KunMatt

Soros is a Jew. The Nazis hated and murdered millions of Jews. Soros is also a Right Wing Nazi who finances left wing fascists to fight ...fascists. 
 
Nazi Jews financing leftist fascists to battle Nazi fascists.
 
--
you are more than just "quite confused" — you are on a completely different planet in another galaxy, far, far away. 
 

 
Jeez, what're you guys going to do when Soros is gone?  
 
Oh, wait, let me guess, he's figured out how to live forever.
 
I though this was a false-flag operation organized by "the government"? 

I’m not on all sides. I’m on one side. This is a moment for every American to pick theirs. The one positive thing about Trump is that he’s clarified our values. You can’t be sort of against racism or pretty much against white supremacy. You can’t vote for a guy who’s racist and not be racist.
 
https://medium.com/@davepell/pick-a-side-c30824d44
 
PICK A SIDE.

More deflection.

Why butt in when I post a reply to another member if you don't want to have a proper discussion?

Again, this is why I know you are on the wrong side of the argument. You pick and twist what you want to answer and then you just attack me for asking questions.

And you had the nerve to say I was disingenuous!

If you don't want to be a part of the discussing then just don't bother with your childish conspiracy theory tactics. If you want to have a discussion about this then act like it.

"To make money you need to use and burn carbon so it's a false economy"
False, already solar power is cheaper than coal in many parts of the world.  And it is beginning to compete with methane. And this has happened much faster than predicted.  And this is without considering the cost of carbon based fuel's externalities.

Today's article in NPR.org talks about how people in the Nile delta region are suffering from the effects of global warming.  Yes, I still use the older term.  I think it's more pertinent than 'climate change'.  Climate is always changing, always has.  It's the warming that's most chilling.  ....which also brings larger storms, etc.
 
npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/08/13/542645647/in-egypt-a-rising-sea-and-growing-worries-about-climate-changes-effects
 
Who are those guys in the OP photo?  Are they the cream of the crop of anti-science Trump fans?
 

Sofitel Suk Very nice indeed.
Accor hotels are child friendly and often offer second room at 50%


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

First off, you have yet to acknowledge that your original question was based on a false premise which led to a false conclusion.
In fact, not only have you yet to acknowledge it, to judge from the 2 maps you cited above, you have yet to understand it. You are comparing the land only temperature departure map with the land and ocean temperature percentiles map. The former draws from a data base spanning the years 1981-2010, the latter from a data base going back  from the present to anywhere from 80 years to 133 years depending on the locale. So your objections to the results for Finland are based on your misunderstanding.
As for the nonsense about Africa having no recorded data...your point is based on one set of maps - the land only temperature anomaly maps.. There is plenty of data elsewhere out there about temperatures in Africa.  Just look it up on the internet.  Here's one such site which links to 3000 meteorological stations in Africa. http://fr.allmetsat.com/climat/afrique.php
Presumably, NOAA is getting its data from there and other sources. I haven't been able to track down those exact data sources. (The NOAA website isn't user friendly - at least not to this user)  That doesn't mean, as you infer, in accordance with your biases, that there are none. 
In addition there are the  Land and Ocean Temperature Grid Point Period of Record maps which I've cited in an earlier post, that show that most of Africa has records going back at least 80 years.
 

5 hours ago, makecoldplayhistory said:

does she fight other women or men?

She only fights men.

I'll take your silence at this point as admission you cannot argue my point.

So you went from calling me a liar, to saying I was faking the data, then calling me a conspiracy theorist until you eventually realised what I was saying is correct and now you just ignore the subject.

This is why people doubt your side. You shout and scream and "the data" and "the science" on every climate change thread but here we've actually looked at the data and the science you admit you don't know anything about it which is why you cannot explain why all of Finland has had its extreme cold temperature modified into an above average temperature, and even more conclusive is how Africa has no recorded data for about 70% of the continent but there are about 5 areas modified to have the hottest temperature on record from the grey area.

This is the data and the science that you are always referring to. And the way you attack people for asking questions is why I suspect you are on the wrong side of this.

Nice, I never really noticed it there.

