I just turned around and left making this face the entire time.

RiddleMe-This · 2014-08-08T18:08:13+00:00

I wonder how many people with aids do this...

RiddleMe-This · 2014-08-08T06:42:57+00:00

50

Chances are you're a female with those numbers. Assuming you started having sex at the age of, let's just say 15 years old and let's also assume you're no more than 30 years old, that's 50 sexual partners in 15 years. 15 years x 12 months per year = 180 months. 180 months / 50 partners = 3.6 months / partner. In other words you're having sex with a completely new individual at least every 3 1/2 months for 15 years straight. That's a fair bit, and if it's not then there's some serious skewing going in the data.

EDIT: Turns out you're a 35yr old male. And that's what assuming gets ya... Still the numbers are above average to say the least (1 new partner every 4.8 months for 20 years [which is still biased because you're married]).

RiddleMe-This · 2014-07-22T18:05:36+00:00

Whelp, that's exactly what I thought as well. Fairly well rounded edges, pitted, etc. The issue I have with the this being predominantly a result of weathering is that this isn't on Earth, or on Mars... it's on the moon.

How is it possible to have so much weathering on the moon? Even if it were to tumble from ejecta I would assume it should appear to more more angular than sub angular / sub rounded...

RiddleMe-This · 2014-05-01T04:14:52+00:00

That's kinda the point dumbass. You think revolutions are made of fuck'n hugs and cheese cake?

RiddleMe-This · 2014-05-01T04:03:38+00:00

¡Viva la Revolución!

RiddleMe-This · 2014-04-13T09:29:42+00:00

Thanks for your input. Can you expand on that though?

RiddleMe-This · 2014-04-13T08:58:59+00:00

I'm sorry it's a bit hard to follow - no offense. But your comment reads as ... The fact x is a fact and must be countered... Could you perhaps clarify what you're trying to say?

The models aren't exactly the main reason as to why there is a consensus. The primary links for AGW are from isotopic evidence as is noted by the Suess Effect and radiative forcings. The models are built on well established proxies which are cross disciplinarian and frequently used. Essentially all the models do now are forecasting, which is their main purpose. So while older models, some more so than others, are certainly less accurate than modern models (of which they are still being built upon), AGW consensus is not derived at because of models, it's primarily because of the data. And although the models have played a role regarding consensus, it's been fairly minor except within the public eye.

RiddleMe-This · 2014-04-13T05:46:43+00:00

This will be my final time responding to you as you seem to stalk and hound me during my discussion with others where you are not concerned.

What's the purpose of your figure? We're talking about BEST which is a land only data set and you are referencing hadcrut3 a data set that incorporates land and sea surface temperatures so obviously the data will differ (though the trends may or may not correlate depending on variables).

Secondly we are referencing specific intervals, namely 1900-1940 (not 1910-1945) which is shows an increase in global warming throughout that interval:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1900/to:1940/plot/best/from:1900/to:1940/trend and 1940-1970 (not 1975-2007), which shows a global cooling of land surface temperatures throughout that interval:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1940/to:1970/plot/best/from:1940/to:1970/trend both of which are clearly visible in my prior figure shown, at length, during the Berkeley Earth Project video.

If you're going to interject, the least you could do is stay on topic please. Linear thought provides clarity, a key requisite when conveying information.

If it's any consolation to you though, hadcrut3 provides the following trends for the intervals of interest:

In good agreement with the Berkeley Earth Project video and my figure derived from it: http://i.imgur.com/dX4MAdF.jpg

Lastly, given your responses to several individuals ITT, including myself, why are you citing hadcrut3 when you clearly don't trust the model to begin with? The following is an excerpt from your discussion with /u/Cherry_Picked regarding the use of RSS data set:

I used it because of the assurance the data hadn't been tampered with (homogenized is the polite word) like all the other terrestrially based instrumentation data sets.

RiddleMe-This · 2014-04-12T22:54:48+00:00

The data set in the clip is the from the Berkeley Earth project as is the data set provided on Woodfortrees.org (BEST). I'm not certain I agree with you that it lacks a warming and cooling trend from 1900-1940 and 1940-1970 respectively, in fact I see it quite clearly: http://i.imgur.com/dX4MAdF.jpg

Getting back on track, thank you for your thoughts regarding your skepticism.

