NOAA : Third Fakest June On Record

NOAA has determined that June 2017 was third hottest on record.

This included record heat in South Sudan and the Central African Republic and a very hot Eurasia.

Global Climate Report – June 2017 | State of the Climate | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Never mind that they don’t actually have any thermometer readings in South Sudan and the Central African Republic. “Gray areas represent missing data.” And never mind their actual thermometer readings in Eurasia showed a significant percentage of below normal temperatures.

201706.gif (990×765)

 

And never mind that satellites actually measured temperatures in South Sudan and the Central African Republic – and found that they were just about average.

RSS / MSU Data Images / Monthly

NOAA still believes they are tasked with keeping the global warming scam alive, so they make up fake data to bump temperatures up. Then they get Zeke to tell the press that they actually adjust temperatures down.

It is time to drain the climate swamp.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to NOAA : Third Fakest June On Record

  1. Douglas Hoyt says:

    There is something wrong with their interpolation, infilling algorithm. Instead of a simple linear interpolation, it looks like it is a parabolic interpolation, with the top of the parabola being where there is no data. The top of the parabola would be the warmest location. This happens in Africa and near the poles.

    They have no quality control on their corrections.

    • Adrian Roman says:

      I don’t know how they invent data (anyway, there is almost certainty that it’s wrong no matter of the method), but I’ve seen what they do (or at least they told they did) in the case of Argo probes – there was a guy bragging on a blog on how much sciency he is and how he statisticulates and what great ‘science’ he uses to infer values where they do not have measurements… the method was… relaxation (I have it presented briefly on my blog, incidentally).
      It would be nice and well if the heat transfer would be in a steady state and governed solely by the heat equation (with the time derivative dropped), but of course that is absolutely not the case. Even if it would be only the heat equation, it’s not a steady state. But there is more, energy is transported through fluid dynamics and that makes his method pure lunacy. Statisticulation and inserting wrong values into the data set. If there would be no measurement errors in the beginning, the methodology would warranty to have huge errors after such statisticulation. That’s how one can take a good data set and turn it into pure garbage. That garbage is that the garbage in for the models. They get exponentially amplified garbage out.

  2. frederik wisse says:

    NOAA is creating a new form of art : Nar-rated realism . Anybody who believes in indisputable facts should be abhorred , the narrative should control reality , so adapt before its too late ……Adapt by changing reality , by changing the facts . Where did we hear this before ?

  3. Cam says:

    I like how India, Southern China and Japan are showing half to one degree cooler than normal in the temperature departure info but are somehow warmer than average in the percentile map.

    • AZ1971 says:

      That’s my beef with the algorithm infill. Areas measured as being cooler than normal are upgraded to “near normal” but any measurements that are near normal are then also upgraded to “above normal”. There is no statistical basis for warming everything across the entire planet.

      It makes this fool’s expression apropos:

  4. arn says:

    I see now that the 97% consensus is real.

    Every time they show a world map 97% of the map is colored red.
    (these guys should be more concerned about running out of red color than about AGW

    I barely can”t wait for 2018s world maps.
    The 97% red world map is as sure as the next delay of the ultimate climate armageddon/tipping point/of no return.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      I don’t think they need to worry about running out of red. Popular demand is rising but supply has kept ahead of the curve. The target is a 97% red world map with 3% gold.

  5. Gator69 says:

    Data is the information collected. Anything else is an artifact, and definitely not data. This is what the left does, they redefine words to fit their warped world view.

    • Gator69 says:

      This was supposed to be a reply to Adrian’s comment, and I missed it by that much…

    • Adrian Roman says:

      It is data from the point of view of the climate models. I really doubt they differentiate between the measured values and the fake ones when they are fed as input. The models just consider the whole as the starting state.

      • Gator69 says:

        It is an impossibility for models to produce data. At best, models produce artifacts of analysis I.

        • Adrian Roman says:

          There might be various interpretations of what ‘data’ means. See for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_(computing) In some interpretations, models can produce data.

          As for computer models, with the proper language they can be data themselves and even produced by other computer models. Genetic programming is an example.

          • Gator69 says:

            Yes Adrian, the left loves Newspeak, but please don’t lower yourself to their level by using it. Orwell penned a warning, not a blueprint.

            da·ta ˈdadə,ˈdādə/ noun:
            1- facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis.

          • Adrian Roman says:

            It’s not newspeak. As odd as it might sound to you, words can mean different things in different contexts.

            In computer science even ‘random data’ (or pseudorandom) is ok. And very useful if used right.
            Besides, you can collect the results of calculations, those are facts. Both the results and the calculations. Unless someone just dreams of the calculations and those results.

          • gator69 says:

            Yes, Adrian, it is Newspeak.

            My old Webster’s Dictionary from 1916 defines data as simply “Factual material”.

            What grantologists generally call “data” are, again, artifacts of analysis. If you are unaware of what “artifacts” are, let me help you.

            ar·ti·fact
            ˈärdəfakt/Submit noun
            plural noun: artifacts
            1. an object made by a human being

            Data is collected, not manufactured.

        • RAH says:

          Climate Models produce “scenarios” not facts.

        • Adrian Roman says:

          No, it’s not. Even measurement apparatus does some calculations. You don’t get the actual ‘data’ (as you call it). but a calculation from it. A thermometer might actually measure a current, not a temperature. From that measured current the temperature is computed. Computed. Now, it’s true that it’s based on sound physics and the formulae are rather simple, but it’s still a computation. So even the primary results what you call data is not data, according to your logic.

          • gator69 says:

            Once again Adrian, it is Newspeak.

            My old Webster’s Dictionary from 1916 defines data as simply “Factual material”.

            What grantologists generally call “data” are, again, artifacts of analysis. If you are unaware of what “artifacts” are, let me help you.

            ar·ti·fact
            ˈärdəfakt/Submit noun
            plural noun: artifacts
            1. an object made by a human being

            Data is collected, not manufactured or created.

            What part of this are you not equipped to understand Adrian? It is very simple.

  6. AndyG55 says:

    UAH June 2017

    Note the distinct LACK of heat over central Africa.

    As well as the distinct lack of anything warm in areas of oceans that that NOAA colour as “much warmer than normal”

    • Andy DC says:

      You go to sleep looking at the actual data. Absolutely nothing there.

      • David A says:

        That is of course trophspheric T, which means that whatever is posted as global surface T CANNOT be caused by GHGs.

        The troposphere should be overall 20 percent warmer then the surface, per CAGW theory.

  7. Jl says:

    So what does one say when a warmist shows a graph that purportedly shows most data is actually adjusted downward? Here’s what happens: I’ll say it’s fake. They say prove it’s fake. I’ll say prove it’s real. They the the proof is “the graph”.

  8. John says:

    If global environmental factors remained constant, every year should be the record hottest because the urban areas are always getting bigger and warmer. The rural areas show no overall warming over the last hundred years. Intent on perpetuating and inflaming disagreements, the media looks very much like it is fulfilling the prophetic role as satan deceiving the nations and stirring up Gog and Magog.

  9. John says:

    Urban temperatures vs rural temperatures.
    https://youtu.be/LcsvaCPYgcI

  10. John says:

    Speaking of Toto, Gavin Schmidt looks a lot like the wicked witch.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *