Slashdot Mirror

LOL! Jane/Lonny publicly vomits even more of his dishonest "paraphrasings" and once again "forgets" to provide links, even after I just pointed out that awe-inspiring hypocrisy. No doubt Jane/Lonny Eachus will claim he wasn't "intentionally" putting words in my mouth, despite the fact that I just showed Lonny Eachus has repeatedly done that even after I gave him actual links showing that his "paraphrasings" were wrong.

Lonny Eachus should learn the difference between his dishonest "paraphrasings" with "forgotten" links and actual quotes with actual links:

@SteveSGoddard It HAS hit the fans. Fans of Al Gore, Michael Mann, Obama, etc... They don't know how to handle it now that THEY are deniers. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-13]

Isn't that an offensive word with many implications?

"Denier" is an offensive word with many implications. Let's just call them crazy. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-01-24]

Lonny, have you seen anyone using that offensive word?

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

Lonny, aren't you throwing away any pretense at objectivity?

Now it has been said nobody is denying it's warming, you continue with the "denier" label. Negative objectivity points. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-05-01]

Lonny, have you seen anyone else get nega tive object ivity points by using that label?

If you ignore the huge amount of science against man-made climate change, then YOU are the science denier. #climatechange #YoureADenier [MattWilliams06, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-20]

Lonny, aren't you worried that using that silly term reveals more about you than it does about the victim?

"Denier" is a silly term which reveals more about the person who uses it than it does about the victim. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-25]

Lonny, have you seen anyone else using that sil

LOL! Jane/Lonny publicly vomits even more of his dishonest "paraphrasings" and once again "forgets" to provide links, even after I just pointed out that awe-inspiring hypocrisy. No doubt Jane/Lonny Eachus will claim he wasn't "intentionally" putting words in my mouth, despite the fact that I just showed Lonny Eachus has repeatedly done that even after I gave him actual links showing that his "paraphrasings" were wrong.

Lonny Eachus should learn the difference between his dishonest "paraphrasings" with "forgotten" links and actual quotes with actual links:

@SteveSGoddard It HAS hit the fans. Fans of Al Gore, Michael Mann, Obama, etc... They don't know how to handle it now that THEY are deniers. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-13]

Isn't that an offensive word with many implications?

"Denier" is an offensive word with many implications. Let's just call them crazy. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-01-24]

Lonny, have you seen anyone using that offensive word?

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

Lonny, aren't you throwing away any pretense at objectivity?

Now it has been said nobody is denying it's warming, you continue with the "denier" label. Negative objectivity points. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-05-01]

Lonny, have you seen anyone else get nega tive object ivity points by using that label?

If you ignore the huge amount of science against man-made climate change, then YOU are the science denier. #climatechange #YoureADenier [MattWilliams06, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-20]

Lonny, aren't you worried that using that silly term reveals more about you than it does about the victim?

"Denier" is a silly term which reveals more about the person who uses it than it does about the victim. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-25]

Lonny, have you seen anyone else using that sil

LOL! Jane/Lonny publicly vomits even more of his dishonest "paraphrasings" and once again "forgets" to provide links, even after I just pointed out that awe-inspiring hypocrisy. No doubt Jane/Lonny Eachus will claim he wasn't "intentionally" putting words in my mouth, despite the fact that I just showed Lonny Eachus has repeatedly done that even after I gave him actual links showing that his "paraphrasings" were wrong.

Lonny Eachus should learn the difference between his dishonest "paraphrasings" with "forgotten" links and actual quotes with actual links:

@SteveSGoddard It HAS hit the fans. Fans of Al Gore, Michael Mann, Obama, etc... They don't know how to handle it now that THEY are deniers. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-13]

Isn't that an offensive word with many implications?

"Denier" is an offensive word with many implications. Let's just call them crazy. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-01-24]

Lonny, have you seen anyone using that offensive word?

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

Lonny, aren't you throwing away any pretense at objectivity?

Now it has been said nobody is denying it's warming, you continue with the "denier" label. Negative objectivity points. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-05-01]

Lonny, have you seen anyone else get nega tive object ivity points by using that label?

If you ignore the huge amount of science against man-made climate change, then YOU are the science denier. #climatechange #YoureADenier [MattWilliams06, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-20]

Lonny, aren't you worried that using that silly term reveals more about you than it does about the victim?

"Denier" is a silly term which reveals more about the person who uses it than it does about the victim. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-25]

Lonny, have you seen anyone else using that sil

LOL! Jane/Lonny publicly vomits even more of his dishonest "paraphrasings" and once again "forgets" to provide links, even after I just pointed out that awe-inspiring hypocrisy. No doubt Jane/Lonny Eachus will claim he wasn't "intentionally" putting words in my mouth, despite the fact that I just showed Lonny Eachus has repeatedly done that even after I gave him actual links showing that his "paraphrasings" were wrong.

Lonny Eachus should learn the difference between his dishonest "paraphrasings" with "forgotten" links and actual quotes with actual links:

@SteveSGoddard It HAS hit the fans. Fans of Al Gore, Michael Mann, Obama, etc... They don't know how to handle it now that THEY are deniers. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-13]

Isn't that an offensive word with many implications?

"Denier" is an offensive word with many implications. Let's just call them crazy. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-01-24]

Lonny, have you seen anyone using that offensive word?

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

Lonny, aren't you throwing away any pretense at objectivity?

Now it has been said nobody is denying it's warming, you continue with the "denier" label. Negative objectivity points. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-05-01]

Lonny, have you seen anyone else get nega tive object ivity points by using that label?

If you ignore the huge amount of science against man-made climate change, then YOU are the science denier. #climatechange #YoureADenier [MattWilliams06, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-20]

Lonny, aren't you worried that using that silly term reveals more about you than it does about the victim?

"Denier" is a silly term which reveals more about the person who uses it than it does about the victim. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-25]

Lonny, have you seen anyone else using that sil

LOL! Jane/Lonny publicly vomits even more of his dishonest "paraphrasings" and once again "forgets" to provide links, even after I just pointed out that awe-inspiring hypocrisy. No doubt Jane/Lonny Eachus will claim he wasn't "intentionally" putting words in my mouth, despite the fact that I just showed Lonny Eachus has repeatedly done that even after I gave him actual links showing that his "paraphrasings" were wrong.

Lonny Eachus should learn the difference between his dishonest "paraphrasings" with "forgotten" links and actual quotes with actual links:

@SteveSGoddard It HAS hit the fans. Fans of Al Gore, Michael Mann, Obama, etc... They don't know how to handle it now that THEY are deniers. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-13]

Isn't that an offensive word with many implications?

"Denier" is an offensive word with many implications. Let's just call them crazy. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-01-24]

Lonny, have you seen anyone using that offensive word?

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

Lonny, aren't you throwing away any pretense at objectivity?

Now it has been said nobody is denying it's warming, you continue with the "denier" label. Negative objectivity points. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-05-01]

Lonny, have you seen anyone else get nega tive object ivity points by using that label?

If you ignore the huge amount of science against man-made climate change, then YOU are the science denier. #climatechange #YoureADenier [MattWilliams06, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-20]

Lonny, aren't you worried that using that silly term reveals more about you than it does about the victim?

"Denier" is a silly term which reveals more about the person who uses it than it does about the victim. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-25]

Lonny, have you seen anyone else using that sil

LOL! Jane/Lonny publicly vomits even more of his dishonest "paraphrasings" and once again "forgets" to provide links, even after I just pointed out that awe-inspiring hypocrisy. No doubt Jane/Lonny Eachus will claim he wasn't "intentionally" putting words in my mouth, despite the fact that I just showed Lonny Eachus has repeatedly done that even after I gave him actual links showing that his "paraphrasings" were wrong.

Lonny Eachus should learn the difference between his dishonest "paraphrasings" with "forgotten" links and actual quotes with actual links:

@SteveSGoddard It HAS hit the fans. Fans of Al Gore, Michael Mann, Obama, etc... They don't know how to handle it now that THEY are deniers. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-13]

Isn't that an offensive word with many implications?

"Denier" is an offensive word with many implications. Let's just call them crazy. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-01-24]

Lonny, have you seen anyone using that offensive word?

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

Lonny, aren't you throwing away any pretense at objectivity?

Now it has been said nobody is denying it's warming, you continue with the "denier" label. Negative objectivity points. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-05-01]

Lonny, have you seen anyone else get nega tive object ivity points by using that label?

If you ignore the huge amount of science against man-made climate change, then YOU are the science denier. #climatechange #YoureADenier [MattWilliams06, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-20]

Lonny, aren't you worried that using that silly term reveals more about you than it does about the victim?

"Denier" is a silly term which reveals more about the person who uses it than it does about the victim. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-25]

Lonny, have you seen anyone else using that sil

LOL! Jane/Lonny publicly vomits even more of his dishonest "paraphrasings" and once again "forgets" to provide links, even after I just pointed out that awe-inspiring hypocrisy. No doubt Jane/Lonny Eachus will claim he wasn't "intentionally" putting words in my mouth, despite the fact that I just showed Lonny Eachus has repeatedly done that even after I gave him actual links showing that his "paraphrasings" were wrong.

Lonny Eachus should learn the difference between his dishonest "paraphrasings" with "forgotten" links and actual quotes with actual links:

@SteveSGoddard It HAS hit the fans. Fans of Al Gore, Michael Mann, Obama, etc... They don't know how to handle it now that THEY are deniers. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-13]

Isn't that an offensive word with many implications?

"Denier" is an offensive word with many implications. Let's just call them crazy. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-01-24]

Lonny, have you seen anyone using that offensive word?

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

Lonny, aren't you throwing away any pretense at objectivity?