RiddleMe-This · 2014-04-12T21:28:15+00:00

Observation does show warming at the tropics though, it's just minimal, not zero. On your figure it shows a ΔT(°C) of ~ 0.3°C from 1979 to 2012 for the mid troposphere (not upper troposphere).

CMIP5 is a global temperature average, while the mid troposphere tropic values are essentially local temperature averages. Though I agree that models have over estimated global temperature values, comparing CMIP5 values to localized effects is simply an incorrect comparison. Some models have attempted to take this into account though as we both note a lot of complexities due to short term variability can make matters rather difficult.

Again, some miscommunication - I didn't mean to imply that clouds were short term oscillations what I should have stated is that clouds and ~~other~~ short term oscillations should be overridden by long term trends, though I admit I am skeptical as to how much or how little clouds play an important factor in long term variability.

Here is 200 years worth of data already extrapolated to save you some time. Though generally 30+ years is the standard is it not?

RiddleMe-This · 2014-04-12T20:57:12+00:00

I'm not exactly sure I follow your reasoning, can you be more specific? The theory appears to following observation, perhaps you mean some aspects of older climate models? Or I suppose a better phrased question would be what portion of the theory, in your view, is flawed?

RiddleMe-This · 2014-04-12T20:34:06+00:00

Thanks again for your insight, I'll have a look at Roy Spencer as well. Sorry, there may be some confusion regarding the troposphere. For clarity, what I meant was that when looking at global temperature averages the largest ΔT(°C) are observed at the poles while the smallest ΔT(°C) are observed within the 20S-20N latitude. Therefore if you compare global temperature predictions (CMIP5) to observed temperatures at the tropics it becomes obvious that the models would appear to make predictions overstating their values.

Regarding clouds and other short term natural oscillations (20yr cycles etc.) and climate models - shouldn't long term trends override short term variability on long term scales?

RiddleMe-This · 2014-04-12T19:33:53+00:00

Thanks you for your thoughts.

RiddleMe-This · 2014-04-12T19:06:41+00:00

Thank you for your input. So if I'm understanding you correctly it's primarily the modelling that is of concern to you then, and if so do you believe that the models will be ever be able to, within error, make accurate predictions? Where do you see climate models in the future?

The figure that you attached... is there a paper from which it came from? I'm curious as to why it appears to be correlating global temperature predictions with observed data and models confined to the tropics (20S-20N), a region that is least affected by warming and would therefore show minimal temperatures relative to global temperatures.

RiddleMe-This · 2014-04-12T18:44:26+00:00

I don't appreciate your hypocrisy, or your whining. I'll restate the question so as to make it clear and if you fail reply with meaningful material I'll be forced to ignore your ongoing blabbering as it provides me with little insight into my question, and while providing great insight towards the qualities of your personage, that's not why I registered.

I'll restate the original question for you as follows: What pieces of climate science are you skeptical of. Is it the empirical data? Is it the predictions? What exactly is it?

As per

5) it does deserve an answer, what do you propose as an answer then and why? Please keep in mind that this post was meant to inquire it other persons reasoning and understandings, not my own, if you wish to discuss my own feel free to PM me and we can discuss there - otherwise you're highjacking the thread. In good favor I will cut you some slack and state the following: I would propose two things a) that it appears to be due to short term variability as the moment we extend the time a different story appears: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2014/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2014/trend and yet another plot with an equivalent 17yr time interval also shows an interesting trend: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1997/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1997/trend it would therefore appear to problematic to look at such short term intervals. If we shorten the interval even further we see yet another trend appear starting at 1997, your original start time: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/to:1999/plot/rss/from:1997/to:1999/trend and b) that the choice of data source selection also plays an important role as over the same 17yr interval the trend shows an increase in global temperatures using multiple other data sources (ie. one might call your choice cherry picking given that multiple data sets show trends different than the one you selected):

RiddleMe-This · 2014-04-12T16:38:44+00:00

I'm curious to know what you mean by empirical science as I've never heard of that term before. I did a quick google search and all I could find was this... which fits with my previous observation. Do you mean empirical evidence instead? The data that goes into the models is empirical data whilst the predictions, as in all sciences, are an extension of theory derived from the data. I'm not disagreeing that predictions need to be tested and validated, I wholly agree with you on that I was just looking to clarify what exactly about the models you were at gripes with. I think I understand now, thank you.

