Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The word neckbeard, deriving from the conjoining of the words “neck” and “beard,” is a descriptor for a type of man characterized by an inflated sense of self worth and a powerful sense of entitlement, particularly to affection, subservience and sexual acts from women. ********Copious amounts of Mountain Dew, Doritos, video games, and a sedentary lifestyle are all additional hallmarks of the neckbeard ethos. (excerpt)
I don't see how it applies to someone with rational skepticism towards results of instant research.
Roy Spencer isn't a flat earth conventioneer. He brings up some important points
First of all, the 0.5 to 1.0 W/m2 energy imbalance is much smaller than our knowledge of any of the natural energy flows in the climate system. It can be compared to the estimated natural energy flows of 235-245 W/m2 in and out of the climate system on an annual basis, approximately 1 part in 300.
You're mixing up energy imbalances with energy flows, which is such a basic error I don't think you have enough understanding to make a coherent criticism. Imbalances accumulate, so it makes no sense to compare them with flows.
Here's an analogy in terms of a bank account. Let's change W/m2 to $ to make it clearer. Say I had $300 in my bank account and earned and spent $245 per week, the amount I had in the account would fluctuate around $300 (equivalent to energy flows). Now I earn an extra dollar per week (what seems like a small imbalance). "That's nothing! Couldn't possibly make a difference because its so small compared with what I earn and spend!" you say. Yet if I carry on spending $245 per week after a year I'll have gone from $300 to $352, after two years $404 etc. After less than six years the amount in the account will have doubled. Not a problem if it's dollars, potentially a big problem if it's the Earth's energy content.
As a thought experiment, to show that the comparison between the size of the imbalance and the flow is irrelevant, the result remains the same for a $1 imbalance whether the flows are $245 or £2450 etc.
Please try to learn a little about climate science before attempting to criticise it because this is "the Earth can't be spheroid otherwise people in New Zealand would fall off" level stuff.
And the likelihood of anyone advocating a belief in AGW reducing their own living standards, right now, and not in some distant future time voluntarily is equally small.
100% logical fallacy. How the climate responds to accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is physics. Physics doesn't know or care about living standards, what people believe, whether they are hypocritical etc.
Just like smoking causes lung cancer whether you believe it or not, or whether you accept it but carry on smoking like a chimney for whatever reason.
You're mixing up energy imbalances with energy flows, which is such a basic error I don't think you have enough understanding to make a coherent criticism. Imbalances accumulate, so it makes no sense to compare them with flows.
Here's an analogy in terms of a bank account. Let's change W/m2 to $ to make it clearer. Say I had $300 in my bank account and earned and spent $245 per week, the amount I had in the account would fluctuate around $300 (equivalent to energy flows). Now I earn an extra dollar per week (what seems like a small imbalance). "That's nothing! Couldn't possibly make a difference because its so small compared with what I earn and spend!" you say. Yet if I carry on spending $245 per week after a year I'll have gone from $300 to $352, after two years $404 etc. After less than six years the amount in the account will have doubled. Not a problem if it's dollars, potentially a big problem if it's the Earth's energy content.
As a thought experiment, to show that the comparison between the size of the imbalance and the flow is irrelevant, the result remains the same for a $1 imbalance whether the flows are $245 or £2450 etc.
Please try to learn a little about climate science before attempting to criticise it because this is "the Earth can't be spheroid otherwise people in New Zealand would fall off" level stuff.
I'm not mixing anything up I'm quoting word for word what a retired NASA climate scientist and current senior scientists at UAH says. You are assuming that the earth doesn't have natural energy imbalances over long periods of time. And the paper Ed cited also says at least part of the energy imbalance is do to shifts in the decadal oscillation of the oceans.
Quote:
They also point out that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is responsible for some of what they see in the data, while anthropogenic forcings (and feedbacks from all natural and human-caused forcings) presumably account for the rest.
Quote:
To expect the natural energy flows in the climate system to stay stable to 1 part in 300 over thousands of years has no scientific basis, and is merely a statement of faith. We have no idea whether such changes have occurred in centuries past.
George (whose posts are worthy of a response) I agree completely that fossil fuels are far and away the most convenient and (from a thermodynamics perspective) efficient way to provide energy for our population. As a result, it is thanks only to fossil fuels that we are able to live as comfortably as we do and that it would be unjust for me to deny others that same opportunity.
My concern is that mathematically it's simply not sustainable. And that (again, mathematically) the window of sustainability is closing rapidly. How long do you think we can continue the status quo?
I don't know how long. Since satellite data the earth has been warming about +0.16C per decade and it seems to be quite linear so far. If that's the case that should buy us some more time to gradually move towards more renewables.
I'm not mixing anything up I'm quoting word for word what a retired NASA climate scientist and current senior scientists at UAH says. You are assuming that the earth doesn't have natural energy imbalances over long periods of time. And the paper Ed cited also says at least part of the energy imbalance is do to shifts in the decadal oscillation of the oceans.
Roy Spencer may have initials behind his name but his biases are matched in size and scope only by his list of blunders.
Be that as it may, the paper which Spencer critiques in his blog is an entirely different paper than the one I posted.
Perhaps you should go back to your concrete theory.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
