Reality just isn't playing fair for Tony and the boys.

    2. And yet...recent research shows that, when confronted with hard evidence that one's beliefs are incorrect, the brain reacts with a threat response. More contra-information, more persuasion, simply hardens those beliefs. Which explains a lot.

      IT seems to me that we will have to deal with the children of the deniers, if we can-because all the evidence in the world won't change the minds of those we have now. Sigh.

      1. I haven't been to see what many of the climate hoax conspiracy theorists are saying, though I see that Roy Spencer is joining in pretending it's all a hoax, accusing scientists of fraud, and claiming that 193 nations are only in it for the money or something. What a crackpot.

        I'm thinking it's the Trump effect, giving permission to those who were a bit crazy to go full bore barking mad.

      2. Oh I see Dr Roy Spencer is pushing FUD again - he must of received a new directive from his handler. Bloody cheek mind, he knows full well his own temperature data set is all over the shop.

        WUWT is pushing the "it was the El Nino" line, even though the content of his article contradicts his headline.

      3. @ Mike, you see the same "hunkering down" with CT'ers too

        the wonderful thing abut the rabbit hole is you never get to the bottom

      4. @ Twinotter ahah Roy is pushing the NWO/Illuminati


      5. In the UK, David Whitehouse at the GWPF has a graph where he removes the El Nino contribution (badly) from 2015/6 but doesn't do a similar correction for 1997/8 - thus allowing him to claim that "the pause continues" ...

      6. Swimbouy: You have missed the section in the denier manual which states: El Ninos only count when they are on the right hand side of the abcissa, never on the left.

        It's a trick deniers developed many years ago and have kept to for decades.

    3. And yet Dec 2016 was .3 deg colder than Dec. 2015. Global cooling is on the horizon!

      1. There was a question in the press conference about whether there'll be a "new hiatus"! The person was thinking that 2017 would give deniers ammunition to talk up an ice age or something. Gavin Schmidt replied that he thinks 2017 will still be among the five hottest years on record, and pointed out that the upward trend is relentless. The only thing that could cause much cooling would probably be a massive volcano (or Trump starting a major nuclear war).

      2. There was some good questions. I liked the new "hiatus" question actually, at least the journo did not call it a pause! Who knows how the satellite measurements will react once the 2015/16 El Nino spike regresses to the mean.

      3. The "hiatus" is just the apparent pause before the "spurt". It reminds me of a peristaltic pump.

        Or as my old Irish mate Patrick, when asked was the peristaltic pump working. His answer was, "its working, its not working, its working ..."


    4. Sou,I see you've been over to Roy's to comment on his latest article. He's always been a dissenter, but reading his comment replies he seems, for the first time that I've ever noticed, actually angry. Is he finally coming unhinged?


      1. How's the third order polynomial fit looking these days?

      2. I'd imagine that Farce X might need a second notch too.

    5. The Guardian article on this is generating the usual response from deniers. A fair number of new accounts have been created just to parrot fossil fuel industry gobshite. The moderators are being kept busy.

      1. Well over 2,000 comments so far!

        I do not spend too much time reading the comments or commenting on global warming articles from The Guardian, The Conversation etc. They get totally spammed by the deniers. There is also spamming from global warming proponents. All in all just one big mess.

    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    7. My favourite quote comes from the potty peer and a WUWT post from the 17th:

      "As recently as 5000 years ago, what is now the Sahara Desert was green, fertile, and home to lakes considerably larger than the Great Lakes."

      Thus spake Le Peer

    8. Or the potty peer i had a dialogue with the said person a few weeks ago on Carbon Brief. In the discussion he said he had seen how in the early 1990s there would be a downturn in global temperature.
      On asking how he knew there was going to be an eruption from Mt. Pinatubo there was no reply.
      The person is a very good speaker however has done a lot of damage by spreading his disinformation on several continents.
      Unfortunately the educated idiots get the attention of the general population.
      Frankly because the overwhelming majority of people do not achieve in life they will listen to these people and so it goes on.

      1. No, silly, volcanoes don't cause cooling! The physics says they do, but the notch cancels it out. Then the notch causes cooling.