Now it has been said nobody is denying it's warming, you continue with the "denier" label. Negative objectivity points. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-05-01]

Lonny, have you seen anyone else get nega tive object ivity points by using that label?

If you ignore the huge amount of science against man-made climate change, then YOU are the science denier. #climatechange #YoureADenier [MattWilliams06, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-20]

Lonny, aren't you worried that using that silly term reveals more about you than it does about the victim?

"Denier" is a silly term which reveals more about the person who uses it than it does about the victim. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-25]

Lonny, have you seen anyone else using that sil

LOL! Jane/Lonny publicly vomits even more of his dishonest "paraphrasings" and once again "forgets" to provide links, even after I just pointed out that awe-inspiring hypocrisy. No doubt Jane/Lonny Eachus will claim he wasn't "intentionally" putting words in my mouth, despite the fact that I just showed Lonny Eachus has repeatedly done that even after I gave him actual links showing that his "paraphrasings" were wrong.

Lonny Eachus should learn the difference between his dishonest "paraphrasings" with "forgotten" links and actual quotes with actual links:

@SteveSGoddard It HAS hit the fans. Fans of Al Gore, Michael Mann, Obama, etc... They don't know how to handle it now that THEY are deniers. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-13]

Isn't that an offensive word with many implications?

"Denier" is an offensive word with many implications. Let's just call them crazy. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-01-24]

Lonny, have you seen anyone using that offensive word?

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

Lonny, aren't you throwing away any pretense at objectivity?

Now it has been said nobody is denying it's warming, you continue with the "denier" label. Negative objectivity points. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-05-01]

Lonny, have you seen anyone else get nega tive object ivity points by using that label?

If you ignore the huge amount of science against man-made climate change, then YOU are the science denier. #climatechange #YoureADenier [MattWilliams06, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-20]

Lonny, aren't you worried that using that silly term reveals more about you than it does about the victim?

"Denier" is a silly term which reveals more about the person who uses it than it does about the victim. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-25]

Lonny, have you seen anyone else using that sil

LOL! Jane/Lonny publicly vomits even more of his dishonest "paraphrasings" and once again "forgets" to provide links, even after I just pointed out that awe-inspiring hypocrisy. No doubt Jane/Lonny Eachus will claim he wasn't "intentionally" putting words in my mouth, despite the fact that I just showed Lonny Eachus has repeatedly done that even after I gave him actual links showing that his "paraphrasings" were wrong.

Lonny Eachus should learn the difference between his dishonest "paraphrasings" with "forgotten" links and actual quotes with actual links:

@SteveSGoddard It HAS hit the fans. Fans of Al Gore, Michael Mann, Obama, etc... They don't know how to handle it now that THEY are deniers. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-13]

Isn't that an offensive word with many implications?

"Denier" is an offensive word with many implications. Let's just call them crazy. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-01-24]

Lonny, have you seen anyone using that offensive word?

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

Lonny, aren't you throwing away any pretense at objectivity?

Now it has been said nobody is denying it's warming, you continue with the "denier" label. Negative objectivity points. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-05-01]

Lonny, have you seen anyone else get nega tive object ivity points by using that label?

If you ignore the huge amount of science against man-made climate change, then YOU are the science denier. #climatechange #YoureADenier [MattWilliams06, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-20]

Lonny, aren't you worried that using that silly term reveals more about you than it does about the victim?

"Denier" is a silly term which reveals more about the person who uses it than it does about the victim. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-25]

Lonny, have you seen anyone else using that sil

LOL! Jane/Lonny publicly vomits even more of his dishonest "paraphrasings" and once again "forgets" to provide links, even after I just pointed out that awe-inspiring hypocrisy. No doubt Jane/Lonny Eachus will claim he wasn't "intentionally" putting words in my mouth, despite the fact that I just showed Lonny Eachus has repeatedly done that even after I gave him actual links showing that his "paraphrasings" were wrong.

Lonny Eachus should learn the difference between his dishonest "paraphrasings" with "forgotten" links and actual quotes with actual links:

@SteveSGoddard It HAS hit the fans. Fans of Al Gore, Michael Mann, Obama, etc... They don't know how to handle it now that THEY are deniers. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-13]

Isn't that an offensive word with many implications?

"Denier" is an offensive word with many implications. Let's just call them crazy. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-01-24]

Lonny, have you seen anyone using that offensive word?

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

Lonny, aren't you throwing away any pretense at objectivity?

Now it has been said nobody is denying it's warming, you continue with the "denier" label. Negative objectivity points. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-05-01]

Lonny, have you seen anyone else get nega tive object ivity points by using that label?

If you ignore the huge amount of science against man-made climate change, then YOU are the science denier. #climatechange #YoureADenier [MattWilliams06, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-20]

Lonny, aren't you worried that using that silly term reveals more about you than it does about the victim?

"Denier" is a silly term which reveals more about the person who uses it than it does about the victim. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-25]

Lonny, have you seen anyone else using that sil

According to many past statements of yours, anybody on "your side" of the argument is a "scientist". Anybody else is a denier. I have reams of examples.

No, you don't even have a single solitary example of me using that d-word. If you had even one, you'd be able to post it. Like this link which reveals Jane's hilarious psychological projection.

Fossil Fuel co. Peabody calls Lindzen, Tol, Spencer, & Happer to testify. @AndrewDessler destroys their claims.goo.gl/m6X4FQ [AGW_Prof]

Why shouldn't they be called to testify, since they represent that party's view? That's the way this stuff works. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-10-01]

It's actually refreshing to witness Lonny Eachus admit that Lindzen, Tol, Spencer, and Happer are representing the views of a fossil fuel company. They're certainly not representing the views of most scientists, any more than Spencer's creationism represents the views of most scientists.

Fossil Fuel co. Peabody calls Lindzen, Tol, Spencer, & Happer to testify. @AndrewDessler destroys their claims.goo.gl/m6X4FQ [AGW_Prof]

Why shouldn't they be called to testify, since they represent that party's view? That's the way this stuff works. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-10-01]

It's actually refreshing to witness Lonny Eachus admit that Lindzen, Tol, Spencer, and Happer are representing the views of a fossil fuel company. They're certainly not representing the views of most scientists, any more than Spencer's creationism represents the views of most scientists.

Since my comment about the paper is what this entire exchange has been about, which YOU started by the way, how could it be irrelevant? It's so utterly, bizarrely illogical that you would rant for so long about something that you say yourself is irrelevant... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

No, your comment about that irrelevant paper was completely irrelevant. Here's why:

... Further, if your quoted passage (that was presented out of context as has been your usual habit) was NOT from the paper, then my mistake. Fine. But I cleared that up straight away. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

If?! IF the quote I showed him which I labeled "2013" wasn't from a 2015 paper, then Lonny's comment about a 2015 paper wasn't what this entire exchange has been about!

... So what the hell are you ranting about? There is nothing more to be said. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

Lonny, you just seemed to realize that your "response" was completely irrelevant. So we're back at square one: I responded to Lonny's claims about the implications of a supposedly "missing hot spot" but Lonny hasn't yet provided a relevant answer. Didn't Jane/Lonny claim he has a reply?

... You can talk about lapse rate here all you want, but that wasn't I was referring to on Twitter, mistakenly or not. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

Lonny, you've been referring to the lapse rate on Twitter for years, every time you regurgitated that "missing hot spot" talking point. For instance:

.@ClimateSystem doesn't admit that absence of a hotspot means (AT LEAST) the models don't property account for the lapse rate. ... Like for example, tell us what adjustments to make to the lapse rates to make the hotspot problem disappear? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-07]

As explained above, making the lapse rate steeper (i.e. making the temperature drop faster with altitude) would make the supposed "hotspot problem" disappear. A steeper lapse rate = a stronger greenhouse effect.

If that's not clear, watch Andrew Dessler explain (at 4:19) that the greenhouse effect would cease to exist if the upper troposphere weren't colder than the surface.

Do you know what the tropospheric "hot spot" is, or why it's necessary for global warming? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

No, as Dessler just explained the cold upper troposphere is a fundamental requirement of the greenhouse effect. Reduce the lapse rate to zero, and the greenhouse effect vanishes. Therefore, a steeper lapse rate (as in the case of a supposedly "missing" hot spot), results in a stronger greenhouse effect.

Neat, huh? Isn't physics awesome, Lonny?

... a high- emissivity gas generally doesn't "hold heat" well. It radiates it back

Since my comment about the paper is what this entire exchange has been about, which YOU started by the way, how could it be irrelevant? It's so utterly, bizarrely illogical that you would rant for so long about something that you say yourself is irrelevant... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

No, your comment about that irrelevant paper was completely irrelevant. Here's why:

... Further, if your quoted passage (that was presented out of context as has been your usual habit) was NOT from the paper, then my mistake. Fine. But I cleared that up straight away. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

If?! IF the quote I showed him which I labeled "2013" wasn't from a 2015 paper, then Lonny's comment about a 2015 paper wasn't what this entire exchange has been about!

... So what the hell are you ranting about? There is nothing more to be said. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

Lonny, you just seemed to realize that your "response" was completely irrelevant. So we're back at square one: I responded to Lonny's claims about the implications of a supposedly "missing hot spot" but Lonny hasn't yet provided a relevant answer. Didn't Jane/Lonny claim he has a reply?

... You can talk about lapse rate here all you want, but that wasn't I was referring to on Twitter, mistakenly or not. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

Lonny, you've been referring to the lapse rate on Twitter for years, every time you regurgitated that "missing hot spot" talking point. For instance:

.@ClimateSystem doesn't admit that absence of a hotspot means (AT LEAST) the models don't property account for the lapse rate. ... Like for example, tell us what adjustments to make to the lapse rates to make the hotspot problem disappear? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-07]

As explained above, making the lapse rate steeper (i.e. making the temperature drop faster with altitude) would make the supposed "hotspot problem" disappear. A steeper lapse rate = a stronger greenhouse effect.

