Can you guys refute this bullshit?

>PS The NOAA has also been caught completely making up "warmest ever" data in Africa. Where there is NO DATA.
But that's wrong you fucking retard.
The maps you are posting don't represent the coverage NOAA has because it uses an aggressive screen that removes much of the data which comes from less densely covered areas.

>It still shows an increment, stop pushing that agenda, I don't care how much they pay you for it.

Please be specific about what you mean by "It still shows an increment." That's vague.

And wouldn't it be nice to get paid for this? Except warmist fudging, er, I mean funding is literally 1000 times more than evil deniers. If I was doing this for the money, I'd defend AGW. Problem is, I have a conscience.

>
>don't reply to /pol/tards
Don't reply to strong evidence of malfeasance and fraud. We need to preserve our echo chamber.

>But that's wrong you fucking retard.
>The maps you are posting don't represent the coverage NOAA has because it uses an aggressive screen that removes much of the data which comes from less densely covered areas.
> Shows old graph
> Asserts "aggressive screening" without current evidence.

Even if that old graph is accurate, which is unlikely, the temperature station density is deemed by the NOAA it self to be insufficient to determine temperatures in the area depicted here, an area about 1000 miles wide.

That's deceptive at best, and possibly fraud.

P.S. That is a graph of temperature change which means they have to compare temperatures. How can the compare temperatures when older data (by your own graphic) doesn't even exist! Yeah, that's making shit up, isn't it?

youtu.be/LiZlBspV2-M
You sound like Moleneux, are you him?

>this day 30 years ago I measured a temperature of 5° but now I know better, it was actually 3°
>this is what you people actually believe

>while ignoring all adjustments made to the data that contradicts their poor theory.
okay go ahead and show me these adjustments. surely it is just a coincidence™ that the sum of all adjustments greatly favors climate fearmongers :^)

>Even if that old graph is accurate, which is unlikely, the temperature station density is deemed by the NOAA it self to be insufficient to determine temperatures in the area depicted here, an area about 1000 miles wide.
Wow, it's almost like they used more data, the SSRTs, to support the land data. Also the two graphs use different screening methods. But let's not forgot, you claimed that the lack of color over Africa meant that there was no coverage there, and that meant that the other graph was making up data. But this is patently false as I just showed.

>P.S. That is a graph of temperature change which means they have to compare temperatures. How can the compare temperatures when older data (by your own graphic) (You) doesn't even exist!
Each grid point has a minimum of 80 years of data. This doesn't mean the temperature station existed in 1900. But I'm glad you mentioned this as it shows another misleading thing you did, compare temperature anomaly to temperature percentile. The former compares the current temperature to a baseline while the latter shows the rank of the month's data with respect to all historical data. So a record warmest grid point means that that month was the warmest month among at least 80 years worth of data. Now stop lying and present the evidence accurately.

please go back to /pol/ already

if you actually READ the graphs, the one that doesn't have enough data only uses GHCN-M v3.3.0, whereas the one that does also uses ERSST v4.0.0
amazingly enough, if you put more data in, you have more data.

>itt: faggots who can't read graphs and think that makes them smarter than the rest of us

RSS is bullshit

youtu.be/LiZlBspV2-M?t=3m

If you're referring to statistical models then it's not ideal, but it's practical. Any kind of prediction/detection/recognition model you've ever used or seen used is based on these kinds of statistical methods.

stop trying too hard SJWtard. it's cringworthy

You're probably the only person here cringing at that.

>Wow, it's almost like they used more data, the SSRTs, to support the land data. Also the two graphs use different screening methods.
Document these purported screening methods. Otherwise you've just made up an excuse.

>Each grid point has a minimum of 80 years of data. This doesn't mean the temperature station existed in 1900.
Until you provide specific, documented evidence of that statement, I will assume you made it up.

>the latter shows the rank of the month's data with respect to all historical data. So a record warmest grid point means that that month was the warmest month
Again, unless you provide specific, documented evidence for your description of that data, I'll assume you made it up.
Moreover, the latter graph shows nothing except grey for that area; not what its purported percentile is.