      2. Having in the past "had a go at" Monckton on WUWT, I was pleasantly surprised at the lack of the "attack-dog" response. No one came in the defend him when I simply pointed out his impolite and ad hom responses to any critcism (with a sarcastic "even the plebs would have more manners")
        There was a brief response from Tisdale/Ball/Eschenbach (interchangable) when I critised his use of hundredths of a degree C to hide the magnitude of OHC increase. When pointed out that Jx10^22 should be used, to the likes of "temperature is easily understood by the public" - I replied, that that was the point - they compare that to an air equivalent when in fact it should be x4000 to take account of mass and SH of the oceans.
        He had his ego hurt and went away and came back with my full name (I use Toneb) on WU, in an ad hom response.
        Easily found as I use it here and at CE (log on with FB).

        Also, I note in his latest "piece", he criticises someone for using "Climate deniaist" as a ref to holocaust deniers.......
        "Offit loses ten points for his deliberate and malicious likening of those who disagree with him to Holocaust deniers. This is mere hate speech – and it is precisely this shrieking tone of quivering, anti-scientific, pseudo-moralistic, unreasoning hatred that has driven voters away from the Left on both sides of the Atlantic and has led to the timely collapse of the mainstream news media’s influence on public opinion."
        The man is execrable.

        Seems that the verb "deny" is forever verboten no matter what adverb/adjective is used with it.

        Anyway I digress a little.
        The point with ref to John above ....
        "The person is a very good speaker however has done a lot of damage by spreading his disinformation on several continents."
        Is that "Gareth" posted this on the current thread ....

        "When I first joined this site many years ago I was a committed sceptic. It was reading numerous posts by Monckton that made me question my beliefs, then realise I was profoundly mistaken. I now support mainstream climate science and everything Monckton writes assures me I was not mistaken in my conclusion. Monckton is one of the most important Aces warmists have in convincing sceptics that they are mistaken. Long may he continue writing!"

        So there are actually critical peeps there.
        And my go at him made me think that he was not liked.
        Which is good, becasue I post there in the hopes that countering their ignorant bollocks will find someone such as Gareth.

    9. I'm curious about the anomaly v temp graph. The top four points are identical, and labeled Nunavut. What are those exactly?

      This winter has been pretty consistently 10 C above average lows, 5-10 C above average highs, in Iqaluit -- but that's not even 66 degrees up.

      1. I probably should have explained in the article, numerobis. The labels on the latitude chart are only examples of places at those latitudes, they are not meant to suggest that those particular places had those anomalies. Also, the labels were against the latitude probably at the midpoint of the name.

        The NASA map (Figure 5) is what you'd need to look at to see what happened around the globe as far as average annual surface temperature goes.

      2. Oh, in retrospect that should have been obvious that it was the average for the latitude.

        The data doesn't match your source though. In the text file, it is * for the latitudes 83S and polewards ("missing") -- not negative -- and 6.5783563 for 83N and polewards, not a mere 4.85; other points are also all different, but more similar to what you have.

        The graph on their web page is even more shocking than yours. Are you hiding the incline? ;)

        "Nunavut" is not a very specific place: 2 million square km ranging in latitude from 60 N to 90 N. The northernmost town is Grise Fiord, 76N. Alert at 82.3N is permanently settled by military, scientists, and support staff. The northernmost point of land is at 83.1N; after that it's ice.

        Grise Fiord was founded by the government tricking some Inuit families from northern Quebec to move there with the promise of hunting and houses and travel home if it didn't work out. In fact the goal was to shore sovereignty claims on Ellesmere Island. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Arctic_relocation

      3. Oops, I forgot about the islands in Hudson Bay. Nunavut stretches as far South as 51 N.

    10. I was a bit disappointed that the Jan - Dec anomaly this year just missed out on attaining the 100 (1 deg C) mark. If the Dec anomaly was just .03 deg higher, that would have been the case.

      It's not that I want a warmer planet. But for the sake of .03 deg in a single month, 100 just looks psychologically more convincing than 99 when you're trying to make a point with the AGW deniers :-/

      1. .99 ℃ is just a lower threshold for ACO2 to burn the next hoax paws to death.