If that's not clear, watch Andrew Dessler explain (at 4:19) that the greenhouse effect would cease to exist if the upper troposphere weren't colder than the surface.

Do you know what the tropospheric "hot spot" is, or why it's necessary for global warming? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

No, as Dessler just explained the cold upper troposphere is a fundamental requirement of the greenhouse effect. Reduce the lapse rate to zero, and the greenhouse effect vanishes. Therefore, a steeper lapse rate (as in the case of a supposedly "missing" hot spot), results in a stronger greenhouse effect.

Neat, huh? Isn't physics awesome, Lonny?

... a high- emissivity gas generally doesn't "hold heat" well. It radiates it back

Since my comment about the paper is what this entire exchange has been about, which YOU started by the way, how could it be irrelevant? It's so utterly, bizarrely illogical that you would rant for so long about something that you say yourself is irrelevant... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

No, your comment about that irrelevant paper was completely irrelevant. Here's why:

... Further, if your quoted passage (that was presented out of context as has been your usual habit) was NOT from the paper, then my mistake. Fine. But I cleared that up straight away. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

If?! IF the quote I showed him which I labeled "2013" wasn't from a 2015 paper, then Lonny's comment about a 2015 paper wasn't what this entire exchange has been about!

... So what the hell are you ranting about? There is nothing more to be said. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

Lonny, you just seemed to realize that your "response" was completely irrelevant. So we're back at square one: I responded to Lonny's claims about the implications of a supposedly "missing hot spot" but Lonny hasn't yet provided a relevant answer. Didn't Jane/Lonny claim he has a reply?

... You can talk about lapse rate here all you want, but that wasn't I was referring to on Twitter, mistakenly or not. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

Lonny, you've been referring to the lapse rate on Twitter for years, every time you regurgitated that "missing hot spot" talking point. For instance:

.@ClimateSystem doesn't admit that absence of a hotspot means (AT LEAST) the models don't property account for the lapse rate. ... Like for example, tell us what adjustments to make to the lapse rates to make the hotspot problem disappear? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-07]

As explained above, making the lapse rate steeper (i.e. making the temperature drop faster with altitude) would make the supposed "hotspot problem" disappear. A steeper lapse rate = a stronger greenhouse effect.

If that's not clear, watch Andrew Dessler explain (at 4:19) that the greenhouse effect would cease to exist if the upper troposphere weren't colder than the surface.

Do you know what the tropospheric "hot spot" is, or why it's necessary for global warming? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

No, as Dessler just explained the cold upper troposphere is a fundamental requirement of the greenhouse effect. Reduce the lapse rate to zero, and the greenhouse effect vanishes. Therefore, a steeper lapse rate (as in the case of a supposedly "missing" hot spot), results in a stronger greenhouse effect.

Neat, huh? Isn't physics awesome, Lonny?

... a high- emissivity gas generally doesn't "hold heat" well. It radiates it back

Since my comment about the paper is what this entire exchange has been about, which YOU started by the way, how could it be irrelevant? It's so utterly, bizarrely illogical that you would rant for so long about something that you say yourself is irrelevant... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

No, your comment about that irrelevant paper was completely irrelevant. Here's why:

... Further, if your quoted passage (that was presented out of context as has been your usual habit) was NOT from the paper, then my mistake. Fine. But I cleared that up straight away. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

If?! IF the quote I showed him which I labeled "2013" wasn't from a 2015 paper, then Lonny's comment about a 2015 paper wasn't what this entire exchange has been about!

... So what the hell are you ranting about? There is nothing more to be said. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

Lonny, you just seemed to realize that your "response" was completely irrelevant. So we're back at square one: I responded to Lonny's claims about the implications of a supposedly "missing hot spot" but Lonny hasn't yet provided a relevant answer. Didn't Jane/Lonny claim he has a reply?

... You can talk about lapse rate here all you want, but that wasn't I was referring to on Twitter, mistakenly or not. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

Lonny, you've been referring to the lapse rate on Twitter for years, every time you regurgitated that "missing hot spot" talking point. For instance:

.@ClimateSystem doesn't admit that absence of a hotspot means (AT LEAST) the models don't property account for the lapse rate. ... Like for example, tell us what adjustments to make to the lapse rates to make the hotspot problem disappear? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-07]

As explained above, making the lapse rate steeper (i.e. making the temperature drop faster with altitude) would make the supposed "hotspot problem" disappear. A steeper lapse rate = a stronger greenhouse effect.

If that's not clear, watch Andrew Dessler explain (at 4:19) that the greenhouse effect would cease to exist if the upper troposphere weren't colder than the surface.

Do you know what the tropospheric "hot spot" is, or why it's necessary for global warming? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

No, as Dessler just explained the cold upper troposphere is a fundamental requirement of the greenhouse effect. Reduce the lapse rate to zero, and the greenhouse effect vanishes. Therefore, a steeper lapse rate (as in the case of a supposedly "missing" hot spot), results in a stronger greenhouse effect.

Neat, huh? Isn't physics awesome, Lonny?

... a high- emissivity gas generally doesn't "hold heat" well. It radiates it back

... I have to say, once again, that you have given me strong reason to suspect you're a dangerous, stalking, harassing nutcase. And by "dangerous" I mean that you appear to me to be seriously unbalanced. GO AWAY. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

This guy has something wrong with him. He has harassed me for years, about half the things he says outrageous distortions, It's my OPINION, you understand, that he has a screw loose. But I have years of good reasons for that opinion. E.g. I tweet about a paper, he accuses me on other forums of ad-hominem against the author and quote: "baseless hatred". [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Oh, the overwhelming irony.

... I told you, I will not discuss tweets here on Slashdot. By definition, that's another demonstration of your out-of-context bullshit. ... If you want to discuss something on Twitter, then do it on Twitter. IN CONTEXT. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

Once again, Lonny Eachus doesn't debate on Twitter. Remember? "Twitter itself is a lousy forum for debate. ... Trying to debate over a complex subject on Twitter is like trying to write a sonnet on a postage stamp."

And "hatred"? Purely in his own mind. As I said: a screw loose, if you ask me. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

I can't imagine saying "That paper is such a crock of shit everybody is laughing at it" or accusing the authors of dramatically torturing data. Perhaps anger could drive someone to repeat those baseless accusations, though? A jury might empathise with that motive more easily than with the other alternative: a cold-blooded and deliberate smear campaign.

Giving opinions about you in other forums is one thing. Lies and libel are quite another. You don't know the half of it. You'd be aghast at some of the other stuff this guy has made up. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

You're just projecting again, Lonny.

Not quite like this, I bet. Seriously. The guy has admitted to being a CAGW True Believer. I have a copy of it somewhere. He told me he believed that I was dangerous because I was putting humanity in danger of catastrophic warming from CO2. That's a paraphrase of course, but he clearly did state that was his genuine, strong belief. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Such awe-inspiring hypocrisy. Lonny whines baselessly for years about supposedly being misrepresented out of con

... I have to say, once again, that you have given me strong reason to suspect you're a dangerous, stalking, harassing nutcase. And by "dangerous" I mean that you appear to me to be seriously unbalanced. GO AWAY. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

This guy has something wrong with him. He has harassed me for years, about half the things he says outrageous distortions, It's my OPINION, you understand, that he has a screw loose. But I have years of good reasons for that opinion. E.g. I tweet about a paper, he accuses me on other forums of ad-hominem against the author and quote: "baseless hatred". [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Oh, the overwhelming irony.

... I told you, I will not discuss tweets here on Slashdot. By definition, that's another demonstration of your out-of-context bullshit. ... If you want to discuss something on Twitter, then do it on Twitter. IN CONTEXT. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

Once again, Lonny Eachus doesn't debate on Twitter. Remember? "Twitter itself is a lousy forum for debate. ... Trying to debate over a complex subject on Twitter is like trying to write a sonnet on a postage stamp."

And "hatred"? Purely in his own mind. As I said: a screw loose, if you ask me. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

I can't imagine saying "That paper is such a crock of shit everybody is laughing at it" or accusing the authors of dramatically torturing data. Perhaps anger could drive someone to repeat those baseless accusations, though? A jury might empathise with that motive more easily than with the other alternative: a cold-blooded and deliberate smear campaign.

Giving opinions about you in other forums is one thing. Lies and libel are quite another. You don't know the half of it. You'd be aghast at some of the other stuff this guy has made up. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

You're just projecting again, Lonny.

Not quite like this, I bet. Seriously. The guy has admitted to being a CAGW True Believer. I have a copy of it somewhere. He told me he believed that I was dangerous because I was putting humanity in danger of catastrophic warming from CO2. That's a paraphrase of course, but he clearly did state that was his genuine, strong belief. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Such awe-inspiring hypocrisy. Lonny whines baselessly for years about supposedly being misrepresented out of con

... I have to say, once again, that you have given me strong reason to suspect you're a dangerous, stalking, harassing nutcase. And by "dangerous" I mean that you appear to me to be seriously unbalanced. GO AWAY. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

This guy has something wrong with him. He has harassed me for years, about half the things he says outrageous distortions, It's my OPINION, you understand, that he has a screw loose. But I have years of good reasons for that opinion. E.g. I tweet about a paper, he accuses me on other forums of ad-hominem against the author and quote: "baseless hatred". [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Oh, the overwhelming irony.