OK lets add some clarity here. The data used was GHCN 3.3 for both with additional data, ERSST for the heavily colored graph. That of course, is Sea Surface Data (with metadata etc.) which is irrelevant for the interior of Africa. This is documented on the graphs.

So both graphs are using the same dataset. The anomaly graph (less coloring) shows NO data for that area of Africa, not a low anomaly, not anything. Yet, the percentile graph shows a deep red for a high percentile.
As you stated, percentile data has at least 80 years of data:
ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/dyk/global-mntp-percentiles

Yet the anomaly data is baselined against 30 years data. So there should be plenty of data for anomaly computation against that 30 years. But NO RESULT is graphed. Not a high percentile, not a low percentile; NOTHING.

So there's a difficulty here. You chalk it up to screening. Please document this screening and its justification as to why its different on the same fundamental dataset.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN1E75Q1ZO20110628?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true

The map in the picture "blends" or averages temperatures across the entire map.
ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201612
It literally says it right on the map
>December 2016 Blended Land and Sea Surface Temperature Percentiles
>Blended Land and Sea Surface Temperature
Keyword here is Blended.
Once again it's a case of someone that doesn't understand the data cherrypicking.
ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/marineocean-data/blended-global
>We produce various high-level datasets and products that are generated by blending together observations from various platforms and instruments, as well as by merging data over different geographic domains, for example, over both land and ocean surfaces for globally covered products.
Also see:
ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/marineocean-data/noaa-global-surface-temperature-noaaglobaltemp
If you're still confused you could always reach out by contacting someone at NOAA and asking them to explain it to you. There's a list of emails on the bottom of the above link to NOAA researchers involved in this data analysis, like Huai-Min Zhang.

32 billion sounds light over that time span. Has that data been fact checked and sauced? A religion like man made climate change has a large volunteer workforce that never really sleeps and works diligently to convert climate heretics. Inside every denier is a carbon conscious neo-liberal trying to get out.

>these graphs are all fake!
>>no, it's perfectly plausible that these would be produced through perfectly legitimate and honest work, because of these reasons
>yeah well PROVE that those graphs aren't faked!
nice try.

Did you try looking at the sources your images come from? No? You should probably do that instead of just posting it without having any idea of what it means. But right... I'm the one "making excuses" by actually reading about the difference between the data sets rather than making shit up like you did.

ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/ghcn-gridded-products/

"These datasets were created from station data using the Anomaly Method, a method that uses station averages during a specified base period from which the monthly/seasonal/annual departures can be calculated. Anomalies were calculated on a monthly basis for all adjusted stations having at least 20 years of data in the 1961–1990 base period."

ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/dyk/global-mntp-percentiles

"In order to place the month, season, or year into historical perspective, each grid point's temperature values for the time period of interest (for example all August values from 1880 to 2012) are sorted from warmest to coolest, with ranks assigned to each value. The numeric rank represents the position of that particular value throughout the historical record. The length of record increases with each year. It is important to note that each grid point's period of record may vary, but all grid points displayed in the map have a minimum of 80 years of data. For the global temperature anomaly record, the data does extend back to 1880."

His source for those images he posted earlier was Realclimatescience, a denier blog run by Steven Goddard, who is pretty much notorious for claiming that NASA / NOAA manipulate their temperature data. Even other skeptics like Curry criticize Goddard for his "bogus" analyses of temperature data.

What I don't understand is why the guys who wrote that blog article claiming the data is faked wouldn't just contact someone at NOAA and ask them to explain the discrepancies themselves. You know, that's what you would do if you were an actual journalist covering a story like that, contact the people responsible for constructing these datasets / maps and ask them to explain their methodologies. No, that would be too hard for these brainlet bloggers, I mean they consider all these scientists fraudulent anyways, so of course any response they give they would discredit.

Regardless, once again we have deniers cherrypicking images and misinterpreting them to present their own narrative without bothering to fact-check.

Tempering the data and predicting the weather by last days' temperature. Yup, a pseudoscience.