Do the have good parking?


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Which Sofitel?

So just to conclude this thread we ended up with a suite at Sofitel and it was awesome.

Would definitely stay there again.

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

What do you mean you used the word combined instead of derived. The fact is that the percentile map comes from a different database than does the temperature anomaly map. Your original question quite clearly said the percentile map was somehow the result of the merger of the 2 other maps. That is absolutely false.

 

As I said, I have to look up the methodology used to derive of the land temperature only map.. So far, I haven't been able to track it down. 

You and I both know why you are avoiding my very simple direct question, don't you?  It's because it doesn't fit in with your prejudice.

You've already agreed with me in this thread that grey data means no recorded data.  

So do you agree with me that all of the grey data for Africa and everywhere else that ended up with data in the final graphic, all of this data is simulated and not actual data?

It's based on a model and not real data, right?

Really easy yes or no quesrions.  No semantics, no dodges and deflections, is a lot of the data for Africa for June simulated data from a model?

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Until I can find out how their methodology works,  I can't comment on the land only temperature departure map.

But you still haven't acknowledged the falsehood inherent in your original question when  you when you claimed that the land only etc. map was combined with the land and ocean etc. map to create the percentile map. That is false.The first 2 are drawn from a 30 year comparison dating from 1981 to 2010 while the percentile map is drawn from data going as far back as 130 something years depending on the region. It is not the only map show to the public as you claim. It is show side by side with the the land and ocean temp. etc. map. I repeat that that was your original question and it was based on a false premise.

My bad.  I used the word "combined" when I should have said "derived".

So do you agree with me that all of the grey data for Africa and everywhere else that ended up with data in the final graphic, all of this data is simulated and not actual data?

It's based on a model and not real data, right?

52 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

First off, I don't agree that no data was collected for the area in June. But yours seems a reasonable surmise. So let's say that there was no data collected there. I counted those grids. It looks to me like 11. Then I did a rough estimate of all the grids. It seem that there are over 3000 in the area for which there is mostly consistent data (the area excluding the polar regions. So what are you are contending is that on the basis of about 1/3 of 1 percent of the grid, that the whole grid is fiction?

And by the way here is your original question: "Why does NOAA take this data; Combine it with this data; Then remove nearly all of the Blue coloured parts, and change it into this which is released to the public?"

And the answer is NOAA doesn't do that at all. What you are contending is absolutely false... The first 2 maps you pictured were deviation from the average temperature over 30 years. The final map was for data ranging in age from 80 to 133 years old. It was not derived from the first 2 maps. So your question was based on false premises.

And now since I've answered your questions, for a wild change of pace, why don't you start answering some of mine?

For instance how do you justify this statement of yours?

"Most of Africa appears to have no recorded data and it is modelled to be all above average temperatures dispute there being a couple of actual recording devices in Algeria and Nigeria which both read well below average temperatures."

Really? No recorded data for most of Africa? Where did you come up with that notion? I showed you the image from NOAA which shows the age of their data and most of Africa has it going back at least 80 years.

I said that most or Africa appears to have no data recorded because this graphic from NOAA shows that there is no recorded data for about 70% of the continent for June;

We've already agreed that grey means no measurement, right?  Am I lying or is most of Africa grey in this graphic?

So most of Africa had no recorded data for the month if June, which means that all if the data was simulated by the model, correct?

Actually there are 3 regions of blue in West Africa.  There is a station in Algeria, at least 2 stations in/around Nigeria and a station in Mauritania which all recorded temperatures less than average.  All of this data is manipulated away into red by this model.

If you look at the original recorded temperatures for this across this latitude you can see that there is a pattern of blue across India, SE Asia and Japan.

Again, if there were actual recording devices placed throughout Africa do you think the actual recorded temperatures would be the same as what this model has derived here.

And again do you see how all the actual recorded data all the way from Africa to Japan has been turned Red by the model.  You see nothing wrong with that?

And before you try to attack the source again, all of these links are directly from the NOAA website.

