Slashdot Mirror

You're only making yourself look foolish here, by oversimplifying the issue so much that you're actually wrong.

Oversimplifying the issue would be claiming there's "nothing to worry about" while over a dozen national science academies say with one voice that "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable."

Put in the simplest terms: if CO2 in Venus's atmosphere acted like it does in Earth's atmosphere, Venus would be quite a bit cooler. If the direct blackbody effect of CO2 being warmed by IR, and in term warming the Earth via IR, was the primary warming concern in Earth's atmosphere it would not be a concern.

What scientific literature supports your opinion that CO2 emissions aren't a concern? When atmospheric CO2 is doubled, what equilibrium temperature rise results? Please cite peer-reviewed papers with equilibrium CO2 climate sensitivities that you actually accept. Otherwise it's not clear what sensitivity study prompted you to claim "it would not be a concern."

Also, please cite peer-reviewed papers showing that CO2 emissions don't result in ocean acidification. That's also necessary before claiming "it would not be a concern."

These High School Physics explanations of why CO2 causes warming of the Earth's surface are wrong, because the simple effect supports the "nothing to worry about" argument. The truth is more complex, vastly harder to model, and the results are not so obvious as you seem to think.

High school physics explanations? I've explained: greenhouse gases re-emit some of the upwelling long-wave IR, and it bounces around the troposphere until it gets to a height known as the "effective radiating level". Above this height (roughly 7km), there aren’t enough greenhouse gases to keep "most" of the IR from escaping to space altogether. This effective radiating level controls the outflow of heat from the Earth. Stefan-Boltzmann tells us that power radiated is proportional to temperature^4, and temperature decreases with height in the troposphere. Adding greenhouse gases raises the height of this effective radiating level, where it is cooler, which therefore decreases the outflow of heat from the Earth. This is the greenhouse effect, and it isn’t saturated because the effective radiating level can just keep getting higher (e.g. Venus).

I've also repeatedly noted complex factors like pressure broadening, which makes the greenhouse effect different on Venus, Earth and Mars.

I've also told the Sky Dragon Slayers that anyone who wants a more in-depth explanation should watch this video. Note that my explanations are similar to those from Rasmus Benestad and Ray Pierrehumbert:

"Despite the fact that Venus has vastly more CO2 in its atmosphere than Earth, the same basic principles govern the operation of the greenhouse effect for both planets: the fact that air cools by expansion as it rises means that the upper parts of the atmosphere are colder than the surface, while the opacity of greenhouse gases to infrared means that infrared radiation can only escape from

You're only making yourself look foolish here, by oversimplifying the issue so much that you're actually wrong.

Oversimplifying the issue would be claiming there's "nothing to worry about" while over a dozen national science academies say with one voice that "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable."

Put in the simplest terms: if CO2 in Venus's atmosphere acted like it does in Earth's atmosphere, Venus would be quite a bit cooler. If the direct blackbody effect of CO2 being warmed by IR, and in term warming the Earth via IR, was the primary warming concern in Earth's atmosphere it would not be a concern.

What scientific literature supports your opinion that CO2 emissions aren't a concern? When atmospheric CO2 is doubled, what equilibrium temperature rise results? Please cite peer-reviewed papers with equilibrium CO2 climate sensitivities that you actually accept. Otherwise it's not clear what sensitivity study prompted you to claim "it would not be a concern."

Also, please cite peer-reviewed papers showing that CO2 emissions don't result in ocean acidification. That's also necessary before claiming "it would not be a concern."

These High School Physics explanations of why CO2 causes warming of the Earth's surface are wrong, because the simple effect supports the "nothing to worry about" argument. The truth is more complex, vastly harder to model, and the results are not so obvious as you seem to think.

High school physics explanations? I've explained: greenhouse gases re-emit some of the upwelling long-wave IR, and it bounces around the troposphere until it gets to a height known as the "effective radiating level". Above this height (roughly 7km), there aren’t enough greenhouse gases to keep "most" of the IR from escaping to space altogether. This effective radiating level controls the outflow of heat from the Earth. Stefan-Boltzmann tells us that power radiated is proportional to temperature^4, and temperature decreases with height in the troposphere. Adding greenhouse gases raises the height of this effective radiating level, where it is cooler, which therefore decreases the outflow of heat from the Earth. This is the greenhouse effect, and it isn’t saturated because the effective radiating level can just keep getting higher (e.g. Venus).

I've also repeatedly noted complex factors like pressure broadening, which makes the greenhouse effect different on Venus, Earth and Mars.

I've also told the Sky Dragon Slayers that anyone who wants a more in-depth explanation should watch this video. Note that my explanations are similar to those from Rasmus Benestad and Ray Pierrehumbert:

"Despite the fact that Venus has vastly more CO2 in its atmosphere than Earth, the same basic principles govern the operation of the greenhouse effect for both planets: the fact that air cools by expansion as it rises means that the upper parts of the atmosphere are colder than the surface, while the opacity of greenhouse gases to infrared means that infrared radiation can only escape from

So will Jane stop incorrectly claiming that the globe isn't warming, or will Jane stop citing Llovel et al. 2014, which depends on the globe warming? Or will he simply chug along without acknowledging this contradiction?

Will Jane ever support his accusation about GRACE with a link to whichever WUWT article he thinks supports his accusation? Or will he simply keep making that accusation with no evidence whatsoever?

Your math was fundamentally in error, in that you counted some radiated power twice... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]

Completely backwards, as usual. In reality, Jane didn't notice that his electrical heating power halved when the enclosing shell was added, because Jane counted radiative power twice.

... If your idea of the physics were correct, a heat source within a cavity of the same material would form a positive feedback loop and heat to infinity. Which of course is ridiculous. You never did adequately explain how your positive feedback could occur only once, and then stop. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]

Good grief, not this nonsense again. I never described a positive feedback loop that occured only once, then stopped. In fact, several months ago I explained that the equations I'm using account for an infinite series of reflections. But as MIT explained, this infinite sum converges to a finite temperature.

Jane's never adequately explained why Venus is hotter than Mercury. Is Venus hotter than Mercury because of CO2, gray Oreos, or basketball player gloves?

... I don't give a damn if Postma is rude... as long as his physics is sound. Like me, he has had to deal with innumerable assaults by other rude people, who DON'T understand the physics. After a time, that does have an effect, and one gets to the point of having a short fuse. That's just human nature, when people are exposed to bullying and harassment for years on end. If people are bothered by his rudeness, and wonder what caused it, many of them need only look in a mirror. I have little sympathy for them. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]

I've had to deal with innumerable assaults by rude people who don't understand the physics, and then accuse me of being rude and insulting without evidence. Somehow, I've managed to avoid accusing them of being "complete and utter idiots" who are brain dead and hate themselves and everything else and go far beyond Nazism and want to murder people.

I cite Mr. Postma because he understands the physics of the problem better than you do. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]

Actually, Jane's claiming that Mr. Postma understands the physics of the problem better than me, Prof. Brown, Dr. Joel Shore, th

@ProfBrianCox Having said all that, this particular evidence has been based on data from the GRACE satellite, which in the past has turned out to be something of a DISgrace... but they say they have the problems worked out now. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-20]

Assuming the rather huge problems with GRACE's accuracy have been fixed. It is claimed they were. Perhaps they have been. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-24]

At the risk of provoking this response, could you please link to evidence of these rather huge problems with GRACE's accuracy which in the past has turned out to be something of a DISgrace?

... how could I be "reflexively dismissing it" if my own statement, which you quoted, was "THOSE temperatures are no surprise and have already been accounted for"??? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-24]

Only if you suggested that some blog summary of sea surface temperatures contradicted the Llovel et al. 2014 claim of significant warming down to 2000m.

... As for other depths, this paper contradicts the other one I cited earlier. Are you telling us that you get to decide which one is correct? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-22]

... The Llovel paper contradicts other papers in regard to stored heat in the upper ocean. I linked to a summary of some of them earlier. According to THEM, there has been no observed upward trend, so my position that there is no significant warming is quite defensible. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-23]

But it's worse than that. For some reason, Jane seems to think that he can cite Llovel et al. 2014 regarding abyssal ocean temperatures, while also claiming their upper ocean temperatures aren't correct.

Except I did not do that. You have had a very nasty habit of twisting what other people say. That's dishonest. I've pointed that out to you many times, over a period of years. You really need to start reading what people actually say rather than interpreting so heavily. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-24]

You seemed to suggest that some blog summary of sea surface temperatures contradicted the Llovel et al. 2014 claim of significant warming down to 2000m. Since we now seem to agree that there is significant warming down to 2000m, there's no reason to accuse anyone of dishonesty.

... are you now claiming, as you seem to be, that the "missing heat" cause of the pause in surface warming is actually hiding in the UPPER ocean, rather than the lower? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-24]

I'm claiming that Llovel et al. 2014 concludes: "The net warming of the ocean implies an energy imbalance for the Earth of 0.64 +/- 0.44 W/m^2 from 2005 to 2013."

I'm claiming that this conclusion is inconsistent with your claims that the g

@ProfBrianCox Having said all that, this particular evidence has been based on data from the GRACE satellite, which in the past has turned out to be something of a DISgrace... but they say they have the problems worked out now. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-20]

Assuming the rather huge problems with GRACE's accuracy have been fixed. It is claimed they were. Perhaps they have been. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-24]

At the risk of provoking this response, could you please link to evidence of these rather huge problems with GRACE's accuracy which in the past has turned out to be something of a DISgrace?

... how could I be "reflexively dismissing it" if my own statement, which you quoted, was "THOSE temperatures are no surprise and have already been accounted for"??? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-24]

Only if you suggested that some blog summary of sea surface temperatures contradicted the Llovel et al. 2014 claim of significant warming down to 2000m.

... As for other depths, this paper contradicts the other one I cited earlier. Are you telling us that you get to decide which one is correct? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-22]

... The Llovel paper contradicts other papers in regard to stored heat in the upper ocean. I linked to a summary of some of them earlier. According to THEM, there has been no observed upward trend, so my position that there is no significant warming is quite defensible. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-23]

But it's worse than that. For some reason, Jane seems to think that he can cite Llovel et al. 2014 regarding abyssal ocean temperatures, while also claiming their upper ocean temperatures aren't correct.

Except I did not do that. You have had a very nasty habit of twisting what other people say. That's dishonest. I've pointed that out to you many times, over a period of years. You really need to start reading what people actually say rather than interpreting so heavily. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-24]

You seemed to suggest that some blog summary of sea surface temperatures contradicted the Llovel et al. 2014 claim of significant warming down to 2000m. Since we now seem to agree that there is significant warming down to 2000m, there's no reason to accuse anyone of dishonesty.

