They often pull that 2010 & 2005 were higher and that the 2000s were a hotter decade than the 1990’s
It’s total Bull
1st, 1998 was the warmest year. The Metoffice, UAH, RSS and the Japanese Metrology Agency all have 1998 as the warmest. That sounds like consensus to me.
The GISS run by James Hansen (The NOAA uses Hansen data so they are the same) is the only one that has 2005 & 2010 as higher and that’s only after they made adjustment after the fact. The GISS originally had 1998 higher but he went back and adjusted the data by replacing real readings with his estimates. James Hansen is the leading Global Warming Activist and admits it’s OK to lie and exaggerate for the global warming cause. So sorry his 2010 vs the other four organizations who all exactly match each other at 1998 is suspect to say the least.
Even if you believe Hansen is on the up & up, he is still the outlier. Gotta go with the Consensus.
2nd, The 2000s were only higher than 1990’s because Mt. Pinatubo eruption cooled the early 90s by 0.5°F . Add that 0.5°F to 1993 or 1994 and those years would have been warmer than any year in the 00s and possibly warmer than 1998.
3rd, It doesn’t matter if the 00’s were higher than the 90’s because they still show that the temperatures have stalled. The Late 80’s were warmer than the early 80’s, the early 90’s were warmer than the late 80’s and the Late 90’s were warmer than the early 90’s. The upward trend ends there as the late 00’s are the same temperature as the early 00’s and so far the early 10’s have been less than the 00’s
4th, All computer models in the late 90’s/ Early 2000’s predicted we would be 1 or 2 degrees higher by now. When your predictions fail and your models are wrong your theory is wrong.
Especially Hansen.
I go with the satellite data from Roy Spencer.
More reliable since it includes the data over the 70% of the Globe over the oceans.
Thanks for that - I know I can always find answers (normally from Ernest) on these sort of statements - I am gunna keep your post if that is ok. Yes I know they chop and change on who they rely on for data - if it suits their cause they will use it - if not - then it never existed - not exactly scientific.
CHeers
Mel