... I told you, I will not discuss tweets here on Slashdot. By definition, that's another demonstration of your out-of-context bullshit. ... If you want to discuss something on Twitter, then do it on Twitter. IN CONTEXT. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

Once again, Lonny Eachus doesn't debate on Twitter. Remember? "Twitter itself is a lousy forum for debate. ... Trying to debate over a complex subject on Twitter is like trying to write a sonnet on a postage stamp."

And "hatred"? Purely in his own mind. As I said: a screw loose, if you ask me. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

I can't imagine saying "That paper is such a crock of shit everybody is laughing at it" or accusing the authors of dramatically torturing data. Perhaps anger could drive someone to repeat those baseless accusations, though? A jury might empathise with that motive more easily than with the other alternative: a cold-blooded and deliberate smear campaign.

Giving opinions about you in other forums is one thing. Lies and libel are quite another. You don't know the half of it. You'd be aghast at some of the other stuff this guy has made up. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

You're just projecting again, Lonny.

Not quite like this, I bet. Seriously. The guy has admitted to being a CAGW True Believer. I have a copy of it somewhere. He told me he believed that I was dangerous because I was putting humanity in danger of catastrophic warming from CO2. That's a paraphrase of course, but he clearly did state that was his genuine, strong belief. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Such awe-inspiring hypocrisy. Lonny whines baselessly for years about supposedly being misrepresented out of con

... I have to say, once again, that you have given me strong reason to suspect you're a dangerous, stalking, harassing nutcase. And by "dangerous" I mean that you appear to me to be seriously unbalanced. GO AWAY. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

This guy has something wrong with him. He has harassed me for years, about half the things he says outrageous distortions, It's my OPINION, you understand, that he has a screw loose. But I have years of good reasons for that opinion. E.g. I tweet about a paper, he accuses me on other forums of ad-hominem against the author and quote: "baseless hatred". [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Oh, the overwhelming irony.

... I told you, I will not discuss tweets here on Slashdot. By definition, that's another demonstration of your out-of-context bullshit. ... If you want to discuss something on Twitter, then do it on Twitter. IN CONTEXT. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

Once again, Lonny Eachus doesn't debate on Twitter. Remember? "Twitter itself is a lousy forum for debate. ... Trying to debate over a complex subject on Twitter is like trying to write a sonnet on a postage stamp."

And "hatred"? Purely in his own mind. As I said: a screw loose, if you ask me. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

I can't imagine saying "That paper is such a crock of shit everybody is laughing at it" or accusing the authors of dramatically torturing data. Perhaps anger could drive someone to repeat those baseless accusations, though? A jury might empathise with that motive more easily than with the other alternative: a cold-blooded and deliberate smear campaign.

Giving opinions about you in other forums is one thing. Lies and libel are quite another. You don't know the half of it. You'd be aghast at some of the other stuff this guy has made up. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

You're just projecting again, Lonny.

Not quite like this, I bet. Seriously. The guy has admitted to being a CAGW True Believer. I have a copy of it somewhere. He told me he believed that I was dangerous because I was putting humanity in danger of catastrophic warming from CO2. That's a paraphrase of course, but he clearly did state that was his genuine, strong belief. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Such awe-inspiring hypocrisy. Lonny whines baselessly for years about supposedly being misrepresented out of con

... I have to say, once again, that you have given me strong reason to suspect you're a dangerous, stalking, harassing nutcase. And by "dangerous" I mean that you appear to me to be seriously unbalanced. GO AWAY. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

This guy has something wrong with him. He has harassed me for years, about half the things he says outrageous distortions, It's my OPINION, you understand, that he has a screw loose. But I have years of good reasons for that opinion. E.g. I tweet about a paper, he accuses me on other forums of ad-hominem against the author and quote: "baseless hatred". [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Oh, the overwhelming irony.

... I told you, I will not discuss tweets here on Slashdot. By definition, that's another demonstration of your out-of-context bullshit. ... If you want to discuss something on Twitter, then do it on Twitter. IN CONTEXT. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

Once again, Lonny Eachus doesn't debate on Twitter. Remember? "Twitter itself is a lousy forum for debate. ... Trying to debate over a complex subject on Twitter is like trying to write a sonnet on a postage stamp."

And "hatred"? Purely in his own mind. As I said: a screw loose, if you ask me. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

I can't imagine saying "That paper is such a crock of shit everybody is laughing at it" or accusing the authors of dramatically torturing data. Perhaps anger could drive someone to repeat those baseless accusations, though? A jury might empathise with that motive more easily than with the other alternative: a cold-blooded and deliberate smear campaign.

Giving opinions about you in other forums is one thing. Lies and libel are quite another. You don't know the half of it. You'd be aghast at some of the other stuff this guy has made up. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

You're just projecting again, Lonny.

Not quite like this, I bet. Seriously. The guy has admitted to being a CAGW True Believer. I have a copy of it somewhere. He told me he believed that I was dangerous because I was putting humanity in danger of catastrophic warming from CO2. That's a paraphrase of course, but he clearly did state that was his genuine, strong belief. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Such awe-inspiring hypocrisy. Lonny whines baselessly for years about supposedly being misrepresented out of con

... I have to say, once again, that you have given me strong reason to suspect you're a dangerous, stalking, harassing nutcase. And by "dangerous" I mean that you appear to me to be seriously unbalanced. GO AWAY. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

This guy has something wrong with him. He has harassed me for years, about half the things he says outrageous distortions, It's my OPINION, you understand, that he has a screw loose. But I have years of good reasons for that opinion. E.g. I tweet about a paper, he accuses me on other forums of ad-hominem against the author and quote: "baseless hatred". [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Oh, the overwhelming irony.

... I told you, I will not discuss tweets here on Slashdot. By definition, that's another demonstration of your out-of-context bullshit. ... If you want to discuss something on Twitter, then do it on Twitter. IN CONTEXT. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

Once again, Lonny Eachus doesn't debate on Twitter. Remember? "Twitter itself is a lousy forum for debate. ... Trying to debate over a complex subject on Twitter is like trying to write a sonnet on a postage stamp."

And "hatred"? Purely in his own mind. As I said: a screw loose, if you ask me. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

I can't imagine saying "That paper is such a crock of shit everybody is laughing at it" or accusing the authors of dramatically torturing data. Perhaps anger could drive someone to repeat those baseless accusations, though? A jury might empathise with that motive more easily than with the other alternative: a cold-blooded and deliberate smear campaign.

Giving opinions about you in other forums is one thing. Lies and libel are quite another. You don't know the half of it. You'd be aghast at some of the other stuff this guy has made up. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

You're just projecting again, Lonny.

Not quite like this, I bet. Seriously. The guy has admitted to being a CAGW True Believer. I have a copy of it somewhere. He told me he believed that I was dangerous because I was putting humanity in danger of catastrophic warming from CO2. That's a paraphrase of course, but he clearly did state that was his genuine, strong belief. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Such awe-inspiring hypocrisy. Lonny whines baselessly for years about supposedly being misrepresented out of con

... I have to say, once again, that you have given me strong reason to suspect you're a dangerous, stalking, harassing nutcase. And by "dangerous" I mean that you appear to me to be seriously unbalanced. GO AWAY. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

This guy has something wrong with him. He has harassed me for years, about half the things he says outrageous distortions, It's my OPINION, you understand, that he has a screw loose. But I have years of good reasons for that opinion. E.g. I tweet about a paper, he accuses me on other forums of ad-hominem against the author and quote: "baseless hatred". [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Oh, the overwhelming irony.

... I told you, I will not discuss tweets here on Slashdot. By definition, that's another demonstration of your out-of-context bullshit. ... If you want to discuss something on Twitter, then do it on Twitter. IN CONTEXT. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

Once again, Lonny Eachus doesn't debate on Twitter. Remember? "Twitter itself is a lousy forum for debate. ... Trying to debate over a complex subject on Twitter is like trying to write a sonnet on a postage stamp."

And "hatred"? Purely in his own mind. As I said: a screw loose, if you ask me. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

I can't imagine saying "That paper is such a crock of shit everybody is laughing at it" or accusing the authors of dramatically torturing data. Perhaps anger could drive someone to repeat those baseless accusations, though? A jury might empathise with that motive more easily than with the other alternative: a cold-blooded and deliberate smear campaign.

Giving opinions about you in other forums is one thing. Lies and libel are quite another. You don't know the half of it. You'd be aghast at some of the other stuff this guy has made up. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

You're just projecting again, Lonny.

Not quite like this, I bet. Seriously. The guy has admitted to being a CAGW True Believer. I have a copy of it somewhere. He told me he believed that I was dangerous because I was putting humanity in danger of catastrophic warming from CO2. That's a paraphrase of course, but he clearly did state that was his genuine, strong belief. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Such awe-inspiring hypocrisy. Lonny whines baselessly for years about supposedly being misrepresented out of con

... I have to say, once again, that you have given me strong reason to suspect you're a dangerous, stalking, harassing nutcase. And by "dangerous" I mean that you appear to me to be seriously unbalanced. GO AWAY. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

This guy has something wrong with him. He has harassed me for years, about half the things he says outrageous distortions, It's my OPINION, you understand, that he has a screw loose. But I have years of good reasons for that opinion. E.g. I tweet about a paper, he accuses me on other forums of ad-hominem against the author and quote: "baseless hatred". [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Oh, the overwhelming irony.

... I told you, I will not discuss tweets here on Slashdot. By definition, that's another demonstration of your out-of-context bullshit. ... If you want to discuss something on Twitter, then do it on Twitter. IN CONTEXT. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

Once again, Lonny Eachus doesn't debate on Twitter. Remember? "Twitter itself is a lousy forum for debate. ... Trying to debate over a complex subject on Twitter is like trying to write a sonnet on a postage stamp."