... are you now claiming, as you seem to be, that the "missing heat" cause of the pause in surface warming is actually hiding in the UPPER ocean, rather than the lower? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-24]

I'm claiming that Llovel et al. 2014 concludes: "The net warming of the ocean implies an energy imbalance for the Earth of 0.64 +/- 0.44 W/m^2 from 2005 to 2013."

I'm claiming that this conclusion is inconsistent with your claims that the g

The “pause” (political doublespeak) is 18 now. And a recent study showed “missing” heat is NOT in the ocean. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-14]

... the Argo array has been measuring the upper-level sea temperatures since 2005. THOSE temperatures are no surprise and have already been accounted for. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-22]

Did you see my comment about Argo, or not? The ISSUE here was precisely the deep ocean (> 2000m depth). Upper temps were known. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-11-06]

Jane/Lonny Eachus used to agree that temperatures above 2000m depth were known and were no surprise while simultaneously claiming that the globe isn't warming. When he realizes the contradiction, which path will he take? Will Jane/Lonny realize this means that the globe is still warming? Or will Jane/Lonny just reflexively dismiss the temperatures above 2000m depth?

... As for other depths, this paper contradicts the other one I cited earlier. Are you telling us that you get to decide which one is correct? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-22]

... The Llovel paper contradicts other papers in regard to stored heat in the upper ocean. I linked to a summary of some of them earlier. According to THEM, there has been no observed upward trend, so my position that there is no significant warming is quite defensible. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-23]

No, that blog summary discusses sea surface temperatures. How could that possibly contradict the Llovel et al. 2014 study of ocean temperature data down to 2000m?

But it's worse than that. For some reason, Jane seems to think that he can cite Llovel et al. 2014 regarding abyssal ocean temperatures, while also claiming their upper ocean temperatures aren't correct.

Perhaps Jane simply hasn't read Llovel et al. 2014. Their conclusion depends on the fact that:

total sea level rise = thermal expansion + land ice melting

Total sea level rise can be measured using satellite altimetry, and land ice melting can be measured by using the GRACE satellites. The remaining sea level rise is due to thermal expansion. Since ocean temperatures have been measured down to 2000m depth using ARGO, only the abyssal thermal expansion below 2000m is unknown.

Llovel et al. 2014 basically re-arranged that equation:

thermal expansion below 2000m depth = total sea level rise - thermal expansion above 2000m - land ice melting

That's why Jane can't cite Llovel et al. 2014 regarding abyssal ocean temperatures, while claiming that their upper ocean temperatures aren't correct. Their abyssal ocean temperatures are obtained by subtracting the ARGO upper ocean temperatures and GRACE non-steric sea level rise from the total sea level rise revealed by satellite altimetry.

So if Jane claims that ocean temperatures above 2000m depth aren't warming, that means the steric sealevel rise must be due to abyssal warming below 2000m depth. Physics says that Jane can't have his cake and eat it too.

Oh, and once again: ocean temperatures down to 2000m are different than sea surface temperatures. Seriously. There's like 2000m of difference between the two

The “pause” (political doublespeak) is 18 now. And a recent study showed “missing” heat is NOT in the ocean. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-14]

... the Argo array has been measuring the upper-level sea temperatures since 2005. THOSE temperatures are no surprise and have already been accounted for. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-22]

Did you see my comment about Argo, or not? The ISSUE here was precisely the deep ocean (> 2000m depth). Upper temps were known. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-11-06]

Jane/Lonny Eachus used to agree that temperatures above 2000m depth were known and were no surprise while simultaneously claiming that the globe isn't warming. When he realizes the contradiction, which path will he take? Will Jane/Lonny realize this means that the globe is still warming? Or will Jane/Lonny just reflexively dismiss the temperatures above 2000m depth?

... As for other depths, this paper contradicts the other one I cited earlier. Are you telling us that you get to decide which one is correct? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-22]

... The Llovel paper contradicts other papers in regard to stored heat in the upper ocean. I linked to a summary of some of them earlier. According to THEM, there has been no observed upward trend, so my position that there is no significant warming is quite defensible. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-23]

No, that blog summary discusses sea surface temperatures. How could that possibly contradict the Llovel et al. 2014 study of ocean temperature data down to 2000m?

But it's worse than that. For some reason, Jane seems to think that he can cite Llovel et al. 2014 regarding abyssal ocean temperatures, while also claiming their upper ocean temperatures aren't correct.

Perhaps Jane simply hasn't read Llovel et al. 2014. Their conclusion depends on the fact that:

total sea level rise = thermal expansion + land ice melting

Total sea level rise can be measured using satellite altimetry, and land ice melting can be measured by using the GRACE satellites. The remaining sea level rise is due to thermal expansion. Since ocean temperatures have been measured down to 2000m depth using ARGO, only the abyssal thermal expansion below 2000m is unknown.

Llovel et al. 2014 basically re-arranged that equation:

thermal expansion below 2000m depth = total sea level rise - thermal expansion above 2000m - land ice melting

That's why Jane can't cite Llovel et al. 2014 regarding abyssal ocean temperatures, while claiming that their upper ocean temperatures aren't correct. Their abyssal ocean temperatures are obtained by subtracting the ARGO upper ocean temperatures and GRACE non-steric sea level rise from the total sea level rise revealed by satellite altimetry.

So if Jane claims that ocean temperatures above 2000m depth aren't warming, that means the steric sealevel rise must be due to abyssal warming below 2000m depth. Physics says that Jane can't have his cake and eat it too.

Oh, and once again: ocean temperatures down to 2000m are different than sea surface temperatures. Seriously. There's like 2000m of difference between the two

The “pause” (political doublespeak) is 18 now. And a recent study showed “missing” heat is NOT in the ocean. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-14]

... the Argo array has been measuring the upper-level sea temperatures since 2005. THOSE temperatures are no surprise and have already been accounted for. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-22]

Did you see my comment about Argo, or not? The ISSUE here was precisely the deep ocean (> 2000m depth). Upper temps were known. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-11-06]

Jane/Lonny Eachus used to agree that temperatures above 2000m depth were known and were no surprise while simultaneously claiming that the globe isn't warming. When he realizes the contradiction, which path will he take? Will Jane/Lonny realize this means that the globe is still warming? Or will Jane/Lonny just reflexively dismiss the temperatures above 2000m depth?

... As for other depths, this paper contradicts the other one I cited earlier. Are you telling us that you get to decide which one is correct? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-22]

... The Llovel paper contradicts other papers in regard to stored heat in the upper ocean. I linked to a summary of some of them earlier. According to THEM, there has been no observed upward trend, so my position that there is no significant warming is quite defensible. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-23]

No, that blog summary discusses sea surface temperatures. How could that possibly contradict the Llovel et al. 2014 study of ocean temperature data down to 2000m?

But it's worse than that. For some reason, Jane seems to think that he can cite Llovel et al. 2014 regarding abyssal ocean temperatures, while also claiming their upper ocean temperatures aren't correct.

Perhaps Jane simply hasn't read Llovel et al. 2014. Their conclusion depends on the fact that:

total sea level rise = thermal expansion + land ice melting

Total sea level rise can be measured using satellite altimetry, and land ice melting can be measured by using the GRACE satellites. The remaining sea level rise is due to thermal expansion. Since ocean temperatures have been measured down to 2000m depth using ARGO, only the abyssal thermal expansion below 2000m is unknown.

Llovel et al. 2014 basically re-arranged that equation:

thermal expansion below 2000m depth = total sea level rise - thermal expansion above 2000m - land ice melting

That's why Jane can't cite Llovel et al. 2014 regarding abyssal ocean temperatures, while claiming that their upper ocean temperatures aren't correct. Their abyssal ocean temperatures are obtained by subtracting the ARGO upper ocean temperatures and GRACE non-steric sea level rise from the total sea level rise revealed by satellite altimetry.

So if Jane claims that ocean temperatures above 2000m depth aren't warming, that means the steric sealevel rise must be due to abyssal warming below 2000m depth. Physics says that Jane can't have his cake and eat it too.

Oh, and once again: ocean temperatures down to 2000m are different than sea surface temperatures. Seriously. There's like 2000m of difference between the two

Obviously sincere apologies wouldn't be familiar to you. Instead, I was referring to the anger-driven over-reactions she was apologizing for. Don't you see how cursing and insulting people at the slightest provocation could be seen as escalating the language to prove that you're tougher and meaner than anyone else?

"Requires Hate" seems to have recognized that, but only after her troll identities had been publicly revealed. After Benjanun Sriduangkaew was unmasked as Winterfox/"Requires Hate"/etc., she decided that "I don’t want to go back to the brute armor and the constant anger. I’d like to negotiate the world through a language other than rage and hate and force."

I have also paid for beta access.
The game is NOT fun. It's a fucking disaster.

First of all, what's good: The visuals, audio, UI, graphics, etc. Everything related to how the game looks and feels is top-notch. It suckers you in that way.
What's bad: The gameplay.

Oh lord the gameplay. In one word: Shallow. It's like a pile of disjointed minigames. Everything is "there" in the sense of a checkmark on a list, but it is not there in the sense of "I actually want to play this."

And the game is monetized out the ass.

For the longwinded bits, read below:

More detail:
Combat: Like your typical "spacesim", AI is easy to kill, and between players - whoever has the biggest most expensive ship is the winner. Skill doesn't enter the picture because ships are not sidegrades, they are direct upgrades. The incompetent player with 1 million credits will always beat the skilled noob in his sidewinder, no exception. The combat brings nothing new to the genre and lacks serious complexity. (They have a good idea with their stealth system, but it's tacked on rather than a core concept in dogfighting like it needs to be) In spite of all these problems, the combat is probably the best/most fleshed out portion of gameplay and the one that can be legitimately fun for awhile.

Mining: In every game I have ever played, mining has been an exercise in tedium. This game is no different. You shoot an asteroid with a laser until it pops out a rock that you scoop up. Repeat ad nauseum.

Money: Get this out of the way quickly, everything you do - mining, combat, missions, trading - earns you next to nothing. To put it into perspective, the most expensive ship in the game was the Anaconda at 150 million credits (after every stage of beta they increased its price, who knows what it'll be post-launch). Your average mission earns you 15,000cr and takes about 5-30 minutes to complete. If you are extremely dedicated you could probably earn ~100,000cr/hr (more is possible with a good traderoute and a lot of cargospace, but this is hard to find now). It'll take a good year of playing multiple hours per day, to afford the most expensive ship. Then the upgrades to that ship will double or triple its cost, at the least. There were comments by Braben (co-creator) [archive link in case reddit deletes the post as they are known to do with touchy subjects] that the game is going to come with a cash shop. Considering the grind and the comment about the cash shop for credits, I can understand why they wanted to get rid of the offline singleplayer: They don't want people modding the game to get what they paid for.