    11. @numerobis - thanks for that info re Nunavit.

      About the latitude chart - I plotted the data for the whole year (2016). You might be referring to the data just for December.

      Here's the link for Jan-Dec 2016.

      (There's something wrong with the "reply" links. Just a temporary glitch I expect.)

      1. Ah, indeed, didn't notice the default was only the month.

        Looks like the reason for latitude 83 and polewards being identical is that there's no stations reporting data. If you turn off the ocean data and reduce smoothing to 250 km the map shows them.

        More laboriously, start here:

        The northernmost is Alert, listed at 82.5. There's a few above 80 but I gather none of them actually get into the daily/monthly data sets. So latitude 83, 85, 87 and 89 are really just the temperature at Alert. Once the sea ice melts and we get year-round open water at the pole we'll be able to stick a buoy there to improve coverage.

        Similarly the South polar cap is covered by a handful of stations north of 83 S. The station precisely at the pole isn't included.

    12. BTW - I've changed Nunavit to Grise Ford - thanks, Numerobis :)

    13. Hi there!

      I just had a look at the new American Government website and searched for the terms GLOBAL WARMING and CLIMATE CHANGE. Both terms can not be found anymore. So finally we can stop nagging about 2016 being 0,02 degrees warmer or whatever other nonsense.
      Let's focus at clean and affordable energy for a bright future now!

      1. If only you could erase physics by editing a website

        Or many this is the new alt.fisics we hear so much about


      2. Yes. Yes of course, that is what the people who organised deleting all the references to climate change have in mind. They are going to replace them all with exhortations to us to only use clean energy.

        Thank goodness for that! For a moment I thought they might only be interested in coal and oil.

        Thank you Bojangles for making that clear.

      3. Coal and oil can be pretty clean as well, when burned in modern power plants. Anyhow a lot cleaner than burning wood pellets or rubbish in home wood burners..

      4. No, Bojangles, not "pretty clean". Just not quite as dirty.

      5. I thought burning wood was not nearly as bad due to the "carbon cycle"

        burning coal/oil is like burning "ancient sunshine" so adds to the current "carbon cycle"

        have I missed something?

      6. The Chinese have discovered all this stuff about 'clean coal' is just more fossil fuel industry gobshite. They are closing coal plants and cancelling ones being built.

      7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      8. "So finally we can stop nagging about 2016 being 0,02 degrees warmer or whatever other nonsense."

        If we "nagged" about "0,02" °C that would be "nonsense", because in your blather you've reduced the record increase over last year to one-sixth of its actual magnitude. Tsk tsk for your attempt at deception.

        There's also the fact that we're about 1.0 °C over the temperatures a century and a half ago, and according to Berkeley Earth we're about 1.2 °C warmer this year than when the Industrial Revolution began around 1750.

        Again you've been naughtily deceptive. Tut tut.

        "Coal and oil can be pretty clean as well, when burned in modern power plants."

        There are two separate issues here: particulate emissions and CO₂ emission. Particulates arising from the burning of wood, whilst problematic at high concentrations in urban areas, are transient in the atmosphere and of very little long-term consequence to the climate. CO₂ on the other hand is a very active 'greenhouse' gas, and is warming the planet to a dangerous degree. There is no technology available that makes coal, oil or gas 'clean' in the sense that is removes emitted fossil carbon from the contemporary carbon cycle. Conversely, wood and other current components of the contemporary carbon cycle are effectively neutral in that they would return to CO₂ at some point in the near future whether through burning or through decomposition, so they're already on the accounting ledger. Storing carbon as wood only really works in two situations:

        1) if we allow regeneration of mature forest in areas where humans have previously destroyed forest cover, or if we can fix it as soil carbon (difficult in non-charcoal form as soil carbon is generally labile), and

        2) if we store wood as dried timber.

        We're no doing nearly enough of the first to compensate for all of the extra fossil carbon that we've emitted (it'd take reforestation of much of the terrestrial surface of the planet to make a dent), and attempting to store carbon as dry timber is simply hopelessly futile in terms of what we could effectively sequester that way.