And "hatred"? Purely in his own mind. As I said: a screw loose, if you ask me. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

I can't imagine saying "That paper is such a crock of shit everybody is laughing at it" or accusing the authors of dramatically torturing data. Perhaps anger could drive someone to repeat those baseless accusations, though? A jury might empathise with that motive more easily than with the other alternative: a cold-blooded and deliberate smear campaign.

Giving opinions about you in other forums is one thing. Lies and libel are quite another. You don't know the half of it. You'd be aghast at some of the other stuff this guy has made up. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

You're just projecting again, Lonny.

Not quite like this, I bet. Seriously. The guy has admitted to being a CAGW True Believer. I have a copy of it somewhere. He told me he believed that I was dangerous because I was putting humanity in danger of catastrophic warming from CO2. That's a paraphrase of course, but he clearly did state that was his genuine, strong belief. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Such awe-inspiring hypocrisy. Lonny whines baselessly for years about supposedly being misrepresented out of con

... I have to say, once again, that you have given me strong reason to suspect you're a dangerous, stalking, harassing nutcase. And by "dangerous" I mean that you appear to me to be seriously unbalanced. GO AWAY. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

This guy has something wrong with him. He has harassed me for years, about half the things he says outrageous distortions, It's my OPINION, you understand, that he has a screw loose. But I have years of good reasons for that opinion. E.g. I tweet about a paper, he accuses me on other forums of ad-hominem against the author and quote: "baseless hatred". [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Oh, the overwhelming irony.

... I told you, I will not discuss tweets here on Slashdot. By definition, that's another demonstration of your out-of-context bullshit. ... If you want to discuss something on Twitter, then do it on Twitter. IN CONTEXT. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

Once again, Lonny Eachus doesn't debate on Twitter. Remember? "Twitter itself is a lousy forum for debate. ... Trying to debate over a complex subject on Twitter is like trying to write a sonnet on a postage stamp."

And "hatred"? Purely in his own mind. As I said: a screw loose, if you ask me. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

I can't imagine saying "That paper is such a crock of shit everybody is laughing at it" or accusing the authors of dramatically torturing data. Perhaps anger could drive someone to repeat those baseless accusations, though? A jury might empathise with that motive more easily than with the other alternative: a cold-blooded and deliberate smear campaign.

Giving opinions about you in other forums is one thing. Lies and libel are quite another. You don't know the half of it. You'd be aghast at some of the other stuff this guy has made up. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

You're just projecting again, Lonny.

Not quite like this, I bet. Seriously. The guy has admitted to being a CAGW True Believer. I have a copy of it somewhere. He told me he believed that I was dangerous because I was putting humanity in danger of catastrophic warming from CO2. That's a paraphrase of course, but he clearly did state that was his genuine, strong belief. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Such awe-inspiring hypocrisy. Lonny whines baselessly for years about supposedly being misrepresented out of con

... I have to say, once again, that you have given me strong reason to suspect you're a dangerous, stalking, harassing nutcase. And by "dangerous" I mean that you appear to me to be seriously unbalanced. GO AWAY. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

This guy has something wrong with him. He has harassed me for years, about half the things he says outrageous distortions, It's my OPINION, you understand, that he has a screw loose. But I have years of good reasons for that opinion. E.g. I tweet about a paper, he accuses me on other forums of ad-hominem against the author and quote: "baseless hatred". [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Oh, the overwhelming irony.

... I told you, I will not discuss tweets here on Slashdot. By definition, that's another demonstration of your out-of-context bullshit. ... If you want to discuss something on Twitter, then do it on Twitter. IN CONTEXT. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

Once again, Lonny Eachus doesn't debate on Twitter. Remember? "Twitter itself is a lousy forum for debate. ... Trying to debate over a complex subject on Twitter is like trying to write a sonnet on a postage stamp."

And "hatred"? Purely in his own mind. As I said: a screw loose, if you ask me. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

I can't imagine saying "That paper is such a crock of shit everybody is laughing at it" or accusing the authors of dramatically torturing data. Perhaps anger could drive someone to repeat those baseless accusations, though? A jury might empathise with that motive more easily than with the other alternative: a cold-blooded and deliberate smear campaign.

Giving opinions about you in other forums is one thing. Lies and libel are quite another. You don't know the half of it. You'd be aghast at some of the other stuff this guy has made up. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

You're just projecting again, Lonny.

Not quite like this, I bet. Seriously. The guy has admitted to being a CAGW True Believer. I have a copy of it somewhere. He told me he believed that I was dangerous because I was putting humanity in danger of catastrophic warming from CO2. That's a paraphrase of course, but he clearly did state that was his genuine, strong belief. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Such awe-inspiring hypocrisy. Lonny whines baselessly for years about supposedly being misrepresented out of con

... I have to say, once again, that you have given me strong reason to suspect you're a dangerous, stalking, harassing nutcase. And by "dangerous" I mean that you appear to me to be seriously unbalanced. GO AWAY. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

This guy has something wrong with him. He has harassed me for years, about half the things he says outrageous distortions, It's my OPINION, you understand, that he has a screw loose. But I have years of good reasons for that opinion. E.g. I tweet about a paper, he accuses me on other forums of ad-hominem against the author and quote: "baseless hatred". [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Oh, the overwhelming irony.

... I told you, I will not discuss tweets here on Slashdot. By definition, that's another demonstration of your out-of-context bullshit. ... If you want to discuss something on Twitter, then do it on Twitter. IN CONTEXT. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

Once again, Lonny Eachus doesn't debate on Twitter. Remember? "Twitter itself is a lousy forum for debate. ... Trying to debate over a complex subject on Twitter is like trying to write a sonnet on a postage stamp."

And "hatred"? Purely in his own mind. As I said: a screw loose, if you ask me. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

I can't imagine saying "That paper is such a crock of shit everybody is laughing at it" or accusing the authors of dramatically torturing data. Perhaps anger could drive someone to repeat those baseless accusations, though? A jury might empathise with that motive more easily than with the other alternative: a cold-blooded and deliberate smear campaign.

Giving opinions about you in other forums is one thing. Lies and libel are quite another. You don't know the half of it. You'd be aghast at some of the other stuff this guy has made up. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

You're just projecting again, Lonny.

Not quite like this, I bet. Seriously. The guy has admitted to being a CAGW True Believer. I have a copy of it somewhere. He told me he believed that I was dangerous because I was putting humanity in danger of catastrophic warming from CO2. That's a paraphrase of course, but he clearly did state that was his genuine, strong belief. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Such awe-inspiring hypocrisy. Lonny whines baselessly for years about supposedly being misrepresented out of con

... I have to say, once again, that you have given me strong reason to suspect you're a dangerous, stalking, harassing nutcase. And by "dangerous" I mean that you appear to me to be seriously unbalanced. GO AWAY. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

This guy has something wrong with him. He has harassed me for years, about half the things he says outrageous distortions, It's my OPINION, you understand, that he has a screw loose. But I have years of good reasons for that opinion. E.g. I tweet about a paper, he accuses me on other forums of ad-hominem against the author and quote: "baseless hatred". [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Oh, the overwhelming irony.

... I told you, I will not discuss tweets here on Slashdot. By definition, that's another demonstration of your out-of-context bullshit. ... If you want to discuss something on Twitter, then do it on Twitter. IN CONTEXT. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

Once again, Lonny Eachus doesn't debate on Twitter. Remember? "Twitter itself is a lousy forum for debate. ... Trying to debate over a complex subject on Twitter is like trying to write a sonnet on a postage stamp."

And "hatred"? Purely in his own mind. As I said: a screw loose, if you ask me. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

I can't imagine saying "That paper is such a crock of shit everybody is laughing at it" or accusing the authors of dramatically torturing data. Perhaps anger could drive someone to repeat those baseless accusations, though? A jury might empathise with that motive more easily than with the other alternative: a cold-blooded and deliberate smear campaign.

Giving opinions about you in other forums is one thing. Lies and libel are quite another. You don't know the half of it. You'd be aghast at some of the other stuff this guy has made up. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

You're just projecting again, Lonny.

Not quite like this, I bet. Seriously. The guy has admitted to being a CAGW True Believer. I have a copy of it somewhere. He told me he believed that I was dangerous because I was putting humanity in danger of catastrophic warming from CO2. That's a paraphrase of course, but he clearly did state that was his genuine, strong belief. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Such awe-inspiring hypocrisy. Lonny whines baselessly for years about supposedly being misrepresented out of con

... I have to say, once again, that you have given me strong reason to suspect you're a dangerous, stalking, harassing nutcase. And by "dangerous" I mean that you appear to me to be seriously unbalanced. GO AWAY. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

This guy has something wrong with him. He has harassed me for years, about half the things he says outrageous distortions, It's my OPINION, you understand, that he has a screw loose. But I have years of good reasons for that opinion. E.g. I tweet about a paper, he accuses me on other forums of ad-hominem against the author and quote: "baseless hatred". [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Oh, the overwhelming irony.

... I told you, I will not discuss tweets here on Slashdot. By definition, that's another demonstration of your out-of-context bullshit. ... If you want to discuss something on Twitter, then do it on Twitter. IN CONTEXT. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

Once again, Lonny Eachus doesn't debate on Twitter. Remember? "Twitter itself is a lousy forum for debate. ... Trying to debate over a complex subject on Twitter is like trying to write a sonnet on a postage stamp."

And "hatred"? Purely in his own mind. As I said: a screw loose, if you ask me. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

I can't imagine saying "That paper is such a crock of shit everybody is laughing at it" or accusing the authors of dramatically torturing data. Perhaps anger could drive someone to repeat those baseless accusations, though? A jury might empathise with that motive more easily than with the other alternative: a cold-blooded and deliberate smear campaign.