Trading: It's really just hauling goods, and it's rather boring. There is a 15 minute video here which shows almost the entirety of trading gameplay. (Not including hours spent trying to find a decent traderoute) You fly back and forth, earn a few thousand credits for the trouble and that's that. There used to be a trading calculator available on the forums - you downloaded it, it would check the trade good prices wherever you docked and give you a centralized database from everyone else's information which allowed you to pick the best trade routes. People were using it to make boatloads of cash and Frontier, failing to think of a way to counter this tool by making trade interesting, instead banned it.

Exploration: You literally jump into a system and hold down a button for 5 seconds. Your ship "pings" everything nearby and if its newly discovered, it gets added to the exploration catalog and earns you 1,000-10,000cr (depending on number of planets/stars you found and only after returning to a space station). You can also fly close to the stellar object to do a detailed scan - but it takes a long time to fly around a system and the reward is peanuts. Maybe 500cr per planet. It's faster

You have no clue. It is hilarious.

More men than woman are being attacked in regards to gamergate.

You are defending people like this guy:
Geordie Tait has some strong words for Star City Games (hilariously, it was because the sites indexing system changed, but naw man, naw, gamergate, fuck them)
Have some fun listening to a possibly borderline psychotic person that might actually lose his mind.
This guy, just like most of the people involved in GamerGates targets, are mentally unstable. To the extremes.
I honestly fear some innocent people are going to get physically hurt by these weird fucks.

For a person supposedly in the know, you don't know shit.

If that were what actually happened, yeah, that would've been a nice world.

But... see, they say that, then make their attempt at a wikipedia article about gamergate, that they were given special permission to craft without outside interference, from non-members all about zoe quinn.

They don't have the ability to not be sexist douchebags, and they don't have any history of making attempts at meaningful changes to videogame journalism.

Sure. I'll elaborate by correcting your timeline:

1) Dev writes game in 2013, has people testing the game, or trying it for feedback including Nathan Grayson (who is thanked in the game's credits, alongside other friends of dev).
2) Dev is a part of a game jam that fails in late 2013.
3) Dev has friendship with Nathan Grayson, writer at RPS at the time (later Kotaku). Grayson publishes article about 50 games added to Steam, putting a picture of Depression Quest, a choose-your-own-adventure text game as the primary article image (over actual games) and considering it the number one highlight of the bunch. Grayson does not disclose friendship, or early access to game, or any other involvement with dev or the game. Grayson does not even disclose how he chose the highlights, or if he played any other game. https://archive.today/iS4Ru.
4) Dev is filmed with friend, Nathan Grayson, in a bed, in a hotel room, at the end of GDC in 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?.... Date of recording is at the end of GDC which was held from March 2-6.
5) Nathan Grayson writes hit piece on GAME_JAM, painting dev in a very favorable light, with choice quotes and plugging her own game jam (which she profits from personally): https://archive.today/0KhZv. Her game is also mentioned. This is published on March 31, almost a month after the GDC video is filmed. No disclosure about their friendship or relationship is presented. Totilo had not been informed of anything at this time.
6) Nathan Grayson and dev "allegedly" begin a sexual relationship the next day, on April 1, 2014, according to Grayson and Totilo. This contradicts information presented from sources close to dev, however, and Kotaku claims they were only "professional acquaintances" at the time of publication, which contradicts all information available.

~ None of the previous information is publicly known except the publications (and the failed game jam) until after the next point ~

7) thezoepost is created in August, 2014. In it, ex-boyfriend of dev cites clear psychologically abusive behavior of dev during their relationship and points out that dev is a pathological liar who slept around, including with people who could help her career, such as Nathan Grayson. He ended it because she could not stop the "let's make this work" followed by abuse merry-go-round. He advises everyone to be extremely cautious and not trust dev.
8) Many jokes, including "five guys, burgers and fries" and #TheQuinnspiracy are born. This is in jest, there is little outrage about the scandal. People begin digging into allegations of impropriety on Nathan Grayson's part, amongst other parties.
9) Discussion around corruption in journalism explodes on major websites, such as reddit and 4chan. It is apparent that this is only the tip of the iceberg. People begin stockpiling evidence of other violations, and more still come forward with personal stories from inside of corruption.
10) Mass censorship of the discussion about the entire ordeal, including all discussion of corruption in journalism. Basically everything on every major website is completely and totally deleted.
11) Huge backlash occurs. IA publishes second video on the topic, mainly focusing on the censorship. Adam Baldwin tweets #gamergate, linking to IA's videos, after the second one is published, responding to the censorship of discussion of the first video.
12) "Gamers are dead" articles are published.
14) GJP is outed and proof of collusion is made public.
15) GJP members begin publishing many articles pushing the narrative that says GamerGate supporters misogynists, racists, white cis hetero males, who just want to keep women out of the industry and out of their games "hobby".
16) Many news outlets unaffiliated take these stories as fact (including Wikipedia) and continue to spread the false narrative. This is not unexpected, as

Sure. I'll elaborate by correcting your timeline:

1) Dev writes game in 2013, has people testing the game, or trying it for feedback including Nathan Grayson (who is thanked in the game's credits, alongside other friends of dev).
2) Dev is a part of a game jam that fails in late 2013.
3) Dev has friendship with Nathan Grayson, writer at RPS at the time (later Kotaku). Grayson publishes article about 50 games added to Steam, putting a picture of Depression Quest, a choose-your-own-adventure text game as the primary article image (over actual games) and considering it the number one highlight of the bunch. Grayson does not disclose friendship, or early access to game, or any other involvement with dev or the game. Grayson does not even disclose how he chose the highlights, or if he played any other game. https://archive.today/iS4Ru.
4) Dev is filmed with friend, Nathan Grayson, in a bed, in a hotel room, at the end of GDC in 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?.... Date of recording is at the end of GDC which was held from March 2-6.
5) Nathan Grayson writes hit piece on GAME_JAM, painting dev in a very favorable light, with choice quotes and plugging her own game jam (which she profits from personally): https://archive.today/0KhZv. Her game is also mentioned. This is published on March 31, almost a month after the GDC video is filmed. No disclosure about their friendship or relationship is presented. Totilo had not been informed of anything at this time.
6) Nathan Grayson and dev "allegedly" begin a sexual relationship the next day, on April 1, 2014, according to Grayson and Totilo. This contradicts information presented from sources close to dev, however, and Kotaku claims they were only "professional acquaintances" at the time of publication, which contradicts all information available.

~ None of the previous information is publicly known except the publications (and the failed game jam) until after the next point ~

7) thezoepost is created in August, 2014. In it, ex-boyfriend of dev cites clear psychologically abusive behavior of dev during their relationship and points out that dev is a pathological liar who slept around, including with people who could help her career, such as Nathan Grayson. He ended it because she could not stop the "let's make this work" followed by abuse merry-go-round. He advises everyone to be extremely cautious and not trust dev.
8) Many jokes, including "five guys, burgers and fries" and #TheQuinnspiracy are born. This is in jest, there is little outrage about the scandal. People begin digging into allegations of impropriety on Nathan Grayson's part, amongst other parties.
9) Discussion around corruption in journalism explodes on major websites, such as reddit and 4chan. It is apparent that this is only the tip of the iceberg. People begin stockpiling evidence of other violations, and more still come forward with personal stories from inside of corruption.
10) Mass censorship of the discussion about the entire ordeal, including all discussion of corruption in journalism. Basically everything on every major website is completely and totally deleted.
11) Huge backlash occurs. IA publishes second video on the topic, mainly focusing on the censorship. Adam Baldwin tweets #gamergate, linking to IA's videos, after the second one is published, responding to the censorship of discussion of the first video.
12) "Gamers are dead" articles are published.
14) GJP is outed and proof of collusion is made public.
15) GJP members begin publishing many articles pushing the narrative that says GamerGate supporters misogynists, racists, white cis hetero males, who just want to keep women out of the industry and out of their games "hobby".
16) Many news outlets unaffiliated take these stories as fact (including Wikipedia) and continue to spread the false narrative. This is not unexpected, as

... I repeat: your use of a heat transfer equation, rather than a radiant power equation, to calculate the radiant power output of the hottest object in an isolated vacuum environment is just laughable. Your own "power in = power out" claim shows it to be wrong. It contradicts your own calculations, which I showed to be wrong 3 different ways. Hell, you even got some simple math wrong. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-23]

Once again, Jane confuses "radiant power output" with "electrical heating power". Since "electrical heating power" is zero if the chamber walls are at the same temperature as the source, Jane is simply wrong to use a "radiant power output" equation to describe "electrical heating power". As I just explained, mainstream physicists and even most climate contrarians agree that "electrical heating power" has to account for the chamber wall temperature.

If Jane tried just once to write down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the source without wrongly "cancelling" terms, he'd realize that this Slayer nonsense is wrong.

Or maybe Jane could listen to Prof. Brian Cox. Jane/Lonny Eachus likes Prof. Brian Cox and is very bothered by the fact that Prof. Cox agrees with mainstream physics. Jane/Lonny urges Prof. Cox to take time from his obviously busy schedule to review the actual state of the science on this extremely important subject.

Jane/Lonny seems to think that physicists just need to be told the glorious Sky Dragon Slayer "truth" and then they'll happily abandon conservation of energy. Maybe Jane/Lonny Eachus could convince physicists like Prof. Cox by finally writing down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the source without wrongly "cancelling" terms? Or maybe Jane/Lonny could just ask Prof. Cox if the required electrical heating power depends on the cooler vacuum chamber wall temperature?

I bet Jane/Lonny Eachus $100 that Prof. Cox answers "yes" to the previous question. Is Jane/Lonny Eachus chicken?

... I repeat: your use of a heat transfer equation, rather than a radiant power equation, to calculate the radiant power output of the hottest object in an isolated vacuum environment is just laughable. Your own "power in = power out" claim shows it to be wrong. It contradicts your own calculations, which I showed to be wrong 3 different ways. Hell, you even got some simple math wrong. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-23]

Once again, Jane confuses "radiant power output" with "electrical heating power". Since "electrical heating power" is zero if the chamber walls are at the same temperature as the source, Jane is simply wrong to use a "radiant power output" equation to describe "electrical heating power". As I just explained, mainstream physicists and even most climate contrarians agree that "electrical heating power" has to account for the chamber wall temperature.