        So no, there's no "clean" way to remove emitted fossil carbon from the atmosphere. The best way to address the issue is to not emit fossil carbon in the first place.

        You're not arguing in good faith - which is not surprising if you're a promoter of a polluting and ecocidal industry.

      9. My aim is to have clean and affordable energy in the future. And CO2 forms no part of polluting emissions. This has always been the case until the EPA derailed some years ago. But that will be fixed now.

      10. I wonder what Mack's latest sock puppet is called.

      11. Bojangles sez:

        But that will be fixed now.

        Cue pleasant images of jackboots stomping on people's faces.

      12. "My aim ...".

        Delusions of grandeur?

        Or his plans for solar on his roof?

      13. This comment has been removed by the author.

      14. "And CO2 forms no part of polluting emissions."

        1) The fossil CO₂ that humans are emitting to the atmosphere is extra to the otherwise usual fluxes in the contemporary carbon cycle.

        2) The presence of this extra, fossil CO₂ warms the planet through the very well-understood mechanism of enhancing the absorption of directional radiation and its subsequent reradiation in random directions - this results in a retention (a delay in dispersal) of heat in the atmosphere and is referred to as the 'greenhouse' effect.

        3) The increased warmth, resulting from this delay of planetary dispersal of infrared radiation caused by the enhanced atmospheric content of CO₂ due to human emissions of fossil carbon, alters the climatic and is harmful to the planet's ecosystems - including the ecosystems and ecosystem functions on which humanity relies.

        4) Pollution is:

        "the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance which has harmful or poisonous effects"

        "the action or process of making land, water, air, etc., dirty and not safe or suitable to use"

        "[t]he contamination of air, water, or soil by substances that are harmful to living organisms"

        "1. The act or process of polluting or the state of being polluted, especially the contamination of soil, water, or the atmosphere by the discharge of harmful substances. 2. Something that pollutes; a pollutant or a group of pollutants"

        "[p]ollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change"

        "[the p]resence of matter (gas, liquid, solid) or energy (heat, noise, radiation) whose nature, location, or quantity directly or indirectly alters characteristics or processes of any part of the environment, and causes (or has the potential to cause) damage to the condition, health, safety, or welfare of animals, humans, plants, or property."

        5) Recapping: humans emit fossil CO₂, which warms the planet and harms the biosphere. CO₂ is therefore very much a pollutant by every standard definition of such, and because fossil CO₂ is a major part of the emissions of fossil fuels, it is absolutely and irrevocably a "MAJOR PART OF POLLUTING EMISSIONS."

        Sorry Bojangles, but you are completely and utterly wrong.

      15. "I wonder what Mack's latest sock puppet is called."

        I seem to recall 'Bojangles' commenting a few years ago, possibly around the same time that KarenMackSunspot was active. They certainly share the same incompetence with punctuation marks, so they could very well be the same puppeteer.

      16. "But that will be fixed now."

        Let's not forget that according to the "We" that our latest sockpuppet represents, climate change is now a Chinese conspiracy. The previous "We" had it to be a Russian conspiracy. But now the Russians are good people and really, really, really deserve our friendship and large chunks of Ukrainian territory.

        That's the current "We" of course. What the next "We" that our sockpuppet friend will be supporting will be is still anybody's guess.

      17. @ Bernard J.

        In response to your remarks on CO2 and pollution:

        1). Correct
        2). Correct. Although the warming over the last 20 years is only one third of what climate models projected, and therefore the beneficial effects of the greenhouse effect (greening planet) may well be much greater than the potential negative effect (too much warming).
        3). Incorrect. “Is harmful” suggests a certainty that is not there. See also remark 2).
        4). Pollution: In general correct definitions, when talking about unnatural chemical substances created by men, which CO2 is not. Including CO2 in these definitions is what I call the derailment of EPA.
        5). Incorrect.