Giving opinions about you in other forums is one thing. Lies and libel are quite another. You don't know the half of it. You'd be aghast at some of the other stuff this guy has made up. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

You're just projecting again, Lonny.

Not quite like this, I bet. Seriously. The guy has admitted to being a CAGW True Believer. I have a copy of it somewhere. He told me he believed that I was dangerous because I was putting humanity in danger of catastrophic warming from CO2. That's a paraphrase of course, but he clearly did state that was his genuine, strong belief. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Such awe-inspiring hypocrisy. Lonny whines baselessly for years about supposedly being misrepresented out of con

... I have to say, once again, that you have given me strong reason to suspect you're a dangerous, stalking, harassing nutcase. And by "dangerous" I mean that you appear to me to be seriously unbalanced. GO AWAY. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

This guy has something wrong with him. He has harassed me for years, about half the things he says outrageous distortions, It's my OPINION, you understand, that he has a screw loose. But I have years of good reasons for that opinion. E.g. I tweet about a paper, he accuses me on other forums of ad-hominem against the author and quote: "baseless hatred". [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Oh, the overwhelming irony.

... I told you, I will not discuss tweets here on Slashdot. By definition, that's another demonstration of your out-of-context bullshit. ... If you want to discuss something on Twitter, then do it on Twitter. IN CONTEXT. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

Once again, Lonny Eachus doesn't debate on Twitter. Remember? "Twitter itself is a lousy forum for debate. ... Trying to debate over a complex subject on Twitter is like trying to write a sonnet on a postage stamp."

And "hatred"? Purely in his own mind. As I said: a screw loose, if you ask me. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

I can't imagine saying "That paper is such a crock of shit everybody is laughing at it" or accusing the authors of dramatically torturing data. Perhaps anger could drive someone to repeat those baseless accusations, though? A jury might empathise with that motive more easily than with the other alternative: a cold-blooded and deliberate smear campaign.

Giving opinions about you in other forums is one thing. Lies and libel are quite another. You don't know the half of it. You'd be aghast at some of the other stuff this guy has made up. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

You're just projecting again, Lonny.

Not quite like this, I bet. Seriously. The guy has admitted to being a CAGW True Believer. I have a copy of it somewhere. He told me he believed that I was dangerous because I was putting humanity in danger of catastrophic warming from CO2. That's a paraphrase of course, but he clearly did state that was his genuine, strong belief. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Such awe-inspiring hypocrisy. Lonny whines baselessly for years about supposedly being misrepresented out of con

... I have to say, once again, that you have given me strong reason to suspect you're a dangerous, stalking, harassing nutcase. And by "dangerous" I mean that you appear to me to be seriously unbalanced. GO AWAY. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

This guy has something wrong with him. He has harassed me for years, about half the things he says outrageous distortions, It's my OPINION, you understand, that he has a screw loose. But I have years of good reasons for that opinion. E.g. I tweet about a paper, he accuses me on other forums of ad-hominem against the author and quote: "baseless hatred". [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Oh, the overwhelming irony.

... I told you, I will not discuss tweets here on Slashdot. By definition, that's another demonstration of your out-of-context bullshit. ... If you want to discuss something on Twitter, then do it on Twitter. IN CONTEXT. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

Once again, Lonny Eachus doesn't debate on Twitter. Remember? "Twitter itself is a lousy forum for debate. ... Trying to debate over a complex subject on Twitter is like trying to write a sonnet on a postage stamp."

And "hatred"? Purely in his own mind. As I said: a screw loose, if you ask me. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

I can't imagine saying "That paper is such a crock of shit everybody is laughing at it" or accusing the authors of dramatically torturing data. Perhaps anger could drive someone to repeat those baseless accusations, though? A jury might empathise with that motive more easily than with the other alternative: a cold-blooded and deliberate smear campaign.

Giving opinions about you in other forums is one thing. Lies and libel are quite another. You don't know the half of it. You'd be aghast at some of the other stuff this guy has made up. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

You're just projecting again, Lonny.

Not quite like this, I bet. Seriously. The guy has admitted to being a CAGW True Believer. I have a copy of it somewhere. He told me he believed that I was dangerous because I was putting humanity in danger of catastrophic warming from CO2. That's a paraphrase of course, but he clearly did state that was his genuine, strong belief. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Such awe-inspiring hypocrisy. Lonny whines baselessly for years about supposedly being misrepresented out of con

... I have to say, once again, that you have given me strong reason to suspect you're a dangerous, stalking, harassing nutcase. And by "dangerous" I mean that you appear to me to be seriously unbalanced. GO AWAY. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

This guy has something wrong with him. He has harassed me for years, about half the things he says outrageous distortions, It's my OPINION, you understand, that he has a screw loose. But I have years of good reasons for that opinion. E.g. I tweet about a paper, he accuses me on other forums of ad-hominem against the author and quote: "baseless hatred". [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Oh, the overwhelming irony.

... I told you, I will not discuss tweets here on Slashdot. By definition, that's another demonstration of your out-of-context bullshit. ... If you want to discuss something on Twitter, then do it on Twitter. IN CONTEXT. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

Once again, Lonny Eachus doesn't debate on Twitter. Remember? "Twitter itself is a lousy forum for debate. ... Trying to debate over a complex subject on Twitter is like trying to write a sonnet on a postage stamp."

And "hatred"? Purely in his own mind. As I said: a screw loose, if you ask me. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

I can't imagine saying "That paper is such a crock of shit everybody is laughing at it" or accusing the authors of dramatically torturing data. Perhaps anger could drive someone to repeat those baseless accusations, though? A jury might empathise with that motive more easily than with the other alternative: a cold-blooded and deliberate smear campaign.

Giving opinions about you in other forums is one thing. Lies and libel are quite another. You don't know the half of it. You'd be aghast at some of the other stuff this guy has made up. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

You're just projecting again, Lonny.

Not quite like this, I bet. Seriously. The guy has admitted to being a CAGW True Believer. I have a copy of it somewhere. He told me he believed that I was dangerous because I was putting humanity in danger of catastrophic warming from CO2. That's a paraphrase of course, but he clearly did state that was his genuine, strong belief. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Such awe-inspiring hypocrisy. Lonny whines baselessly for years about supposedly being misrepresented out of con

My recent comment to you was about the recent PAPER, Sherwood et al. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Lonny, you already made this bizarre excuse using your female sock-puppet. You still don't understand that your "recent comment" baselessly accusing that recent PAPER of having credibility problems is completely irrelevant?

Again, read Soden and Held 2006 and compare to Ingram 2013. Learn about the anti-correlation between water vapor feedback and lapse rate feedback. Because they're totally different papers, you can do all this even while "not hating" the Sherwood et al. 2015 paper by baselessly calling it a "crock of shit" and compulsively bringing it up even when it's totally irrelevant.

.@ClimateSystem doesn't admit that absence of a hotspot means (AT LEAST) the models don't property account for the lapse rate. Like for example, tell us what adjustments to make to the lapse rates to make the hotspot problem disappear? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-07]

As explained above, making the lapse rate steeper (i.e. making the temperature drop faster with altitude) would make the supposed "hotspot problem" disappear. A steeper lapse rate = a stronger greenhouse effect.

If that's not clear, watch Andrew Dessler explain (at 4:19) that the greenhouse effect would cease to exist if the upper troposphere weren't colder than the surface.

Do you know what the tropospheric "hot spot" is, or why it's necessary for global warming? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

No, as Dessler just explained the cold upper troposphere is a fundamental requirement of the greenhouse effect. Reduce the lapse rate to zero, and the greenhouse effect vanishes. Therefore, a steeper lapse rate (as in the case of a supposedly "missing" hot spot), results in a stronger greenhouse effect.

Neat, huh? Isn't physics awesome, Lonny?

From those who claim hotspot isn't important, but struggled so hard to "prove" it's there. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

So you deny lapse rate feedback? Or are you going to carefully avoid saying anything concrete and scientific, and instead just keep smearing "despicable" scientists?

Like those who deny the "pause”, but invented 50+ reasons for it anyway. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Wow. Why is Lonny Eachus so afraid to learn about lapse rate feedback that he's desperately trying to change the subject?

STOP harassing me on Slashdot about Tweets. You have been reported. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Once again, cupcake is adorable when cupcake gives orders.

My recent comment to you was about the recent PAPER, Sherwood et al. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Lonny, you already made this bizarre excuse using your female sock-puppet. You still don't understand that your "recent comment" baselessly accusing that recent PAPER of having credibility problems is completely irrelevant?

Again, read Soden and Held 2006 and compare to Ingram 2013. Learn about the anti-correlation between water vapor feedback and lapse rate feedback. Because they're totally different papers, you can do all this even while "not hating" the Sherwood et al. 2015 paper by baselessly calling it a "crock of shit" and compulsively bringing it up even when it's totally irrelevant.

.@ClimateSystem doesn't admit that absence of a hotspot means (AT LEAST) the models don't property account for the lapse rate. Like for example, tell us what adjustments to make to the lapse rates to make the hotspot problem disappear? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-07]

As explained above, making the lapse rate steeper (i.e. making the temperature drop faster with altitude) would make the supposed "hotspot problem" disappear. A steeper lapse rate = a stronger greenhouse effect.

If that's not clear, watch Andrew Dessler explain (at 4:19) that the greenhouse effect would cease to exist if the upper troposphere weren't colder than the surface.

Do you know what the tropospheric "hot spot" is, or why it's necessary for global warming? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

No, as Dessler just explained the cold upper troposphere is a fundamental requirement of the greenhouse effect. Reduce the lapse rate to zero, and the greenhouse effect vanishes. Therefore, a steeper lapse rate (as in the case of a supposedly "missing" hot spot), results in a stronger greenhouse effect.

Neat, huh? Isn't physics awesome, Lonny?

