Does this graph answer any questions about "adjusted' global temperature data?

It would if those questions were genuine.

But 99% of them aren't. Deniers will eagerly claim that any previous warmer data has been deliberately adjusted downward to make current warming look more pronounced. And if that argument doesn't work they hint at some other adjustment (without ever specifying exactly what) which changes the data.

PS Neither of your links work because you've included a period (.) in each URL. Here's the correct URLs:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/part_2_...

http://variable-variability.blogspot.de/2015/02/ho...

The chart shown in the article linked below visually depicts the changes to monthly global temperatures that NOAA has made since 2008 (updated through May 2012). The chart shows that NOAA has cooled the past and warmed the present. Data tampering has become routine within the so called climate community.

Out of 754 "cooled" months, only 17 of those had dates post-1959

Out of 1,548 monthly temperature records, NOAA "warmed" 793 months

---a. 51% of all months had their historical temperatures raised

---b. Total "warming" applied was +23C degrees

Out of 793 "warmed" months, 570 had dates post-1959. That's 72% - not exactly random; more like adjustments due to a non-scientific rationale.

NOAA Takes Faux Climate Science To An Extreme By Fabricating Temperatures http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/06/global-warming-...

Science has the ability to get their temperature measurements "in sync". When they finally figure it out, then we might get some ACTUAL Global average temperature readings. Right now, they are still random measurements that are averaged and then averaged again to form an anomaly.

The Global average temperature anomalies do not depict ACTUAL measurements to start with. When are you brain-dead alarmists ever going to figure that out?

Global atmospheric change (a climate change factor) is still only 0.012% over a 350+ year period. Just because your narrow-minded pillars of information (Climate Clown Government scientists) claim to think they know a 0.012% change is causing catastrophic changes in our atmosphere and are going to raise temperatures by over 1% by the end of the century, doesn't mean they know how the Earth responds to any human forcing.

They are still guessing!

There are no significant (legitimate) questions about the data.

============

Mike --

>>No, they have adjusted the data from buoys to homogenize with ship intake data from decades ago, when they should have done the reverse.<<

You get them same result regardless of which way you make the adjustment. The difference between the buoy and ship data is about 0.12 C. So, if you add 0.12 to the buoy values or subtract 0.12 from the ship data, the shape of the curve and the anomalies remain the same.

======

Maxx –

That is all very nice -- but, it is not evidence of improper data adjustments.

>>That's 72% - not exactly random; more like adjustments due to a non-scientific rationale.<<

Of course it is not random – because the causes that make the adjustments necessary are not random. They are predominantly physical in orgin; for example: (1) when stations are moved to a new location; when measurement instrumentation is changed because of improved technology; (2) when collection methods change (e.g., when the time of day that observations are made and data are collected are changed); and when the environment surrounding collecting stations change.

Can you identify – and explain - a single instance where one of these adjustments that should not have been made or was improperly made?

Of course you cannot. You are just parroting stuff you know nothing about because you do not know what to do about the fact that the observational data in the reality-based world is not cooperating with your paranoid conspiracy beliefs.

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Subject: 1940s

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600

Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>

Phil,

Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly

explain the 1940s warming blip.

If you look at the attached plot you will see that the

land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know).

So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,

then this would be significant for the global mean -- but

we'd still have to explain the land blip.

I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an

ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of

ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common

forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of

these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are

1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity

plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things

consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.

Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,

but we are still left with "why the blip".

It doesn't matter which way round you do it, either way, you get the same trend. And the trend is the important factor here.

However, it's a great pity deniers don't understand trends.

No, they have adjusted the data from buoys to homogenize with ship intake data from decades ago, when they should have done the reverse.

Figure 4 - 404 not found

or see: Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.

The conspiracy thickens!

No it does not, there is insufficient data available to know what global temperatures were 100 years ago.

Holy crap. Not one of the links you gave works.