        The sad thing about warmists who blame fossil fuels is that the solution they offer is a fake solution for a modern, energy intensive world. Anybody with a brain can calculate that the current selection of renewables are not going to reduce the worlds CO2 emissions by any significant amount. So it is a sort of hobby for the privileged of the earth putting the lower classes of the world in extended poverty.

      18. I must admit to finding it unusual that quite a few science deniers, most of whom worship billionaires with vulgar taste, have suddenly found some sympathy for people in poverty or pretend they have. Inconsistently, those same science deniers are also intent on harming the poor nations of the world, those very same people who are most vulnerable to climate change.

      19. I think the instructions they have been given are that they are not supposed to show any sympathy if the people in poverty are Mexican.

      20. "The sad thing about warmists who blame fossil fuels is that the solution they offer is a fake solution for a modern, energy intensive world"

        Which explains why you deny the science exactly how?

      21. @Millicent - Deniers have no sympathy for any starving people in Africa either.

      22. True, but distance does allow the cold hearted to pretend to be fonder.

      23. @Sou

        As usual here, you are poorly informed about the latest reality.
        Famine is not the basic problem anymore in most areas of Africa. It is affordable energy supplied through a reliable grid, so that people don’t have to burn wood in open fire places in their homes, producing very harmful fumes and resulting in early death.

      24. "Although the warming over the last 20 years is only one third of what climate models projected..."


        If you have analyses that support your claim, present them. By way of meeting this criterion myself, I submit:




        Or, if you want to go back to Hansen's 1988 models, you'll find that his Scenario B is on the money:


        "...therefore the beneficial effects of the greenhouse effect (greening planet) may well be much greater than the potential negative effect (too much warming)"

        This is such a blatantly untrue statement that it would require whole posts dedicated to demonstrating how wrong it is with respect to so many different parameters. However, you made the claim, so support it with evidence that contradicts the harm that whole fields of scientific research have indicated will occur with increased planetary warming.

        And on the subject of "greening", you should also take into account that CO₂ is frequently (and in many instances nearly always) not the limiting factor in plant growth. Plants often don't want more CO₂ and in the short term they
        frequently respond by closing their stomata to atmospheric CO₂ uptake. On evolutionary scales of time they'll adapt by reducing the density of stomata on their leaves.

        And in instances where growth is enhanced in elevated CO₂ conditions, there is often a concomitant disruption of the plants' carbon:nitrogen ratios, leading to reduced nutritional values and susceptibility to pest attack.

        "“Is harmful” suggests a certainty that is not there..."

        There is much literature that suggests otherwise. Have you actually ever read any scientific literature?

        "Pollution: In general correct definitions, when talking about unnatural chemical substances created by men, which CO2 is not."

        No, the definitions of pollution are not predicated on the pollutants being "unnatural" chemicals created by humans. OIl is a pollutant, coal and asbestos dust are pollutants, urine in waterways is a pollutant. And fossil CO₂ is a pollutant.

        "Including CO2 in these definitions is what I call the derailment of EPA"

        Oh, you may call it that, but it doesn't make it so, and any intelligent and appropriated educated/experienced person would almost inevitably disagree with you.

        "5). Incorrect."

        Your single word describes itself. You have not shown that my statement was incorrect, and your clumsy attempts at redefining meanings and simply lying about matters does not lend any strength to your assertions.

        I will repeat for the hard of learning: humans emit fossil CO₂, which warms the planet and harms the biosphere. CO₂ is therefore very much a pollutant by every standard definition of such, and because fossil CO₂ is a major part of the emissions of fossil fuels, it is absolutely and irrevocably a "MAJOR PART OF POLLUTING EMISSIONS."

      25. I am poorly informed on some things, Bojangles, but I do try to inform myself about what I write. You could have read the article I linked to (and the references within it) but instead you were too intent on repeating your wildly wrong talking points. Talk about being poorly informed - you'd rather people died from pollution from traffic and coal plants than benefit from renewable energy.

        Like I said - read the article. Here's more - from the LA Times:

        Humanitarian groups are growing increasingly concerned about two hunger emergencies unfolding in East Africa -- one caused by drought, the other by war.