From those who claim hotspot isn't important, but struggled so hard to "prove" it's there. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

So you deny lapse rate feedback? Or are you going to carefully avoid saying anything concrete and scientific, and instead just keep smearing "despicable" scientists?

Like those who deny the "pause”, but invented 50+ reasons for it anyway. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Wow. Why is Lonny Eachus so afraid to learn about lapse rate feedback that he's desperately trying to change the subject?

STOP harassing me on Slashdot about Tweets. You have been reported. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Once again, cupcake is adorable when cupcake gives orders.

My recent comment to you was about the recent PAPER, Sherwood et al. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Lonny, you already made this bizarre excuse using your female sock-puppet. You still don't understand that your "recent comment" baselessly accusing that recent PAPER of having credibility problems is completely irrelevant?

Again, read Soden and Held 2006 and compare to Ingram 2013. Learn about the anti-correlation between water vapor feedback and lapse rate feedback. Because they're totally different papers, you can do all this even while "not hating" the Sherwood et al. 2015 paper by baselessly calling it a "crock of shit" and compulsively bringing it up even when it's totally irrelevant.

.@ClimateSystem doesn't admit that absence of a hotspot means (AT LEAST) the models don't property account for the lapse rate. Like for example, tell us what adjustments to make to the lapse rates to make the hotspot problem disappear? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-07]

As explained above, making the lapse rate steeper (i.e. making the temperature drop faster with altitude) would make the supposed "hotspot problem" disappear. A steeper lapse rate = a stronger greenhouse effect.

If that's not clear, watch Andrew Dessler explain (at 4:19) that the greenhouse effect would cease to exist if the upper troposphere weren't colder than the surface.

Do you know what the tropospheric "hot spot" is, or why it's necessary for global warming? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

No, as Dessler just explained the cold upper troposphere is a fundamental requirement of the greenhouse effect. Reduce the lapse rate to zero, and the greenhouse effect vanishes. Therefore, a steeper lapse rate (as in the case of a supposedly "missing" hot spot), results in a stronger greenhouse effect.

Neat, huh? Isn't physics awesome, Lonny?

From those who claim hotspot isn't important, but struggled so hard to "prove" it's there. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

So you deny lapse rate feedback? Or are you going to carefully avoid saying anything concrete and scientific, and instead just keep smearing "despicable" scientists?

Like those who deny the "pause”, but invented 50+ reasons for it anyway. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Wow. Why is Lonny Eachus so afraid to learn about lapse rate feedback that he's desperately trying to change the subject?

STOP harassing me on Slashdot about Tweets. You have been reported. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Once again, cupcake is adorable when cupcake gives orders.

My recent comment to you was about the recent PAPER, Sherwood et al. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Lonny, you already made this bizarre excuse using your female sock-puppet. You still don't understand that your "recent comment" baselessly accusing that recent PAPER of having credibility problems is completely irrelevant?

Again, read Soden and Held 2006 and compare to Ingram 2013. Learn about the anti-correlation between water vapor feedback and lapse rate feedback. Because they're totally different papers, you can do all this even while "not hating" the Sherwood et al. 2015 paper by baselessly calling it a "crock of shit" and compulsively bringing it up even when it's totally irrelevant.

.@ClimateSystem doesn't admit that absence of a hotspot means (AT LEAST) the models don't property account for the lapse rate. Like for example, tell us what adjustments to make to the lapse rates to make the hotspot problem disappear? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-07]

As explained above, making the lapse rate steeper (i.e. making the temperature drop faster with altitude) would make the supposed "hotspot problem" disappear. A steeper lapse rate = a stronger greenhouse effect.

If that's not clear, watch Andrew Dessler explain (at 4:19) that the greenhouse effect would cease to exist if the upper troposphere weren't colder than the surface.

Do you know what the tropospheric "hot spot" is, or why it's necessary for global warming? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

No, as Dessler just explained the cold upper troposphere is a fundamental requirement of the greenhouse effect. Reduce the lapse rate to zero, and the greenhouse effect vanishes. Therefore, a steeper lapse rate (as in the case of a supposedly "missing" hot spot), results in a stronger greenhouse effect.

Neat, huh? Isn't physics awesome, Lonny?

From those who claim hotspot isn't important, but struggled so hard to "prove" it's there. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

So you deny lapse rate feedback? Or are you going to carefully avoid saying anything concrete and scientific, and instead just keep smearing "despicable" scientists?

Like those who deny the "pause”, but invented 50+ reasons for it anyway. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Wow. Why is Lonny Eachus so afraid to learn about lapse rate feedback that he's desperately trying to change the subject?

STOP harassing me on Slashdot about Tweets. You have been reported. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Once again, cupcake is adorable when cupcake gives orders.

My recent comment to you was about the recent PAPER, Sherwood et al. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Lonny, you already made this bizarre excuse using your female sock-puppet. You still don't understand that your "recent comment" baselessly accusing that recent PAPER of having credibility problems is completely irrelevant?

Again, read Soden and Held 2006 and compare to Ingram 2013. Learn about the anti-correlation between water vapor feedback and lapse rate feedback. Because they're totally different papers, you can do all this even while "not hating" the Sherwood et al. 2015 paper by baselessly calling it a "crock of shit" and compulsively bringing it up even when it's totally irrelevant.

.@ClimateSystem doesn't admit that absence of a hotspot means (AT LEAST) the models don't property account for the lapse rate. Like for example, tell us what adjustments to make to the lapse rates to make the hotspot problem disappear? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-07]

As explained above, making the lapse rate steeper (i.e. making the temperature drop faster with altitude) would make the supposed "hotspot problem" disappear. A steeper lapse rate = a stronger greenhouse effect.

If that's not clear, watch Andrew Dessler explain (at 4:19) that the greenhouse effect would cease to exist if the upper troposphere weren't colder than the surface.

Do you know what the tropospheric "hot spot" is, or why it's necessary for global warming? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

No, as Dessler just explained the cold upper troposphere is a fundamental requirement of the greenhouse effect. Reduce the lapse rate to zero, and the greenhouse effect vanishes. Therefore, a steeper lapse rate (as in the case of a supposedly "missing" hot spot), results in a stronger greenhouse effect.

Neat, huh? Isn't physics awesome, Lonny?

From those who claim hotspot isn't important, but struggled so hard to "prove" it's there. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

So you deny lapse rate feedback? Or are you going to carefully avoid saying anything concrete and scientific, and instead just keep smearing "despicable" scientists?

Like those who deny the "pause”, but invented 50+ reasons for it anyway. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Wow. Why is Lonny Eachus so afraid to learn about lapse rate feedback that he's desperately trying to change the subject?

STOP harassing me on Slashdot about Tweets. You have been reported. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Once again, cupcake is adorable when cupcake gives orders.

My recent comment to you was about the recent PAPER, Sherwood et al. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Lonny, you already made this bizarre excuse using your female sock-puppet. You still don't understand that your "recent comment" baselessly accusing that recent PAPER of having credibility problems is completely irrelevant?

Again, read Soden and Held 2006 and compare to Ingram 2013. Learn about the anti-correlation between water vapor feedback and lapse rate feedback. Because they're totally different papers, you can do all this even while "not hating" the Sherwood et al. 2015 paper by baselessly calling it a "crock of shit" and compulsively bringing it up even when it's totally irrelevant.

.@ClimateSystem doesn't admit that absence of a hotspot means (AT LEAST) the models don't property account for the lapse rate. Like for example, tell us what adjustments to make to the lapse rates to make the hotspot problem disappear? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-07]

As explained above, making the lapse rate steeper (i.e. making the temperature drop faster with altitude) would make the supposed "hotspot problem" disappear. A steeper lapse rate = a stronger greenhouse effect.

If that's not clear, watch Andrew Dessler explain (at 4:19) that the greenhouse effect would cease to exist if the upper troposphere weren't colder than the surface.

Do you know what the tropospheric "hot spot" is, or why it's necessary for global warming? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

No, as Dessler just explained the cold upper troposphere is a fundamental requirement of the greenhouse effect. Reduce the lapse rate to zero, and the greenhouse effect vanishes. Therefore, a steeper lapse rate (as in the case of a supposedly "missing" hot spot), results in a stronger greenhouse effect.

Neat, huh? Isn't physics awesome, Lonny?

From those who claim hotspot isn't important, but struggled so hard to "prove" it's there. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

So you deny lapse rate feedback? Or are you going to carefully avoid saying anything concrete and scientific, and instead just keep smearing "despicable" scientists?

Like those who deny the "pause”, but invented 50+ reasons for it anyway. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Wow. Why is Lonny Eachus so afraid to learn about lapse rate feedback that he's desperately trying to change the subject?

STOP harassing me on Slashdot about Tweets. You have been reported. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Once again, cupcake is adorable when cupcake gives orders.

My recent comment to you was about the recent PAPER, Sherwood et al. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Lonny, you already made this bizarre excuse using your female sock-puppet. You still don't understand that your "recent comment" baselessly accusing that recent PAPER of having credibility problems is completely irrelevant?

Again, read Soden and Held 2006 and compare to Ingram 2013. Learn about the anti-correlation between water vapor feedback and lapse rate feedback. Because they're totally different papers, you can do all this even while "not hating" the Sherwood et al. 2015 paper by baselessly calling it a "crock of shit" and compulsively bringing it up even when it's totally irrelevant.

.@ClimateSystem doesn't admit that absence of a hotspot means (AT LEAST) the models don't property account for the lapse rate. Like for example, tell us what adjustments to make to the lapse rates to make the hotspot problem disappear? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-07]

As explained above, making the lapse rate steeper (i.e. making the temperature drop faster with altitude) would make the supposed "hotspot problem" disappear. A steeper lapse rate = a stronger greenhouse effect.

