Slashdot Mirror

Manabe was 14 years ago. Conditions have changed rather significantly in that time, as has our understanding of the geology. It may be that Manabe is still correct. On the other hand, it may not. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

No, Jane. Manabe et al. 1991 was 24 years ago. The fact that Manabe was 24 years ago is exactly why I've repeatedly showed it to you. They predicted that Antarctic sea ice would increase in a warming world, but you keep insisting that "The science is faulty at its roots. The models haven’t predicted one thing, in 30+ years. ... You don’t really need to know anything about the science except that IT HASN’T PREDICTED ANYTHING. That makes it bad theory. ... CO2 warming theory has predicted NOTHING."

In addition to the other 17 reasons I gave you, don't you think this is another reason you should reconsider making these baseless accusations?

I've told Jane and economart that Fig. 2(a) from Polyak et al. 2010 shows that the reconstructed Arctic sea ice extent in the 1930s was comparable to that in 1979, and the modern decline is quite clear.

You seem to feel that what "you told people" is necessarily truth. That's an interesting point of view. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

Huh? Jane, I just gave you links to peer-reviewed long-term reconstructions of Arctic sea ice extent in response to your insinuations that scientists are deliberately misleading. In response, Jane tries to guess at my feelings about what I "told people".

Instead, you might find it more productive to click on those links and learn about peer-reviewed long-term reconstructions of Arctic sea ice extent. Then maybe you'll be in a better position to judge whether you should dare to accuse scientists of deliberately misleading.

I've also repeatedly explained that Jane's accusations of deliberately misleading cherry-picking are completely backwards. As usual.

You are implying that my statement that 1981 was near a temporal local maximum is incorrect? You would rather use 1930 as your starting point? As opposed to, say, 2000 or 1850? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

Good grief, Jane. Once again, I'd rather use all the available data. In the context of using a single dataset, that means using all the data in that dataset. That's why it's so ironic that Jane baselessly accused Layzej of cherry-picking when he loaded the entire UAH dataset, then Jane suggested only using data since 1998. But Jane obviously won't ever be able to grasp this irony, because he just did the

Manabe was 14 years ago. Conditions have changed rather significantly in that time, as has our understanding of the geology. It may be that Manabe is still correct. On the other hand, it may not. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

No, Jane. Manabe et al. 1991 was 24 years ago. The fact that Manabe was 24 years ago is exactly why I've repeatedly showed it to you. They predicted that Antarctic sea ice would increase in a warming world, but you keep insisting that "The science is faulty at its roots. The models haven’t predicted one thing, in 30+ years. ... You don’t really need to know anything about the science except that IT HASN’T PREDICTED ANYTHING. That makes it bad theory. ... CO2 warming theory has predicted NOTHING."

In addition to the other 17 reasons I gave you, don't you think this is another reason you should reconsider making these baseless accusations?

I've told Jane and economart that Fig. 2(a) from Polyak et al. 2010 shows that the reconstructed Arctic sea ice extent in the 1930s was comparable to that in 1979, and the modern decline is quite clear.

You seem to feel that what "you told people" is necessarily truth. That's an interesting point of view. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

Huh? Jane, I just gave you links to peer-reviewed long-term reconstructions of Arctic sea ice extent in response to your insinuations that scientists are deliberately misleading. In response, Jane tries to guess at my feelings about what I "told people".

Instead, you might find it more productive to click on those links and learn about peer-reviewed long-term reconstructions of Arctic sea ice extent. Then maybe you'll be in a better position to judge whether you should dare to accuse scientists of deliberately misleading.

I've also repeatedly explained that Jane's accusations of deliberately misleading cherry-picking are completely backwards. As usual.