If Jane tried just once to write down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the source without wrongly "cancelling" terms, he'd realize that this Slayer nonsense is wrong.

Or maybe Jane could listen to Prof. Brian Cox. Jane/Lonny Eachus likes Prof. Brian Cox and is very bothered by the fact that Prof. Cox agrees with mainstream physics. Jane/Lonny urges Prof. Cox to take time from his obviously busy schedule to review the actual state of the science on this extremely important subject.

Jane/Lonny seems to think that physicists just need to be told the glorious Sky Dragon Slayer "truth" and then they'll happily abandon conservation of energy. Maybe Jane/Lonny Eachus could convince physicists like Prof. Cox by finally writing down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the source without wrongly "cancelling" terms? Or maybe Jane/Lonny could just ask Prof. Cox if the required electrical heating power depends on the cooler vacuum chamber wall temperature?

I bet Jane/Lonny Eachus $100 that Prof. Cox answers "yes" to the previous question. Is Jane/Lonny Eachus chicken?

... I repeat: your use of a heat transfer equation, rather than a radiant power equation, to calculate the radiant power output of the hottest object in an isolated vacuum environment is just laughable. Your own "power in = power out" claim shows it to be wrong. It contradicts your own calculations, which I showed to be wrong 3 different ways. Hell, you even got some simple math wrong. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-23]

Once again, Jane confuses "radiant power output" with "electrical heating power". Since "electrical heating power" is zero if the chamber walls are at the same temperature as the source, Jane is simply wrong to use a "radiant power output" equation to describe "electrical heating power". As I just explained, mainstream physicists and even most climate contrarians agree that "electrical heating power" has to account for the chamber wall temperature.

If Jane tried just once to write down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the source without wrongly "cancelling" terms, he'd realize that this Slayer nonsense is wrong.

Or maybe Jane could listen to Prof. Brian Cox. Jane/Lonny Eachus likes Prof. Brian Cox and is very bothered by the fact that Prof. Cox agrees with mainstream physics. Jane/Lonny urges Prof. Cox to take time from his obviously busy schedule to review the actual state of the science on this extremely important subject.

Jane/Lonny seems to think that physicists just need to be told the glorious Sky Dragon Slayer "truth" and then they'll happily abandon conservation of energy. Maybe Jane/Lonny Eachus could convince physicists like Prof. Cox by finally writing down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the source without wrongly "cancelling" terms? Or maybe Jane/Lonny could just ask Prof. Cox if the required electrical heating power depends on the cooler vacuum chamber wall temperature?

I bet Jane/Lonny Eachus $100 that Prof. Cox answers "yes" to the previous question. Is Jane/Lonny Eachus chicken?

... I repeat: your use of a heat transfer equation, rather than a radiant power equation, to calculate the radiant power output of the hottest object in an isolated vacuum environment is just laughable. Your own "power in = power out" claim shows it to be wrong. It contradicts your own calculations, which I showed to be wrong 3 different ways. Hell, you even got some simple math wrong. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-23]

Once again, Jane confuses "radiant power output" with "electrical heating power". Since "electrical heating power" is zero if the chamber walls are at the same temperature as the source, Jane is simply wrong to use a "radiant power output" equation to describe "electrical heating power". As I just explained, mainstream physicists and even most climate contrarians agree that "electrical heating power" has to account for the chamber wall temperature.

If Jane tried just once to write down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the source without wrongly "cancelling" terms, he'd realize that this Slayer nonsense is wrong.

Or maybe Jane could listen to Prof. Brian Cox. Jane/Lonny Eachus likes Prof. Brian Cox and is very bothered by the fact that Prof. Cox agrees with mainstream physics. Jane/Lonny urges Prof. Cox to take time from his obviously busy schedule to review the actual state of the science on this extremely important subject.

Jane/Lonny seems to think that physicists just need to be told the glorious Sky Dragon Slayer "truth" and then they'll happily abandon conservation of energy. Maybe Jane/Lonny Eachus could convince physicists like Prof. Cox by finally writing down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the source without wrongly "cancelling" terms? Or maybe Jane/Lonny could just ask Prof. Cox if the required electrical heating power depends on the cooler vacuum chamber wall temperature?

I bet Jane/Lonny Eachus $100 that Prof. Cox answers "yes" to the previous question. Is Jane/Lonny Eachus chicken?

... Would you all like to see his dumbass failure at trying to school me in thermodynamics? All you have to do is follow his comments back a ways. A long ways... because he kept making the same nonsense arguments, over, and over, and over again, even after he had been shown how wrong they were. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-22]

Jane keeps insisting that this Sky Dragon Slayer equation describes electrical heating power:

My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Once again, that violates conservation of energy. Draw a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source

Jane's equation wrongly cancels "radiative power in" with a nonexistent term.

The BASIS of “greenhouse warming” -- back radiation -- has been SCIENTIFICALLY shown to be a load of hogwash. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-14]

No, Jane/Lonny Eachus's Slayer nonsense has been scientifically shown to violate conservation of energy. Unless, of course, Jane/Lonny can finally write down an energy conservation equation before wrongly "cancelling" terms?

It's fascinating that Jane/Lonny Eachus keeps insisting that mainstream physics is a hogwash dumbass failure. Jane/Lonny just needs to inform "dumbasses" like Prof. Brown, Dr. Joel Shore, physicists in the National Academies of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, the European Physical Society, etc.

Jane/Lonny's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense is so ridiculous that even prominent climate contrarians are rational enough to back away from the Slayers:

• Dr. Fred Singer finds it "surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence." The comments prove his point.
• Dr. Roy Spencer "clearly demonstrates that IR absorbing gases (greenhouse gases) reduce the Earth's ability to cool to outer space. No amount of obfuscation or strawman arguments in the comments section, below, will be able to get around this fact."
• Anthony Watts banned one of the original authors because of his nutty comments and later called the argument

... Would you all like to see his dumbass failure at trying to school me in thermodynamics? All you have to do is follow his comments back a ways. A long ways... because he kept making the same nonsense arguments, over, and over, and over again, even after he had been shown how wrong they were. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-22]

Jane keeps insisting that this Sky Dragon Slayer equation describes electrical heating power:

My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Once again, that violates conservation of energy. Draw a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source

Jane's equation wrongly cancels "radiative power in" with a nonexistent term.

The BASIS of “greenhouse warming” -- back radiation -- has been SCIENTIFICALLY shown to be a load of hogwash. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-14]

No, Jane/Lonny Eachus's Slayer nonsense has been scientifically shown to violate conservation of energy. Unless, of course, Jane/Lonny can finally write down an energy conservation equation before wrongly "cancelling" terms?

It's fascinating that Jane/Lonny Eachus keeps insisting that mainstream physics is a hogwash dumbass failure. Jane/Lonny just needs to inform "dumbasses" like Prof. Brown, Dr. Joel Shore, physicists in the National Academies of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, the European Physical Society, etc.

Jane/Lonny's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense is so ridiculous that even prominent climate contrarians are rational enough to back away from the Slayers:

• Dr. Fred Singer finds it "surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence." The comments prove his point.
• Dr. Roy Spencer "clearly demonstrates that IR absorbing gases (greenhouse gases) reduce the Earth's ability to cool to outer space. No amount of obfuscation or strawman arguments in the comments section, below, will be able to get around this fact."
• Anthony Watts banned one of the original authors because of his nutty comments and later called the argument

... Would you all like to see his dumbass failure at trying to school me in thermodynamics? All you have to do is follow his comments back a ways. A long ways... because he kept making the same nonsense arguments, over, and over, and over again, even after he had been shown how wrong they were. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-22]

Jane keeps insisting that this Sky Dragon Slayer equation describes electrical heating power:

My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Once again, that violates conservation of energy. Draw a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source

Jane's equation wrongly cancels "radiative power in" with a nonexistent term.

The BASIS of “greenhouse warming” -- back radiation -- has been SCIENTIFICALLY shown to be a load of hogwash. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-14]

No, Jane/Lonny Eachus's Slayer nonsense has been scientifically shown to violate conservation of energy. Unless, of course, Jane/Lonny can finally write down an energy conservation equation before wrongly "cancelling" terms?

It's fascinating that Jane/Lonny Eachus keeps insisting that mainstream physics is a hogwash dumbass failure. Jane/Lonny just needs to inform "dumbasses" like Prof. Brown, Dr. Joel Shore, physicists in the National Academies of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, the European Physical Society, etc.

Jane/Lonny's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense is so ridiculous that even prominent climate contrarians are rational enough to back away from the Slayers:

• Dr. Fred Singer finds it "surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence." The comments prove his point.
• Dr. Roy Spencer "clearly demonstrates that IR absorbing gases (greenhouse gases) reduce the Earth's ability to cool to outer space. No amount of obfuscation or strawman arguments in the comments section, below, will be able to get around this fact."
• Anthony Watts banned one of the original authors because of his nutty comments and later called the argument

Granted, Goddard got some things wrong in the beginning, but lately he's been getting a lot more right, as even GISS has admitted. [Jane Q. Public]

Have they. Do you have a link to this admission? [Truth_Quark]

Do you really want to ask for that link? Watch what happened the last time someone asked Jane/Lonny Eachus for that link:

GISS ADMITTED GODDARD WAS RIGHT. YOU DIDN’T KNOW. YOU’RE IGNORANT OF THE FACTS. LEARN THEM. MEANTIME, GO AWAY. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

Try Google, dumbshit. Unless you don’t know how. It took me all of 20 seconds. ... Why? Why should I do this for you? Would you like me to wash your balls too? Answer: no. ... The fact I WON’T wash your balls for you is not evidence that they don’t exist. The fact that YOU won’t, IS. ... Correct. To all outside observers, so far, your balls don’t exist. Why don’t you prove that they do? show us. ... Should we just ASSUME it? Or, like you, should we require that you SHOW US? ... To make an even better analogy: there is a picture of them that has been posted online by your girlfriend. ... BUT we don’t believe you really have any. Should we ask you to prove they’re yours? Every time we discuss it? [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

Sorry, dude. You aren’t going to get me to wash your balls. The rest of us are looking at pictures of your girlfriend. wondering when you’re going to say “I won’t hang them out again just for you. Look it up.” [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

Are you REALLY that fucking stupid? [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

I’ve insulted you because you deserve it. Arguments were made. Your inability to absorb them is not evidence. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

I guarantee something: that doesn’t make ME an asshole. I’ll leave it up to others what it does mean. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

Granted, Goddard got some things wrong in the beginning, but lately he's been getting a lot more right, as even GISS has admitted. [Jane Q. Public]

Have they. Do you have a link to this admission? [Truth_Quark]