If that's not clear, watch Andrew Dessler explain (at 4:19) that the greenhouse effect would cease to exist if the upper troposphere weren't colder than the surface.

Do you know what the tropospheric "hot spot" is, or why it's necessary for global warming? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

No, as Dessler just explained the cold upper troposphere is a fundamental requirement of the greenhouse effect. Reduce the lapse rate to zero, and the greenhouse effect vanishes. Therefore, a steeper lapse rate (as in the case of a supposedly "missing" hot spot), results in a stronger greenhouse effect.

Neat, huh? Isn't physics awesome, Lonny?

From those who claim hotspot isn't important, but struggled so hard to "prove" it's there. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

So you deny lapse rate feedback? Or are you going to carefully avoid saying anything concrete and scientific, and instead just keep smearing "despicable" scientists?

Like those who deny the "pause”, but invented 50+ reasons for it anyway. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Wow. Why is Lonny Eachus so afraid to learn about lapse rate feedback that he's desperately trying to change the subject?

STOP harassing me on Slashdot about Tweets. You have been reported. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Once again, cupcake is adorable when cupcake gives orders.

My recent comment to you was about the recent PAPER, Sherwood et al. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Lonny, you already made this bizarre excuse using your female sock-puppet. You still don't understand that your "recent comment" baselessly accusing that recent PAPER of having credibility problems is completely irrelevant?

Again, read Soden and Held 2006 and compare to Ingram 2013. Learn about the anti-correlation between water vapor feedback and lapse rate feedback. Because they're totally different papers, you can do all this even while "not hating" the Sherwood et al. 2015 paper by baselessly calling it a "crock of shit" and compulsively bringing it up even when it's totally irrelevant.

.@ClimateSystem doesn't admit that absence of a hotspot means (AT LEAST) the models don't property account for the lapse rate. Like for example, tell us what adjustments to make to the lapse rates to make the hotspot problem disappear? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-07]

As explained above, making the lapse rate steeper (i.e. making the temperature drop faster with altitude) would make the supposed "hotspot problem" disappear. A steeper lapse rate = a stronger greenhouse effect.

If that's not clear, watch Andrew Dessler explain (at 4:19) that the greenhouse effect would cease to exist if the upper troposphere weren't colder than the surface.

Do you know what the tropospheric "hot spot" is, or why it's necessary for global warming? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

No, as Dessler just explained the cold upper troposphere is a fundamental requirement of the greenhouse effect. Reduce the lapse rate to zero, and the greenhouse effect vanishes. Therefore, a steeper lapse rate (as in the case of a supposedly "missing" hot spot), results in a stronger greenhouse effect.

Neat, huh? Isn't physics awesome, Lonny?

From those who claim hotspot isn't important, but struggled so hard to "prove" it's there. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

So you deny lapse rate feedback? Or are you going to carefully avoid saying anything concrete and scientific, and instead just keep smearing "despicable" scientists?

Like those who deny the "pause”, but invented 50+ reasons for it anyway. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Wow. Why is Lonny Eachus so afraid to learn about lapse rate feedback that he's desperately trying to change the subject?

STOP harassing me on Slashdot about Tweets. You have been reported. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-30]

Once again, cupcake is adorable when cupcake gives orders.

Again, your baseless hatred of Sherwood et al. is completely irrelevant. Again, compare Soden and Held 2006 fig. 3 (left) to the equivalent figure from Ingram 2013. If you actually tried to understand those figures, you'd realize that even if the "hot spot" were really missing, the implications for climate sensitivity would be "roughly nil".

Since you'll probably never be able to let go of your irrational hatred of Sherwood et al., once again please note that you can learn these physics by reading Soden and Held 2006, Ingram 2013, or pretty much any peer-reviewed paper that studies the anti-correlation between water vapor feedback and lapse rate feedback. You can seethe with rage about Sherwood et al. all you want, but that shouldn't stop you from learning mainstream physics in all those other papers by other scientists.

Again, your baseless hatred of Sherwood et al. is completely irrelevant. Again, compare Soden and Held 2006 fig. 3 (left) to the equivalent figure from Ingram 2013. If you actually tried to understand those figures, you'd realize that even if the "hot spot" were really missing, the implications for climate sensitivity would be "roughly nil".

Since you'll probably never be able to let go of your irrational hatred of Sherwood et al., once again please note that you can learn these physics by reading Soden and Held 2006, Ingram 2013, or pretty much any peer-reviewed paper that studies the anti-correlation between water vapor feedback and lapse rate feedback. You can seethe with rage about Sherwood et al. all you want, but that shouldn't stop you from learning mainstream physics in all those other papers by other scientists.

Again, your baseless hatred of Sherwood et al. is completely irrelevant. Again, compare Soden and Held 2006 fig. 3 (left) to the equivalent figure from Ingram 2013. If you actually tried to understand those figures, you'd realize that even if the "hot spot" were really missing, the implications for climate sensitivity would be "roughly nil".

Since you'll probably never be able to let go of your irrational hatred of Sherwood et al., once again please note that you can learn these physics by reading Soden and Held 2006, Ingram 2013, or pretty much any peer-reviewed paper that studies the anti-correlation between water vapor feedback and lapse rate feedback. You can seethe with rage about Sherwood et al. all you want, but that shouldn't stop you from learning mainstream physics in all those other papers by other scientists.

.@DumbSci Sherwood has credibility problems. As do you, to put it mildly. cc: @DanaRohrabacher @tan123 @ImaBannedd @SteveSGoddard [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-29]

Is that ad hominem really the best you can do? Note that Carl Mears (scientist for the RSS dataset Lonny likes to cite) said that Steve Sherwood "knows a lot more about tropical convection than I do."

So is Lonny also going to accuse Carl Mears of having credibility problems? If so, Lonny should prepare to make a really long series of accusations. Notice that Sherwood was actually just referring to a standard result in Ingram 2013. So Lonny's going to have to extend his ad hominem to William Ingram as well.

And note that Soden and Held 2006 fig. 3 (left) is just a mirror image of the Ingram 2013 figure that Sherwood referred to while explaining that the implications of a missing hot spot are "roughly nil". Since they're saying the same thing Sherwood (and many other scientists) are saying, Lonny will have to keep throwing ad hominems at scientists until he breaks his keyboard.

Or, and this is just a suggestion, perhaps Lonny Eachus would consider reading those papers and actually trying to learn from them?

According to radiosonde and satellite data, no hotspot = almost no water vapor feedback. Which of course is supposed to be 2/3 to 3/4 of the AGW positive feedback. Not showing up. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-29]

Once again:

Let us suppose for the moment that the "hot spot" really has been missing while the surface has warmed. What would the implications be?

The implications for attribution of observed global warming are nil, as far as I can see. The regulation of lapse rate changes by atmospheric convection is expected to work exactly the same way whether global temperature changes are natural or forced (say, by greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning).

The implications for climate sensitivity are also roughly nil. The total feedback from water vapour and lapse-rate changes depends only on the changes in relative humidity in the upper troposphere, not on the lapse rate itself (see Ingram, 2013). In fact, in climate models where the lapse rate becomes relatively steeper as climate warms (as would be the case with a missing hot spot), the total warming feedback is very slightly stronger because the increased lapse rate increases the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide and other well-mixed greenhouse gases. So a missing hot spot would not mean less surface warming, at least according to our current understanding. [Prof. Steven Sherwood, 2013]

According to radiosonde and satellite data, no hotspot = almost no water vapor feedback. Which of course is supposed to be 2/3 to 3/4 of the AGW positive feedback. Not showing up. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-29]

Once again:

Let us suppose for the moment that the "hot spot" really has been missing while the surface has warmed. What would the implications be?

The implications for attribution of observed global warming are nil, as far as I can see. The regulation of lapse rate changes by atmospheric convection is expected to work exactly the same way whether global temperature changes are natural or forced (say, by greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning).

The implications for climate sensitivity are also roughly nil. The total feedback from water vapour and lapse-rate changes depends only on the changes in relative humidity in the upper troposphere, not on the lapse rate itself (see Ingram, 2013). In fact, in climate models where the lapse rate becomes relatively steeper as climate warms (as would be the case with a missing hot spot), the total warming feedback is very slightly stronger because the increased lapse rate increases the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide and other well-mixed greenhouse gases. So a missing hot spot would not mean less surface warming, at least according to our current understanding. [Prof. Steven Sherwood, 2013]

And I will suggest another motivation for your "forum swapping" when you say you are "responding". I suspect you do that because it helps you misrepresent statements out-of-context. It's a reasonable deduction. It might not be, if you hadn't established a strong pattern of doing exactly that. Much of it recorded for posterity, of course. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

I will suggest another motivation for Lonny's endless whining. Best case scenario: Lonny Eachus is a paranoid crackpot who suffers from early-onset dementia.

And I will suggest another motivation for your "forum swapping" when you say you are "responding". I suspect you do that because it helps you misrepresent statements out-of-context. It's a reasonable deduction. It might not be, if you hadn't established a strong pattern of doing exactly that. Much of it recorded for posterity, of course. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

I will suggest another motivation for Lonny's endless whining. Best case scenario: Lonny Eachus is a paranoid crackpot who suffers from early-onset dementia.

And I will suggest another motivation for your "forum swapping" when you say you are "responding". I suspect you do that because it helps you misrepresent statements out-of-context. It's a reasonable deduction. It might not be, if you hadn't established a strong pattern of doing exactly that. Much of it recorded for posterity, of course. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

I will suggest another motivation for Lonny's endless whining. Best case scenario: Lonny Eachus is a paranoid crackpot who suffers from early-onset dementia.