You are implying that my statement that 1981 was near a temporal local maximum is incorrect? You would rather use 1930 as your starting point? As opposed to, say, 2000 or 1850? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

Good grief, Jane. Once again, I'd rather use all the available data. In the context of using a single dataset, that means using all the data in that dataset. That's why it's so ironic that Jane baselessly accused Layzej of cherry-picking when he loaded the entire UAH dataset, then Jane suggested only using data since 1998. But Jane obviously won't ever be able to grasp this irony, because he just did the

...antarctic sea ice is at or near a record high... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

I've repeatedly told you this is consistent with Manabe et al. 1991 page 811: "... sea surface temperature hardly changes and sea ice slightly increases near the Antarctic Continent in response to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide."

... it's a bit of a mystery to me how they can claim that ice is melting due to unusual ocean warming, when we know that ocean surface ice has been at record levels. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

I've explained that Manabe et al. attributed the slight Antarctic sea ice increase to increased precipitation in the area. This freshens the frigid surface water and reduces mixing with the warmer water below. Other possibilities include stronger winds which spread out the ice and expose more surface water to be frozen.

Correction: arctic ice is below 1 standard deviation from 1981-2010 average, but within 2 std. deviations. Still, remember that 1981 is a (dare I say deliberately chosen?) high point from which to start measurements, so going by the 1981-2010 average is probably a bit misleading. And the total global ocean ice is still well above normal, because of the record high Antarctic ice right now. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

I've told Jane and economart that Fig. 2(a) from Polyak et al. 2010 shows that the reconstructed Arctic sea ice extent in the 1930s was comparable to that in 1979, and the modern decline is quite clear.

I've also repeatedly explained that Jane's accusations of deliberately misleading cherry-picking are completely backwards. As usual.

...antarctic sea ice is at or near a record high... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

I've repeatedly told you this is consistent with Manabe et al. 1991 page 811: "... sea surface temperature hardly changes and sea ice slightly increases near the Antarctic Continent in response to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide."

... it's a bit of a mystery to me how they can claim that ice is melting due to unusual ocean warming, when we know that ocean surface ice has been at record levels. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

I've explained that Manabe et al. attributed the slight Antarctic sea ice increase to increased precipitation in the area. This freshens the frigid surface water and reduces mixing with the warmer water below. Other possibilities include stronger winds which spread out the ice and expose more surface water to be frozen.

Correction: arctic ice is below 1 standard deviation from 1981-2010 average, but within 2 std. deviations. Still, remember that 1981 is a (dare I say deliberately chosen?) high point from which to start measurements, so going by the 1981-2010 average is probably a bit misleading. And the total global ocean ice is still well above normal, because of the record high Antarctic ice right now. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

I've told Jane and economart that Fig. 2(a) from Polyak et al. 2010 shows that the reconstructed Arctic sea ice extent in the 1930s was comparable to that in 1979, and the modern decline is quite clear.

I've also repeatedly explained that Jane's accusations of deliberately misleading cherry-picking are completely backwards. As usual.

... as usual, this alarmist paper only covers one aspect of a much larger picture. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-04-02]

That's an incredibly ironic accusation, coming from Jane/Lonny Eachus:

... by beginning at 1979, which you KNOW to be the coldest recent period, you exaggerate the warmer trend. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-09-03]

Naomi Oreskes says "contrarians" cherry-pick data by choosing anomalously hot years. But "warmists" have done the same by starting in 1979. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-05]

Amazing. You reply as Anonymous Coward, to someone who was making the case for repeatable peer-reviewed science, with an accusation that using 1998 is cherry picking, and cite Mother Jones??? Are you for real? I've got news for you: your precious warmism sources consistently start THEIR charts in 1979, and if that isn't cherry-picking, nothing is. The pot calling the kettle black. Actually, it doesn't even deserve that. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-02-22]

Good grief. Jane still seems to fundamentally misunderstand the term "cherry-picking". In the context of using a single dataset, cherry-picking means leaving out part of that dataset for reasons that have nothing to do with data quality, simply to "justify" a pre-determined conclusion.

Jane previously demonstrated that he doesn't understand this basic definition by mistakenly accusing Layzej of cherry-picking after he loaded the entire UAH dataset. Obviously I failed to explain that in the context of using a single dataset, loading the entire dataset is the exact opposite of cherry-picking.