Do you really want to ask for that link? Watch what happened the last time someone asked Jane/Lonny Eachus for that link:

GISS ADMITTED GODDARD WAS RIGHT. YOU DIDN’T KNOW. YOU’RE IGNORANT OF THE FACTS. LEARN THEM. MEANTIME, GO AWAY. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

Try Google, dumbshit. Unless you don’t know how. It took me all of 20 seconds. ... Why? Why should I do this for you? Would you like me to wash your balls too? Answer: no. ... The fact I WON’T wash your balls for you is not evidence that they don’t exist. The fact that YOU won’t, IS. ... Correct. To all outside observers, so far, your balls don’t exist. Why don’t you prove that they do? show us. ... Should we just ASSUME it? Or, like you, should we require that you SHOW US? ... To make an even better analogy: there is a picture of them that has been posted online by your girlfriend. ... BUT we don’t believe you really have any. Should we ask you to prove they’re yours? Every time we discuss it? [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

Sorry, dude. You aren’t going to get me to wash your balls. The rest of us are looking at pictures of your girlfriend. wondering when you’re going to say “I won’t hang them out again just for you. Look it up.” [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

Are you REALLY that fucking stupid? [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

I’ve insulted you because you deserve it. Arguments were made. Your inability to absorb them is not evidence. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

I guarantee something: that doesn’t make ME an asshole. I’ll leave it up to others what it does mean. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

Granted, Goddard got some things wrong in the beginning, but lately he's been getting a lot more right, as even GISS has admitted. [Jane Q. Public]

Have they. Do you have a link to this admission? [Truth_Quark]

Do you really want to ask for that link? Watch what happened the last time someone asked Jane/Lonny Eachus for that link:

GISS ADMITTED GODDARD WAS RIGHT. YOU DIDN’T KNOW. YOU’RE IGNORANT OF THE FACTS. LEARN THEM. MEANTIME, GO AWAY. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

Try Google, dumbshit. Unless you don’t know how. It took me all of 20 seconds. ... Why? Why should I do this for you? Would you like me to wash your balls too? Answer: no. ... The fact I WON’T wash your balls for you is not evidence that they don’t exist. The fact that YOU won’t, IS. ... Correct. To all outside observers, so far, your balls don’t exist. Why don’t you prove that they do? show us. ... Should we just ASSUME it? Or, like you, should we require that you SHOW US? ... To make an even better analogy: there is a picture of them that has been posted online by your girlfriend. ... BUT we don’t believe you really have any. Should we ask you to prove they’re yours? Every time we discuss it? [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

Sorry, dude. You aren’t going to get me to wash your balls. The rest of us are looking at pictures of your girlfriend. wondering when you’re going to say “I won’t hang them out again just for you. Look it up.” [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

Are you REALLY that fucking stupid? [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

I’ve insulted you because you deserve it. Arguments were made. Your inability to absorb them is not evidence. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

I guarantee something: that doesn’t make ME an asshole. I’ll leave it up to others what it does mean. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

Granted, Goddard got some things wrong in the beginning, but lately he's been getting a lot more right, as even GISS has admitted. [Jane Q. Public]

Have they. Do you have a link to this admission? [Truth_Quark]

Do you really want to ask for that link? Watch what happened the last time someone asked Jane/Lonny Eachus for that link:

GISS ADMITTED GODDARD WAS RIGHT. YOU DIDN’T KNOW. YOU’RE IGNORANT OF THE FACTS. LEARN THEM. MEANTIME, GO AWAY. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

Try Google, dumbshit. Unless you don’t know how. It took me all of 20 seconds. ... Why? Why should I do this for you? Would you like me to wash your balls too? Answer: no. ... The fact I WON’T wash your balls for you is not evidence that they don’t exist. The fact that YOU won’t, IS. ... Correct. To all outside observers, so far, your balls don’t exist. Why don’t you prove that they do? show us. ... Should we just ASSUME it? Or, like you, should we require that you SHOW US? ... To make an even better analogy: there is a picture of them that has been posted online by your girlfriend. ... BUT we don’t believe you really have any. Should we ask you to prove they’re yours? Every time we discuss it? [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

Sorry, dude. You aren’t going to get me to wash your balls. The rest of us are looking at pictures of your girlfriend. wondering when you’re going to say “I won’t hang them out again just for you. Look it up.” [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

Are you REALLY that fucking stupid? [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

I’ve insulted you because you deserve it. Arguments were made. Your inability to absorb them is not evidence. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

I guarantee something: that doesn’t make ME an asshole. I’ll leave it up to others what it does mean. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

Granted, Goddard got some things wrong in the beginning, but lately he's been getting a lot more right, as even GISS has admitted. [Jane Q. Public]

Have they. Do you have a link to this admission? [Truth_Quark]

Do you really want to ask for that link? Watch what happened the last time someone asked Jane/Lonny Eachus for that link:

GISS ADMITTED GODDARD WAS RIGHT. YOU DIDN’T KNOW. YOU’RE IGNORANT OF THE FACTS. LEARN THEM. MEANTIME, GO AWAY. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

Try Google, dumbshit. Unless you don’t know how. It took me all of 20 seconds. ... Why? Why should I do this for you? Would you like me to wash your balls too? Answer: no. ... The fact I WON’T wash your balls for you is not evidence that they don’t exist. The fact that YOU won’t, IS. ... Correct. To all outside observers, so far, your balls don’t exist. Why don’t you prove that they do? show us. ... Should we just ASSUME it? Or, like you, should we require that you SHOW US? ... To make an even better analogy: there is a picture of them that has been posted online by your girlfriend. ... BUT we don’t believe you really have any. Should we ask you to prove they’re yours? Every time we discuss it? [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

Sorry, dude. You aren’t going to get me to wash your balls. The rest of us are looking at pictures of your girlfriend. wondering when you’re going to say “I won’t hang them out again just for you. Look it up.” [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

Are you REALLY that fucking stupid? [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

I’ve insulted you because you deserve it. Arguments were made. Your inability to absorb them is not evidence. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

I guarantee something: that doesn’t make ME an asshole. I’ll leave it up to others what it does mean. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

Granted, Goddard got some things wrong in the beginning, but lately he's been getting a lot more right, as even GISS has admitted. [Jane Q. Public]

Have they. Do you have a link to this admission? [Truth_Quark]

Do you really want to ask for that link? Watch what happened the last time someone asked Jane/Lonny Eachus for that link:

GISS ADMITTED GODDARD WAS RIGHT. YOU DIDN’T KNOW. YOU’RE IGNORANT OF THE FACTS. LEARN THEM. MEANTIME, GO AWAY. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

Try Google, dumbshit. Unless you don’t know how. It took me all of 20 seconds. ... Why? Why should I do this for you? Would you like me to wash your balls too? Answer: no. ... The fact I WON’T wash your balls for you is not evidence that they don’t exist. The fact that YOU won’t, IS. ... Correct. To all outside observers, so far, your balls don’t exist. Why don’t you prove that they do? show us. ... Should we just ASSUME it? Or, like you, should we require that you SHOW US? ... To make an even better analogy: there is a picture of them that has been posted online by your girlfriend. ... BUT we don’t believe you really have any. Should we ask you to prove they’re yours? Every time we discuss it? [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

Sorry, dude. You aren’t going to get me to wash your balls. The rest of us are looking at pictures of your girlfriend. wondering when you’re going to say “I won’t hang them out again just for you. Look it up.” [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

Are you REALLY that fucking stupid? [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

I’ve insulted you because you deserve it. Arguments were made. Your inability to absorb them is not evidence. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

I guarantee something: that doesn’t make ME an asshole. I’ll leave it up to others what it does mean. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

Granted, Goddard got some things wrong in the beginning, but lately he's been getting a lot more right, as even GISS has admitted. [Jane Q. Public]

Have they. Do you have a link to this admission? [Truth_Quark]

Do you really want to ask for that link? Watch what happened the last time someone asked Jane/Lonny Eachus for that link:

GISS ADMITTED GODDARD WAS RIGHT. YOU DIDN’T KNOW. YOU’RE IGNORANT OF THE FACTS. LEARN THEM. MEANTIME, GO AWAY. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

Try Google, dumbshit. Unless you don’t know how. It took me all of 20 seconds. ... Why? Why should I do this for you? Would you like me to wash your balls too? Answer: no. ... The fact I WON’T wash your balls for you is not evidence that they don’t exist. The fact that YOU won’t, IS. ... Correct. To all outside observers, so far, your balls don’t exist. Why don’t you prove that they do? show us. ... Should we just ASSUME it? Or, like you, should we require that you SHOW US? ... To make an even better analogy: there is a picture of them that has been posted online by your girlfriend. ... BUT we don’t believe you really have any. Should we ask you to prove they’re yours? Every time we discuss it? [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

Sorry, dude. You aren’t going to get me to wash your balls. The rest of us are looking at pictures of your girlfriend. wondering when you’re going to say “I won’t hang them out again just for you. Look it up.” [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

Are you REALLY that fucking stupid? [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

I’ve insulted you because you deserve it. Arguments were made. Your inability to absorb them is not evidence. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

I guarantee something: that doesn’t make ME an asshole. I’ll leave it up to others what it does mean. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-30]

I haven't expended ANY energy to avoid writing anything down. I've written down the proper and necessary equations not just once but many times now. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-13]

Ironically, Jane's still trying hard to avoid writing down his energy conservation equation before wrongly "cancelling" terms. If he'd try to write down that equation just once, he might realize that the nonsensical equation he's written down many times isn't proper or necessary.

I don't need to write down a "conservation of energy equation" in regard to Spencer's experiment. I don't refuse to do it because I can't, as you have clearly implied. I refuse to do it because this is a dead issue. You were proved wrong weeks ago, and your demands for additional proof from me are just laughable. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-13]

If Jane actually could write down an energy conservation equation before wrongly "cancelling" terms, Jane would see that "radiative power from the walls" can't cancel out.

Once again, the only way Jane's final term could cancel with the radiative power in term "(e*s)*T4^4" to obtain Jane's final equation would be if "radiative power from chamber walls, re-emitted back out" equals "(e*s)*T4^4". But it's being emitted by the source, which is at temperature T1. If reflections confuse you, just remember that the gray body equation has to reduce to the black body equation where there aren't any reflections at all. In that case, all that power is being absorbed and re-emitted, not reflected.

If Jane would write down an energy conservation equation and think about it, he might realize that he's been endlessly crowing about "proving me wrong" using Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense that violates conservation of energy and/or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

But since Jane's Slayer brainwashing is so thorough that he can't bring himself to write down that equation, Jane will probably keep endlessly crowing about "proving me wrong".