3 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

The burning of fossil fuels and the use of nuclear energy should be reduced as quickly as possible.
Electricity generation with solar energy, wind power, wave power, geothermal use, gradient engineering should be expanded.
So that later the cooling plants can be operated to cool down the earth.

I totally agree, especially about the nuclear power.

9 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Believe it or not, some of us have a life outside of thaivisa. Occasionally we are called to attend to other matters.

Classic.  You post prolificallly until we get to the point you can no longer attack my post and suddenly you're too busy.

My posts are still up there.  Feel free to address them properly when you have the time.

So are we done??

You were so vocal when you thought you could attack my argument instead of debating it.

Now you cannot debate it?

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

Stop misrepresenting the data. Not all of Central Africa looks like it's missng data. Just some of it. And you'll be relieved to know that I checked may and april and data was reported for those areas.

And you still haven't revealed where you got your alleged info that "Most of Africa appears to have no recorded data and it is modelled to be all above average temperatures dispute there being a couple of actual recording devices in Algeria and Nigeria which both read well below average temperatures."

That's my interpretation of that graphic.  There are 2 blue areas for Nigeria and Algeria and then most of Central Africa is grey.

So you agree with what I originally said, no data was collected for the grey area of Africa for June and the model filled it in as Red despite there being 2 blue areas to the west of it?  So in all likelihood this area of Africa so am talking about (Nigeria, Algeria and the grey patch) in real life is probably nothing like the graphic model.

If there was recording devices setup in a uniform spread throughout that entire Africa region accurately measuring the temperature it would probably be very different to that last graphic, right?

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

So, please link to the evidence that shows the NOAA is making up the data history?

That's not at all what I said or am claiming.

Why are you twisting my words?  And you have the nerve to accuse me of lying!

As I said in my first posts, a whole region was changed from -2°C to above average temperatures.  The whole country.  The surrounding sea temperatures were only +0.5°C but somehow this cancels out the -2° to -4°C average temperature?

And again, the differences between the last 2 graphics where all of the Blue was erased and changed to either above average or average temperatures.  Do you think thatb3rd graphic is a good representation of the graphic before it?

Because to me, and probably most people looking at that graphic without understanding the model, it looks like it's been made so the graphic is much more red than it actually is.

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. All data points go back at least 80 years.

So when all of central Africa is greyed out in the latest dataset does that mean that no data was collected for that month?

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well, a few minutes ago you were claiming that you were honestly puzzled. And now you put up this stuff. Which goes to prove my point about your so-called innocent question.  

You can come clean now and tell us which denial site you got your info from.

So your whole debating tactic unjust to call everyone a liar when you don't like the questions?

I never took those graphics from any conspiracy theory site, I spend a disproportionate amount of my time arguing with idiot conspiracy theoritsts about their idiotic conspiracy theories.

I got the info from NOAA and all of the links I used here are directly from the NOAA website.  You know this is true.

So you refuse to acknowledge my own questions about the data because you can't answer them or because you don't like the questions?

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

Yeah sure. Amazingly, astoundingly I did a search for fake NOAA maps and I found this:

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/37119/did-noaa-publish-a-fake-map-with-temperature-data-it-doesnt-have/37147

As I suspected, more climate denial BS.

 

I gave you the link to NOAA's website which has those graphics.

If you look at the code of my first post I used the http code from NOAA's site.

You owe me yet another apology.

And again I find it strange that you are trying so hard to attack the source of the data instead of discussing the actual data.

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well here's a link to an explanation. I can't say that I understand it yet, but it's clearly not about distorting data.

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

 

Apology accepted!

Isn't it strange how this new method was only recently introduced to fulfil a need in 2012?

And it is exactly distorting the data.  It has changed a region with more than a -2°C temperature average and manipulated the whole country into an above average temperature.  

Most of Africa appears to have no recorded data and it is modelled to be all above average temperatures dispute there being a couple of actual recording devices in Algeria and Nigeria which both read well below average temperatures.  All of this was manipulated away by this modelling system and the 2 real below average readings have both disappeared and the rest of central Africa, which agaon has no recording devices, has been modelled to be totalled above average which is probably incorrect.

Do you think those last 2 graphics represent the same data and what is reality?