At the time, I thought Jane's baseless accusation of cherry-picking combined with his hilariously ironic suggestion of leaving out data before 1998 might have been some kind of bizarre joke. But Jane's still peddling the same completely backwards bizarro world Jane-logic. Jane's either hopelessly confused about the term "cherry-picking" or he's really committed to his self-deprecating joke.

I guess we won't know until and unless Jane's camera crew pops out and tells us "smile, you're on Candid Camera!"

electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source

In the link I provided, Jane Q. Public explained why he/she dropped the "radiative power in" term as being negligible. I found the argument sufficient.

Having read your blog a bit more, I think it's time you dial back on your obsessive stalking. Glancing over your Dumb Scientist link, I see that you linked to my Slashdot posts dozens of times without ever discussing this with me or having a coherent argument for why you did so.

I don't really mind, since it increases the visibility of the posts. I think they're good material and will weather the years well. But you're missing an opportunity for enlightening and/or entertainment.

Just two weeks later, it becomes clear that Iâ(TM)ve failed to communicate once again. The futility of these conversations is depressing and frustrating. Itâ(TM)s just not worth trying to clear up this apparent confusion of ~200 year instrumental aggregates with ~650,000 year ice core proxies like EPICA.

Update: Iâ(TM)ve failed to communicate again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

Each "again" is a link to one of my posts over what appears to be a year period between 2013 and 2014. I can't tell if they're all climate related (I doubt a one of them has anything to do with 650k year ice cores), but I had fun reading through them. Since Slashdot works so poorly with Google search, I might have better luck searching for my global warming change-related posts via your blog than via Google. There's some good stuff in there. Maybe you ought to read through my stuff sometime.

As a final remark, I posted this on your website in 2011 and my opinion has not changed since except for the last paragraph (due to the current creepy stalker vibe).

Let me put it simply. I donâ(TM)t trust the current research. I donâ(TM)t trust your or my characterizations of the current research. I donâ(TM)t have the time to figure this out though my belief is that there is insufficient uncertainty in the predictions of future climate change.

I figure though that this will all settled down in a couple of decades. Weâ(TM)ll almost double the duration of satellite-based evidence (plus have a greater span of data collected) and global warming will be more pronounced by then. Further, the economics side will be better known. Weâ(TM)ll have a better idea of the future direction of fossil fuels since peak oil will probably happen by then with peak natural gas coming. Alternative technologies like solar cells (which appear to be declining in price per watt by about 50% per eight years) may obsolete some or most fossil fuel needs. Perhaps the problem will solve itself by then.

I thank you for this marvelous website though. You have been sincere, helpful, and knowledgeable. I will consider your words even though Iâ(TM)m obviously not very receptive at the moment.

That remains my position. A couple of decades of climate should be enough, if there's a near future problem. So far, it doesn't appear to indicate such a problem wih slow warming growth.

Furthermore, Jane should explain why he emphatically rejected the standard physics definition of the term "net".

There really appears to be something wrong with you. There are records of ALL our conversations about that. I did no such thing, and I could prove it AGAIN, if I cared to, but I have no reason to re-hash here old arguments you LOST a long time ago. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-16]

There are records of all our conversations about that here: Here are links to this never ending “conversation” 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. BACKUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.

As everyone can see, Jane ended his hundreds of pages of Sky Dragon Slayer claims by unilaterally and baselessly declaring victory, and

Furthermore, Jane should explain why he emphatically rejected the standard physics definition of the term "net".

There really appears to be something wrong with you. There are records of ALL our conversations about that. I did no such thing, and I could prove it AGAIN, if I cared to, but I have no reason to re-hash here old arguments you LOST a long time ago. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-16]

There are records of all our conversations about that here: Here are links to this never ending “conversation” 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. BACKUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.