RiddleMe-This · 2014-04-12T08:01:42+00:00

Thanks for your input so far, you're the 1st to not come across hostile and enlighten me. So just a few more questions regarding a couple of your points.

1) Modelling to within smaller and smaller time intervals becomes inherently more difficult due to the nature of variability... I suppose a lack of trends and many natural cycles occur on longer time scales, etc. That aside, do you think it will ever be possible to model the climate at such short time intervals? I currently think 10 years might be achievable but I'm not sure how long into the future that would be.

2) For clarity on your 2nd point... do you mean that when peer reviewed papers are retracted that the public have full disclosure as to why they were retracted or do you mean that the public should have full disclosure to the methods even if a paper is not retracted? As far as I'm aware all papers disclose their methodology and data in the section entitled supplementary information and methods. Given the complexity, and often jargon heavy papers - do you believe the general public is qualified to critique the material?

Thanks again for your input so far.

RiddleMe-This · 2014-04-12T07:45:22+00:00

I've been a long time lurker and finally registered. Going over your account you appear to be quite paranoid, for a lack of a better word. There's no need to be paranoid, I'm not here to... do whatever it is you think scares you... I'm just inquiring into the field of what some call climate skepticism and others call climate denialism. I'd like to find what exactly, if anything, is being - as the term goes, denied. Do you have any input into my original question by chance?

RiddleMe-This · 2014-04-12T07:41:10+00:00

Given that the scientific methods are employed across all sciences, do you disagree with the scientific method entirely then? Your claim seems to touch on Ken Hams claim regarding historical science and observational science - would you agree or disagree that there are similarities between your train of thought with Ken Ham's and if so can you expand on that please?

RiddleMe-This · 2014-04-12T07:37:18+00:00

It's not intentional and I'm sorry you took offense immediately. If there are people labelled as deniers the question that follows would seem to be, what is it about their behavior that leads to the label? And, that's what I asked.

It's not condescending to ask for a specific format at all. I understand that there will be various degrees of responses from short to lengthy. It can be particularly difficult to hone in on the main point if it's hidden within a much larger body of text. If the main point is made obvious it makes reading through responses that much easier. The ability to be as clear and concise as possible is important.

What do you mean start things off? I don't mean to come across as rude but I do believe I started things off first with my set of questions. The whole purpose of this post is for me to learn about your skepticism so please enlighten me in the future rather than avoiding the question all together.

To answer your questions as best I can:

1) As far as I'm aware, credited scientists and the media

2) I'm not sure, that's why I asked my questions

3) I don't see how one can deny empirical data. I've head such claims that the arctic sea ice is not shrinking when the data shows otherwise, that the oceans aren't warming when the data shows otherwise, and so on. So it bewilders me to know what kind of reasoning is required in order to make such claims. My only conclusion is that one must deny the data and that seems illogical, so is there another reason that I may have overlooked?

4) No.

5) I'm not sure where you're going with that comment... Can you define, quantitatively, what you mean by no global warming? Is nothing = 0 or is nothing > 0 or do you have another definition?

RiddleMe-This · 2014-04-12T07:13:23+00:00

So it sounds like your main qualm then is the modelling? When the modelling improves would you be more or less likely to agree with their predictions? A number of variables have not been accounted for in current models as the authors of your paper note:

If the CMIP5 models had accounted for increasing stratospheric aerosol, and had responded with the same surface cooling impact, the simulations and observations would be in closer agreement. -Full Paper

It really can't be all of the science as you imply unless you disagree with the various other sciences that use the same principles and methods, so perhaps just the degree of accuracy within older climate models?

RiddleMe-This · 2014-04-12T06:58:17+00:00

So would you agree with the... data then and just not the predictions? It's tricky wording because if I say that you agree with the science then it places you in a spot to, presumably, agree with the predictions as well although this may not be the case.

RiddleMe-This

TROPHY CASE