Ironically, if Jane's Slayer nonsense was right, Jane would also have "proven wrong" Prof. Brown, Dr. Joel Shore, the National Academies of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, the European Physical Society, etc.

... YOU are the one going against "established" physics here. ... If you could actually show how the physics textbook idea of heat transfer was wrong, you would be world famous by now. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-06]

No, I'd have to get in line behind all those other physicists who agree that adding CO2 warms Earth's surface, which is equivalent to saying that enclosing a heat source warms it. This is probably the most fascinating part of Jane's delusion. Not only does Jane completely misunderstand fundamental physics, Jane seems to earnestly believe that his crackpot Slayer conspiracy theory represents "established" physics. Fascina

That's ridiculous, Jane. Notice that "net radiative power out" equals negative "net radiative power in". Since Jane seems to agree that "net radiative power out" is positive, "net radiative power in" can't be zero. It has to be negative, which just means more radiative power is flowing out than flowing in.

Now you've just gone off the deep end. And by "deep end" I mean the deep end of the pit full of BS you've dug yourself. Just no. Any spherical boundary you draw within this system has additional input: your vaunted electrical power. I'm amazed that you finally got so caught up in your own bullshit that you made a mistake quite THAT fundamental. Get stuffed, troll. For that and actually quite a pile of other reasons that have built up over time, I still don't believe you're a real physicist. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-12]

Electrical power isn't radiative power, so it wouldn't be included in net radiative power.

... I have written down all I need to write down to answer Spencer's challenge. I solved for the correct temperature, and showed your own answer to be utterly wrong. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-11]

Once again, Jane's solution halved the electrical heating power. Jane didn't notice this because he calculated net transfer incorrectly, which led him to the absurd conclusion that Jane was only off by about 0.1% when Jane was actually off by ~100%.

So Jane hasn't written down all he needs to give the correct answer to Spencer's challenge. To give the correct answer, Jane has to draw a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from source

This is the same answer that Prof. Brown and Dr. Joel Shore tried to explain to Jane. It's also the same answer that underlies the positions taken by the National Academies of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, and the European Physical Society, etc.

... YOU are the one going against "established" physics here. ... If you could actually show how the physics textbook idea of heat transfer was wrong, you would be world famous by now. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-06]

No, I'd have to get in line behind all those other physicists who agree that adding CO2 warms Earth's surface, which is equivalent to saying that enclosing a heat source warms it. This is probably the most fascinating part of Jane's delusion. Not only does Jane completely misunderstand fundamental physics, Jane seems to earnestly believe that his crackpot Slayer conspiracy theor

Jack Thompson stuck around for years despite the exact same treatment. Everyone needs to stop looking at this from the angle of treating women like weak hapless victims and start teaching women to ignore trolls like everyone else.

Your theory falls flat when it turns out men get the same shit women do and the difference is in how everyone ELSE reacts. Men are expected to deal with it or ignore it, women get a crusade against the troll because "ZOMG MISOGYNY!"

Nobody is trying to scare women away. Men get the Same Shit, the only difference is men are taught to ignore it or deal with it. Women are taught to damsel themselves and be helpless victims. Nobody cares when men get trolled or doxxed or swatted, when women get so much as trolled it's the end of the world.

Jack Thompson got the same threats and many men have been doxxed. Moving and running away for 7 years are purely things SHE CHOSE to do, not something she was forced to do. Men aren't given the luxury of doing things like that and having it considered reasonable behavior.

Really? Then why is this transgender feminist basically the ONLY feminist publicly calling out the fact feminists have closed ranks to defend an outright domestic abuser? Where's that "by and large" you were just talking about? As Wythe writes the sanitization and apologia for abuse and bigotry in social justice is a staggering problem, women brave enough to build girls schools in pakistan are afraid of targetted revenge attacks for being a "gender traitor".

If anything you said were true there'd basically be people in the streets right now over the racism, sexism, and transphobia rampant in Social Justice circles and the deliberate targetted attacks against women and minorities speaking out against primarily affluent white social justice warriors.

The truth is you're the one packing straw to fabricate a moral panic. Jack Thompson got trolled like many prominent people do and nobody gave a fuck, hell most people mocked him. When it happens to a woman suddenly people like you consider this the end of the world.

Considering I've seen the abuse Jack Thompson got yes I can. What I can't see is anyone giving a shit, unlike when a woman gets any sort of trolling whatsoever then it's suddenly the end of the world. The difference isn't in the trolling or even the amount, it's in the fact people actually *care*.

No, we just react differently even though we have evidence men are harassed more. When a man is harassed on the internet, even by his domestic abuser nobody gives a shit or they go after HIM. When a woman is harassed on the other hand it's the end of the world and a civil rights issue.

Again, I originally assumed black bodies because they're simpler: black bodies don't reflect any radiation. That means "power in" depends on the chamber walls and "power out" through that boundary only depends on the heat source.

I have it on record where you insisted that we assume gray bodies so that we could include a term for emissivity. Seriously. You insisted. I'm not going to look it up this late at night, because you are getting completely ridiculous. But I am sure as hell going to include it in my publication. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Remember to include that part where I originally assumed black bodies because they're simpler. And the part where Jane insisted that "we should use real materials with real emissivities and absorptivies. Just to keep everybody honest."

But black bodies aren't "dishonest". Also, Jane should make sure to include the part where Jane said I was "lying again" for considering a black body source.

But if Jane wants to work on the simpler black body problem that I originally proposed months ago, that's fine with me. It's simpler, and easier to learn from.

... the equation for radiant power emittance at steady state does NOT say "X + ( (epsilon * sigma) * T^4) - X". It simply says (epsilon * sigma) * T^4. Because it's already known that X cancels out!!! ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

No, that's because the equation for radiant power emittance doesn't have anything to do with conservation of energy, so those extra terms wouldn't be in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation in the first place.

That's what I've been trying to tell you, Jane. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation can give you "radiative power out" but only a completely different principle called "conservation of energy" can give you a totally different quantity known as "electrical heating power".

My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

So you're saying electrical heating power is the same as radiative power out? What did that energy conservation equation look like before you cancelled terms? It's important.

Jane still hasn't written down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the heated source which links "electrical heating power" to "radiative power out".

Yes, I have. I have done it at least several times before, and I just did it again. Not only did I give you the equations, I showed you my exact calculations. Why are you lying again, and trying to claim I did not do something that I very clearly and provably did do? In fact, since you seem to be so obsessed with archiving other people's comments, I am sure you have several instances of where I've showed this to you before. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Jane, just two days ago you claimed that you didn't say radiative power out was the same as electrical heating power, and that they don't need to be the same. Today you're saying they are the same.

Again, I originally assumed black bodies because they're simpler: black bodies don't reflect any radiation. That means "power in" depends on the chamber walls and "power out" through that boundary only depends on the heat source.

I have it on record where you insisted that we assume gray bodies so that we could include a term for emissivity. Seriously. You insisted. I'm not going to look it up this late at night, because you are getting completely ridiculous. But I am sure as hell going to include it in my publication. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Remember to include that part where I originally assumed black bodies because they're simpler. And the part where Jane insisted that "we should use real materials with real emissivities and absorptivies. Just to keep everybody honest."

But black bodies aren't "dishonest". Also, Jane should make sure to include the part where Jane said I was "lying again" for considering a black body source.

But if Jane wants to work on the simpler black body problem that I originally proposed months ago, that's fine with me. It's simpler, and easier to learn from.

... the equation for radiant power emittance at steady state does NOT say "X + ( (epsilon * sigma) * T^4) - X". It simply says (epsilon * sigma) * T^4. Because it's already known that X cancels out!!! ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

No, that's because the equation for radiant power emittance doesn't have anything to do with conservation of energy, so those extra terms wouldn't be in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation in the first place.

That's what I've been trying to tell you, Jane. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation can give you "radiative power out" but only a completely different principle called "conservation of energy" can give you a totally different quantity known as "electrical heating power".

My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

So you're saying electrical heating power is the same as radiative power out? What did that energy conservation equation look like before you cancelled terms? It's important.

Jane still hasn't written down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the heated source which links "electrical heating power" to "radiative power out".

Yes, I have. I have done it at least several times before, and I just did it again. Not only did I give you the equations, I showed you my exact calculations. Why are you lying again, and trying to claim I did not do something that I very clearly and provably did do? In fact, since you seem to be so obsessed with archiving other people's comments, I am sure you have several instances of where I've showed this to you before. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Jane, just two days ago you claimed that you didn't say radiative power out was the same as electrical heating power, and that they don't need to be the same. Today you're saying they are the same.

Again, why does Jane think if something doesn't affect the power out, it can't affect the power in? For example, black body "power in" depends on the chamber walls even though "power out" through that boundary doesn't depend on the chamber walls.

Not according to my thermodynamics textbooks. Simply stating this, and linking to yourself stating it again elsewhere, isn't any kind of argument. In analyzing Spencer's challenge, we could have assumed black bodies. The only reason we didn't was because YOU insisted that you wanted to include an emissivity figure. But it still doesn't change the general principle. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Again, I originally assumed black bodies because they're simpler: black bodies don't reflect any radiation. That means "power in" depends on the chamber walls and "power out" through that boundary only depends on the heat source.

Again, why does Jane think if something doesn't affect the power out, it can't affect the power in?

Conservation of energy. Your own idea of power in through a boundary = power out through that boundary. If your boundary is around JUST the heat source, the only NET power in is electricity, and the only NET power out is radiation. I see absolutely no reason (if we assume 100% efficiency) that these should not be equal. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

The crucial assumption isn't 100% efficiency, it's that nothing inside the boundary is changing. If not, power in != power out. Either way, conservation of energy doesn't imply that "if something doesn't affect the power out, it can't affect the power in." Otherwise it would apply to black bodies, and that isn't true. Otherwise it would apply even if that source is warming, so power in > power out, but that isn't true either.

Your continued assertion that, at steady-state, the presence of a nearby cooler body somehow affects the power output of a warmer body at known temperature is a bizarre violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The power output is what it is. It depends only on emissivity and temperature. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Once again, Jane confuses "radiative power out" which depends only on emissivity and temperature, with "electrical heating power" which goes to zero if the chamber walls are also at 150F.

This does not even remotely resemble my equation. The textbook thermodynamic answer is: radiant power out at steady-state, per unit area, equals (emissivity * Stefan-Boltzmann constant) * T^4. That's all. The end. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Jane coyly says that my attempt to understand Jane's energy conservation equation doesn't even remotely resemble Jane's super-secret energy conservation equation. Which he still refuses to write down.