        Millions of people in Ethiopia and South Sudan are short on food, international agencies say, and in South Sudan, conflict has made it difficult for outside groups to help.

        From Africa News:

        Somalia risks slipping back into famine, the United Nations said on Tuesday (January 17), as worsening drought has left millions of people without food, water or healthcare in a country crippled by decades of war.

        From FrederickNewsPost.com

        African farmers scrape out a living in some of the harshest places on Earth. Climate change has made it tougher, with successive droughts and crop failures in many parts of Africa. On top of that, the 2015-16 El Nino led to severe drought, poor harvests and mass deaths of cattle and wildlife.

        Meanwhile, fighting has caused humanitarian emergencies in several countries, including Nigeria, Somalia and South Sudan.

      26. @Millicent

        The colored picture in your link says it all. This shows exactly the reason why Africa needs power grids to develop itself.

        And then think about this sentence in the article:
        While most people living off the grid are poor, the report estimates that tens of millions of households in Africa have an annual income that – while modest – is high enough for them to afford simple solar lanterns as well as some larger solar-powered appliances.

        And then think again what this says. And then think again.

        Do you already grasp the perversity of this sentence?

      27. Bojangles.

        Any better arguments than your simple false dichotomy stuff?

        The only time right wingers like yourself are interested in impoverished people is as a source of cheap labor, or their raw materials if they have any. Or to convert to your religion.

        I am sure President Trump is signing executive orders right now to bring affordable energy to impoverished parts of Africa. He is not interested in affordable healthcare for his own people, but he will look after the Africans in need.

      28. "And then think again what this says. And then think again. Do you already grasp the perversity of this sentence?"

        Wow just wow. You think its their fault: they need to be better shoppers. Oh my.

      29. Africa's in a prime position to bypass old-style grid technology, designed for dirty fossil fuels, and leap-frog to next gen clean green energy. From The Economist:

        ...Renewable energy can also supply villages that are not connected to the main grid much more cheaply than extending power lines to remote areas, where connection costs run to several thousand dollars per customer.

        This dash for renewables could speed up even faster. Prices for solar panels have dropped by more than half in recent years and should keep falling. Given the right regulatory environment and access to finance, Africa should leap ahead as one of the world’s leading producers of clean energy—making the continent richer as well as greener.

        And now that solar (and wind) are becoming cheaper than dirty fuels, they are in an even better position.

        (Better get rid of your oil and coal shares while you can, Bojangles. You can thank HotWhopper for making you less poorly informed.)

      30. @Harry Twinotter

        ”The only time right wingers like yourself are interested in impoverished people is as a source of cheap labor, or their raw materials if they have any. Or to convert to your religion.”

        What a load of blaming and shaming again, so recognizable for the “welldoers of the future earth”.
        To give you some background: I am politically left orientated and an atheist, but I am not stupid.
        And President Trump will not bring affordable energy to Africa today, but the policy of the new US Government will surely have a positive effect on affordable and reliable energy in the near future of Africa.

        Standard electricity grids based on fossil fuels will be the cheapest and most reliable form of energy supply for many years to come. Period. It is an elitist and colonial position to try to keep that away from the ordinary African people.

        “(Better get rid of your oil and coal shares while you can, Bojangles. You can thank HotWhopper for making you less poorly informed.)”

        The same blinders on as Twinotter. Shares I do not hold at all, maybe you do.
        Furthermore, you are poorly informed again about current reality. Oil companies nowadays are the biggest friends of the current environmental movement. Together with you people (the useful idiots) they are pushing coal and nuclear out of the energy market, so they can sell their oil and gas for many years to come.

      31. Refusing to follow any links again, I see, Bojangles. (You do make a habit of rejecting reality.)

        BTW, I'm not keeping anything out of Africa. I do wonder, however, at whether people of Africa would think of the word "elitist", with you telling them you know better than them and they don't know what they are doing:






        (Elitist is a word that seems to be favoured as a put-down by those who wish the world regarded them as elite.)

      32. Sou is this to good to be true?


        I could not spot any blatant lie.


    14. This comment has been removed by the author.


    Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL. Details here.

    Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.