As everyone can see, Jane ended his hundreds of pages of Sky Dragon Slayer claims by unilaterally and baselessly declaring victory, and

Furthermore, Jane should explain why he emphatically rejected the standard physics definition of the term "net".

There really appears to be something wrong with you. There are records of ALL our conversations about that. I did no such thing, and I could prove it AGAIN, if I cared to, but I have no reason to re-hash here old arguments you LOST a long time ago. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-16]

There are records of all our conversations about that here: Here are links to this never ending “conversation” 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. BACKUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.

As everyone can see, Jane ended his hundreds of pages of Sky Dragon Slayer claims by unilaterally and baselessly declaring victory, and

Furthermore, Jane should explain why he emphatically rejected the standard physics definition of the term "net".

There really appears to be something wrong with you. There are records of ALL our conversations about that. I did no such thing, and I could prove it AGAIN, if I cared to, but I have no reason to re-hash here old arguments you LOST a long time ago. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-16]

There are records of all our conversations about that here: Here are links to this never ending “conversation” 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. BACKUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.

As everyone can see, Jane ended his hundreds of pages of Sky Dragon Slayer claims by unilaterally and baselessly declaring victory, and

Furthermore, Jane should explain why he emphatically rejected the standard physics definition of the term "net".

There really appears to be something wrong with you. There are records of ALL our conversations about that. I did no such thing, and I could prove it AGAIN, if I cared to, but I have no reason to re-hash here old arguments you LOST a long time ago. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-16]

There are records of all our conversations about that here: Here are links to this never ending “conversation” 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. BACKUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.

As everyone can see, Jane ended his hundreds of pages of Sky Dragon Slayer claims by unilaterally and baselessly declaring victory, and

Furthermore, Jane should explain why he emphatically rejected the standard physics definition of the term "net".

There really appears to be something wrong with you. There are records of ALL our conversations about that. I did no such thing, and I could prove it AGAIN, if I cared to, but I have no reason to re-hash here old arguments you LOST a long time ago. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-16]

There are records of all our conversations about that here: Here are links to this never ending “conversation” 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. BACKUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.

As everyone can see, Jane ended his hundreds of pages of Sky Dragon Slayer claims by unilaterally and baselessly declaring victory, and

Furthermore, Jane should explain why he emphatically rejected the standard physics definition of the term "net".

There really appears to be something wrong with you. There are records of ALL our conversations about that. I did no such thing, and I could prove it AGAIN, if I cared to, but I have no reason to re-hash here old arguments you LOST a long time ago. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-16]

There are records of all our conversations about that here: Here are links to this never ending “conversation” 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. BACKUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.

As everyone can see, Jane ended his hundreds of pages of Sky Dragon Slayer claims by unilaterally and baselessly declaring victory, and

Furthermore, Jane should explain why he emphatically rejected the standard physics definition of the term "net".

There really appears to be something wrong with you. There are records of ALL our conversations about that. I did no such thing, and I could prove it AGAIN, if I cared to, but I have no reason to re-hash here old arguments you LOST a long time ago. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-16]

There are records of all our conversations about that here: Here are links to this never ending “conversation” 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. BACKUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.

As everyone can see, Jane ended his hundreds of pages of Sky Dragon Slayer claims by unilaterally and baselessly declaring victory, and

Furthermore, Jane should explain why he emphatically rejected the standard physics definition of the term "net".

There really appears to be something wrong with you. There are records of ALL our conversations about that. I did no such thing, and I could prove it AGAIN, if I cared to, but I have no reason to re-hash here old arguments you LOST a long time ago. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-16]

There are records of all our conversations about that here: Here are links to this never ending “conversation” 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. BACKUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.

As everyone can see, Jane ended his hundreds of pages of Sky Dragon Slayer claims by unilaterally and baselessly declaring victory, and

Furthermore, Jane should explain why he emphatically rejected the standard physics definition of the term "net".