Then, once again, Jane writes down the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which only determines "radiative power out" without even trying to write down an energy conservation equation to show how it relates to "electrical heating power". This means Jane either doesn't understand that "radiative power out" is different than "electrical heating power", or Jane doesn't understand that conservation of energy is necessary to l

Again, why does Jane think if something doesn't affect the power out, it can't affect the power in? For example, black body "power in" depends on the chamber walls even though "power out" through that boundary doesn't depend on the chamber walls.

Not according to my thermodynamics textbooks. Simply stating this, and linking to yourself stating it again elsewhere, isn't any kind of argument. In analyzing Spencer's challenge, we could have assumed black bodies. The only reason we didn't was because YOU insisted that you wanted to include an emissivity figure. But it still doesn't change the general principle. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Again, I originally assumed black bodies because they're simpler: black bodies don't reflect any radiation. That means "power in" depends on the chamber walls and "power out" through that boundary only depends on the heat source.

Again, why does Jane think if something doesn't affect the power out, it can't affect the power in?

Conservation of energy. Your own idea of power in through a boundary = power out through that boundary. If your boundary is around JUST the heat source, the only NET power in is electricity, and the only NET power out is radiation. I see absolutely no reason (if we assume 100% efficiency) that these should not be equal. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

The crucial assumption isn't 100% efficiency, it's that nothing inside the boundary is changing. If not, power in != power out. Either way, conservation of energy doesn't imply that "if something doesn't affect the power out, it can't affect the power in." Otherwise it would apply to black bodies, and that isn't true. Otherwise it would apply even if that source is warming, so power in > power out, but that isn't true either.

Your continued assertion that, at steady-state, the presence of a nearby cooler body somehow affects the power output of a warmer body at known temperature is a bizarre violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The power output is what it is. It depends only on emissivity and temperature. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Once again, Jane confuses "radiative power out" which depends only on emissivity and temperature, with "electrical heating power" which goes to zero if the chamber walls are also at 150F.

This does not even remotely resemble my equation. The textbook thermodynamic answer is: radiant power out at steady-state, per unit area, equals (emissivity * Stefan-Boltzmann constant) * T^4. That's all. The end. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Jane coyly says that my attempt to understand Jane's energy conservation equation doesn't even remotely resemble Jane's super-secret energy conservation equation. Which he still refuses to write down.

Then, once again, Jane writes down the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which only determines "radiative power out" without even trying to write down an energy conservation equation to show how it relates to "electrical heating power". This means Jane either doesn't understand that "radiative power out" is different than "electrical heating power", or Jane doesn't understand that conservation of energy is necessary to l

... don't try to tell me you're calculating the TOTAL electrical power needed to both heat the source and cool the walls, because that would be a different experiment. Spencer stipulated "electrical power" to the heat source. He left power to the walls unstated, except to say that they are maintained at 0 degrees F. He did not say the power to the heat source AND to the walls was constant. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-07]

Again, I've repeatedly explained that the power needed to cool the walls is irrelevant, and that it isn't required to be constant.

The problem with your theory is that you have failed to show that electrical power in = anything BUT power out. It isn't heat transfer, as you have several times asserted. Heat transfer to a cooler body has NO relevance to the radiated power output of a warmer body at known temperature. And since it does not affect the power out, it does not affect the power in. QED. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-07]

Again, why does Jane think if something doesn't affect the power out, it can't affect the power in? For example, black body "power in" depends on the chamber walls even though "power out" through that boundary doesn't depend on the chamber walls.

Since we agree that "electrical heating power" goes to zero when the chamber walls are also at 150F, has Jane also noticed that "net heat transfer" also goes to zero when the chamber walls are also at 150F?

Isn't that a weird coincidence? So why does Jane keep using an equation that depends on "electrical heating power = radiative power out" without even writing down an energy conservation equation to try to justify that claim? Has Jane even considered the possibility that if he applied conservation of energy, he'd find that electrical heating power really is determined by net heat transfer, rather than "radiative power out" which stays constant even if the chamber walls are also at 150F?

If you draw your boundary around just the heat source itself, since there is NO NET RADIATIVE POWER COMING IN (which doesn't then just go right back OUT, yielding a net of 0)... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-07]

If there's no net radiative power coming in, that must mean all the "power in" from the chamber walls just goes back out. That would yield a net of zero. But as usual Jane didn't write down the power in = power out equation showing these terms before they supposedly cancel. Is this what you mean, Jane?

Draw a boundary around the heat source:
Jane's power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from chamber walls
Jane's power out = radiative power out from source + radiative power from chamber walls, re-emitted back out

At steady state, Jane's power in = Jane's power out:

electrical heating power + radiative power in from chamber walls = radiative power out from source + radiative power from chamber walls, re-emitted back out (Jane's equation?)

Jane, is that your equation for required electrical heating power? By "NO NET RADIATIVE POWER COMING IN", are you saying "radiative power in from the chamber walls" = "radiative power from chamber walls, re-emitted back out"?

... don't try to tell me you're calculating the TOTAL electrical power needed to both heat the source and cool the walls, because that would be a different experiment. Spencer stipulated "electrical power" to the heat source. He left power to the walls unstated, except to say that they are maintained at 0 degrees F. He did not say the power to the heat source AND to the walls was constant. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-07]

Again, I've repeatedly explained that the power needed to cool the walls is irrelevant, and that it isn't required to be constant.

The problem with your theory is that you have failed to show that electrical power in = anything BUT power out. It isn't heat transfer, as you have several times asserted. Heat transfer to a cooler body has NO relevance to the radiated power output of a warmer body at known temperature. And since it does not affect the power out, it does not affect the power in. QED. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-07]

Again, why does Jane think if something doesn't affect the power out, it can't affect the power in? For example, black body "power in" depends on the chamber walls even though "power out" through that boundary doesn't depend on the chamber walls.

Since we agree that "electrical heating power" goes to zero when the chamber walls are also at 150F, has Jane also noticed that "net heat transfer" also goes to zero when the chamber walls are also at 150F?

Isn't that a weird coincidence? So why does Jane keep using an equation that depends on "electrical heating power = radiative power out" without even writing down an energy conservation equation to try to justify that claim? Has Jane even considered the possibility that if he applied conservation of energy, he'd find that electrical heating power really is determined by net heat transfer, rather than "radiative power out" which stays constant even if the chamber walls are also at 150F?

If you draw your boundary around just the heat source itself, since there is NO NET RADIATIVE POWER COMING IN (which doesn't then just go right back OUT, yielding a net of 0)... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-07]

If there's no net radiative power coming in, that must mean all the "power in" from the chamber walls just goes back out. That would yield a net of zero. But as usual Jane didn't write down the power in = power out equation showing these terms before they supposedly cancel. Is this what you mean, Jane?

Draw a boundary around the heat source:
Jane's power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from chamber walls
Jane's power out = radiative power out from source + radiative power from chamber walls, re-emitted back out

At steady state, Jane's power in = Jane's power out:

electrical heating power + radiative power in from chamber walls = radiative power out from source + radiative power from chamber walls, re-emitted back out (Jane's equation?)

Jane, is that your equation for required electrical heating power? By "NO NET RADIATIVE POWER COMING IN", are you saying "radiative power in from the chamber walls" = "radiative power from chamber walls, re-emitted back out"?

And I clearly mentioned that I do read Gamasutra, but haven't in the last little while.

"do not read" is an accurate description of "haven't read in the last little while". Main point is that you don't know what was said.

Here is the offending article. So now you do. https://archive.today/Awcw9

Excerpt:

"Gamer" isn't just a dated demographic label that most people increasingly prefer not to use. Gamers are over. That's why they're so mad.

These obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers -- they are not my audience. They don't have to be yours. There is no 'side' to be on, there is no 'debate' to be had.

For anyone interested, here is a link to the article Intel pulls ads from Gamasutra over. It is ... colourful in its descriptions of gaming to say the least.

'Game culture' as we know it is kind of embarrassing -- it's not even culture. It's buying things, spackling over memes and in-jokes repeatedly, and it's getting mad on the internet. ...

It's young men queuing with plush mushroom hats and backpacks and jutting promo poster rolls. Queuing passionately for hours, at events around the world, to see the things that marketers want them to see. To find out whether they should buy things or not. They don't know how to dress or behave. ...

Traditional "gaming" is sloughing off, culturally and economically, like the carapace of a bug. ...

These obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers -- they are not my audience. They don't have to be yours. There is no 'side' to be on, there is no 'debate' to be had.

About ten or so articles like this appeared over the course of a few days at the end of August across most of the top game news sites. Apparently, a lot of gamers were upset enough to write into site advertisers to request they stop sponsoring the offending site with ads. Intel have evidently made a dash for the door out of a building the owners have decided to set on fire.

The author of the piece, Leigh Alexander is a described feminist critique of video games and video game culture, as well as wider "geek" cultures. Her personal views on geeks and their fandoms are ... equally colourful.

Why do you sometimes mock 'nerds' and 'gamers' so virulently? Isn't that the same kind of bullying you rail against? ...

Self-identified nerds are often so obsessed with their identity as cultural outcasts that they are willfully blind to their privilege, and for the sake of relatively-absurd fandoms â" space marines, dragons, zombies, endless war simulations â" take their myopic and insular attitudes to "art" and "culture" with tunnel-visioned, inflexible, embarrassing seriousness that often leads to homogeneity, racism, sexism and bullying.

Nerds escaped high school. Some of them made millions making video games. Digital literacy doesn't make you special anymore, it makes you baseline employable. Fantasy is on mainstream cable. ...

The fact you got a Game Boy for Christmas and liked it so much you stopped doing anything else doesn't entitle you to a revolution. Your fandom is not your identity. Your fandom is not a race.

I am not convinced that this person is not an ultra-conservative plant sent to discredit feminist and progressivism in geek and gaming culture. If she is, she's making a spectacular effort at doing so. This entire furore is doing real damage to the genuine participation of women in the video game and even wider tech. Intel's pulling of ads might help take the oxygen out of this fire before the industry gets burned.

... As usual, you distort reality. Prof. Brown had nothing in the way of refutation or rebuttal or even retort to my second comment? Don't you find that interesting? I do. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-26]

It's not that interesting that Prof. Brown decided to ignore Jane/Lonny Eachus, given that he later said:

"Wow, Joel, I gotta say (after reading some of the replies on this thread) that this really is pointless. These folks have no conception of the FIRST law of thermodynamics, let alone the second. The argument for warming doesn't even require mentioning the SBE, it only requires the first law, the second law, and a monotonic relation between temperature difference in ANY channel and the rate of energy transfer in that channel, subject to very broad constraints.

But seriously, just a waste of time. When people just make stuff up and reject the contents of ELEMENTARY textbooks on the subject because they just don't like the conclusion those contents lead to, how can you argue with them? If somebody tries to solve the light bulb problem while pretending that it doesn't primarily cool via radiation and completely ignoring radiation, what can you do?

Get them to say "oops"?

Never happen. It's a religious issue, not a scientific one."

In other words, Prof. Brown gave up trying to educate Slayers like Jane/Lonny Eachus because it's a "waste of time."

... As for Joel Shore, again he was mis-applying an equation for heat transfer when he should have been using the equation for radiant power out. Both you and Shore insist on mis-applying this equation in a way that violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It's rather amusing that you brought him up, because you both FUCKED UP YOUR PHYSICS in a similar way. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-26]

That's odd. Just yesterday Jane had no argument with Dr. Shore. Now Jane claims that Dr. Shore "FUCKED UP" his physics.

... As for Joel Shore, again he was mis-applying an equation for heat transfer when he should have been using the equation for radiant power out. Both you and Shore insist on mis-applying this equation in a way that violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It's rather amusing that you brought him up, because you both FUCKED UP YOUR PHYSICS in a similar way. ... Engineers the world over do the math the way I did. So far that hasn't resulted in you either freezing or burning to death in your home. If they're all crazy, you might want to ask yourself why. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-26]

Physicists have "FUCKED UP" their physics, and only the Slayers can save the day! Or maybe the Slayers are crackpots. How could anyone tell, unless maybe Dr. Shore explained that:

"Actually, the idea that radiation goes only from the warmer to colder objects is an invention of the Slayers. It appears nowhere in the physics literature. I don't know about the exact history of our understanding, but my physics textbook from 1983 (Serway, "Physics for Scientists and Engineers", after introducing the law P = sigma*A*e*T^4 says

"A body radiates and also absorbs electromagnetic radiation at rates given by Eq. 17.11. If this were not the case, a body would eventually radiate all of its internal energy and its temperature would reach absolute zero. The energy that the body absorbs comes from the surroundings, which also em

... As usual, you distort reality. Prof. Brown had nothing in the way of refutation or rebuttal or even retort to my second comment? Don't you find that interesting? I do. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-26]

It's not that interesting that Prof. Brown decided to ignore Jane/Lonny Eachus, given that he later said:

"Wow, Joel, I gotta say (after reading some of the replies on this thread) that this really is pointless. These folks have no conception of the FIRST law of thermodynamics, let alone the second. The argument for warming doesn't even require mentioning the SBE, it only requires the first law, the second law, and a monotonic relation between temperature difference in ANY channel and the rate of energy transfer in that channel, subject to very broad constraints.

But seriously, just a waste of time. When people just make stuff up and reject the contents of ELEMENTARY textbooks on the subject because they just don't like the conclusion those contents lead to, how can you argue with them? If somebody tries to solve the light bulb problem while pretending that it doesn't primarily cool via radiation and completely ignoring radiation, what can you do?

Get them to say "oops"?

Never happen. It's a religious issue, not a scientific one."

In other words, Prof. Brown gave up trying to educate Slayers like Jane/Lonny Eachus because it's a "waste of time."

... As for Joel Shore, again he was mis-applying an equation for heat transfer when he should have been using the equation for radiant power out. Both you and Shore insist on mis-applying this equation in a way that violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It's rather amusing that you brought him up, because you both FUCKED UP YOUR PHYSICS in a similar way. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-26]

That's odd. Just yesterday Jane had no argument with Dr. Shore. Now Jane claims that Dr. Shore "FUCKED UP" his physics.

... As for Joel Shore, again he was mis-applying an equation for heat transfer when he should have been using the equation for radiant power out. Both you and Shore insist on mis-applying this equation in a way that violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It's rather amusing that you brought him up, because you both FUCKED UP YOUR PHYSICS in a similar way. ... Engineers the world over do the math the way I did. So far that hasn't resulted in you either freezing or burning to death in your home. If they're all crazy, you might want to ask yourself why. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-26]

Physicists have "FUCKED UP" their physics, and only the Slayers can save the day! Or maybe the Slayers are crackpots. How could anyone tell, unless maybe Dr. Shore explained that:

"Actually, the idea that radiation goes only from the warmer to colder objects is an invention of the Slayers. It appears nowhere in the physics literature. I don't know about the exact history of our understanding, but my physics textbook from 1983 (Serway, "Physics for Scientists and Engineers", after introducing the law P = sigma*A*e*T^4 says

"A body radiates and also absorbs electromagnetic radiation at rates given by Eq. 17.11. If this were not the case, a body would eventually radiate all of its internal energy and its temperature would reach absolute zero. The energy that the body absorbs comes from the surroundings, which also em

... These are just straw-man arguments, as usual. I have no argument with these other physicists. It was about Spencer's challenge and how YOU got it wrong, nothing more. Have you asked them, personally, about Spencer's experiment? (No, you haven't, or you would know you were wrong.) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-25]

Does Jane have the memory of a goldfish? Of course Jane has argued with these other physicists. Jane personally asked Prof. Brown about Sky Dragon Slayerism, but wasn't able to "educate" him. Lonny Eachus personally asked Dr. Joel Shore about Sky Dragon Slayerism, but wasn't able to "educate" him. And now Jane/Lonny Eachus fantasizes that these physicists agree with his Sky Dragon Slayerism? Maybe Jane/Lonny Eachus should read those exchanges again, and notice that Prof. Brown and Dr. Shore told Jane/Lonny Eachus the same things I am. That's because Prof. Brown, Dr. Shore and I are simply reiterating elementary mainstream physics.

... Bringing up OTHER arguments like greenhouse gases won't win THAT argument for you. You have already lost it. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-25]

How bizarre. The whole reason Slayers deny that an enclosed source warms is because that implies greenhouse gases can't warm the surface:

.. the CO2-warming model rely on the concept of "back radiation", which physicists (not climate scientists) have proved to be impossible. I'm happy to leave actual climate science to climate scientists. But when THEIR models rely on a fundamental misunderstanding of physics, I'll take the physicists' word for it, thank you very much. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-07-05]

That's why Jane, Dr. Latour and the rest of the Slayers disagree with the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, and the European Physical Society.

Again, how did we detect the 2.7K cosmic microwave background radiation with warmer detectors? How do uncooled IR detectors see cooler objects? Again, why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

If Sky Dragon Slayers could answer these questions without resorting to gray Oreos or basketball player gloves, physicists might take the Slayers more seriously.

.. Be a man for a change and admit it. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-15]

.. Be a man and admit the truth.. You've been owned, man. BE enough of a man to admit it. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-19]

... Time to act like a man and admit that you were wrong. ...

... I mean, didn't it send up a red flag when you took your answer and fed it back into standard heat transfer equations and it didn't balance? Oh, that's right... you didn't. But I did. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-24]

Completely backwards, as usual. I've already shown that my solution keeps electrical heating power constant. Once again, Jane's solution halved the electrical heating power. Jane didn't notice this because he calculated net transfer incorrectly, which led him to the absurd conclusion that Jane was only off by about 0.1% when Jane was actually off by ~100%.

... because ALL of the incoming cooler radiation is reflected or scattered, and no NET amount is absorbed... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-24]

Good grief, Jane. How did the Sky Dragon Slayers brainwash you into endlessly regurgitating this nonsense? Once again, radiation is absorbed by any surface with absorptivity > 0. Jane's either hopelessly confused about the very term "NET" which he keeps capitalizing, or Jane/Lonny Eachus has betrayed humanity by deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

Again, how do Slayers think we detected the 2.7K cosmic microwave background radiation with warmer detectors? How do Slayers think uncooled IR detectors see cooler objects? Again, why do Slayers think Venus is hotter than Mercury?

... I'm not arguing with you now and I'm not going to again. You're either a fool or a liar, and I do not care which. I have already proved it and I intend to publish that for the world to see. Along with textbook explanations and diagrams showing exactly where and how you went wrong. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-24]

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus actually means that he intends to show where mainstream physics "went wrong" according to the Sky Dragon Slayers. There are many ignorant, stupid physicists that Jane/Lonny Eachus needs to educate: Prof. Brown, Dr. Joel Shore, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, and the European Physical Society, etc.

.. Be a man for a change and admit it. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-15]

.. Be a man and admit the truth.. You've been owned, man. BE enough of a man to admit it. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-19]

.

Ironically, Jane's still insisting that warmer objects absorb no radiation from colder objects. Otherwise Jane wouldn't repeatedly object to including a term for radiation from the chamber walls in his calculation of required electrical power. Since Jane doesn't even include that term, Jane's assuming that warmer objects absorb no radiation from colder objects.

NO!!! This is just plain bullshit. I do NOT object to a term for electrical power. ... I don't object to a term for "electrical power" and never have. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-22]

I never said Jane objected to a term for "electrical power". I said Jane repeatedly objects to including a term for radiation from the chamber walls in his calculation of required electrical power. And Jane continues to do this:

... I simply asserted a physical truth: in our isolated system, the electrical power to the heat source, called for by Spencer, has zero dependency on the chamber walls. It is this nonsense dependency on the chamber walls that I have disputed, nothing else. That is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. ... My only objection is your insistence that the power input to the heat source is somehow related to radiation from the chamber walls. If these are treated as gray bodies: just no. That's a violation of Stefan-Boltzmann. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-22]

Ranting about imaginary violations of the Stefan-Boltzmann law won't help Jane understand physics. It might help Jane to draw a boundary around the heat source and think carefully about exactly why Jane keeps ignoring the heat radiated in from the chamber wells. Accounting for that radiation doesn't "violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law" but ignoring it violates conservation of energy.

... The power output is not dependent on the chamber walls, therefore the power input is not dependent on the chamber walls. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-21]

Why does Jane think the second part follows from the first? It doesn't. For example, black body "power in" depends on the chamber walls even though "power out" through that boundary doesn't depend on the chamber walls. Maybe Jane could explain why he wrote "therefore" when his reasoning fails to describe even a simple black body problem? (Keep in mind that the gray body equation has to reduce to the black body equation when emissivities = 1.)

Since Jane doesn't even include that term, Jane's assuming that warmer objects absorb no radiation from colder objects.

NO!!! Repeat, for about the 100th time now: no NET radiative power input from cooler objects. That is ALL I have claimed, and it's a direct result of the Stefan-Botlzmann radiation law. Why do you keep disputing textbook physics laws? Stop lying. Because that's all you're doing now. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-22]

Jane/Lonny Eachus can capitalize "NET" all he wants, but it doesn't change the fact that