There really appears to be something wrong with you. There are records of ALL our conversations about that. I did no such thing, and I could prove it AGAIN, if I cared to, but I have no reason to re-hash here old arguments you LOST a long time ago. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-16]

There are records of all our conversations about that here: Here are links to this never ending “conversation” 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. BACKUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.

As everyone can see, Jane ended his hundreds of pages of Sky Dragon Slayer claims by unilaterally and baselessly declaring victory, and

Furthermore, Jane should explain why he emphatically rejected the standard physics definition of the term "net".

There really appears to be something wrong with you. There are records of ALL our conversations about that. I did no such thing, and I could prove it AGAIN, if I cared to, but I have no reason to re-hash here old arguments you LOST a long time ago. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-16]

There are records of all our conversations about that here: Here are links to this never ending “conversation” 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. BACKUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.

As everyone can see, Jane ended his hundreds of pages of Sky Dragon Slayer claims by unilaterally and baselessly declaring victory, and

Furthermore, Jane should explain why he emphatically rejected the standard physics definition of the term "net".

There really appears to be something wrong with you. There are records of ALL our conversations about that. I did no such thing, and I could prove it AGAIN, if I cared to, but I have no reason to re-hash here old arguments you LOST a long time ago. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-16]

There are records of all our conversations about that here: Here are links to this never ending “conversation” 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. BACKUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.

As everyone can see, Jane ended his hundreds of pages of Sky Dragon Slayer claims by unilaterally and baselessly declaring victory, and

Furthermore, Jane should explain why he emphatically rejected the standard physics definition of the term "net".

There really appears to be something wrong with you. There are records of ALL our conversations about that. I did no such thing, and I could prove it AGAIN, if I cared to, but I have no reason to re-hash here old arguments you LOST a long time ago. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-16]

There are records of all our conversations about that here: Here are links to this never ending “conversation” 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. BACKUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.

As everyone can see, Jane ended his hundreds of pages of Sky Dragon Slayer claims by unilaterally and baselessly declaring victory, and

Furthermore, Jane should explain why he emphatically rejected the standard physics definition of the term "net".

There really appears to be something wrong with you. There are records of ALL our conversations about that. I did no such thing, and I could prove it AGAIN, if I cared to, but I have no reason to re-hash here old arguments you LOST a long time ago. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-16]

There are records of all our conversations about that here: Here are links to this never ending “conversation” 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. BACKUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.

As everyone can see, Jane ended his hundreds of pages of Sky Dragon Slayer claims by unilaterally and baselessly declaring victory, and

Furthermore, Jane should explain why he emphatically rejected the standard physics definition of the term "net".

There really appears to be something wrong with you. There are records of ALL our conversations about that. I did no such thing, and I could prove it AGAIN, if I cared to, but I have no reason to re-hash here old arguments you LOST a long time ago. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-16]

There are records of all our conversations about that here: Here are links to this never ending “conversation” 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. BACKUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.

As everyone can see, Jane ended his hundreds of pages of Sky Dragon Slayer claims by unilaterally and baselessly declaring victory, and

Furthermore, Jane should explain why he emphatically rejected the standard physics definition of the term "net".

There really appears to be something wrong with you. There are records of ALL our conversations about that. I did no such thing, and I could prove it AGAIN, if I cared to, but I have no reason to re-hash here old arguments you LOST a long time ago. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-16]

There are records of all our conversations about that here: Here are links to this never ending “conversation” 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. BACKUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.

As everyone can see, Jane ended his hundreds of pages of Sky Dragon Slayer claims by unilaterally and baselessly declaring victory, and

Furthermore, Jane should explain why he emphatically rejected the standard physics definition of the term "net".

There really appears to be something wrong with you. There are records of ALL our conversations about that. I did no such thing, and I could prove it AGAIN, if I cared to, but I have no reason to re-hash here old arguments you LOST a long time ago. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-16]

There are records of all our conversations about that here: Here are links to this never ending “conversation” 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. BACKUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.

As everyone can see, Jane ended his hundreds of pages of Sky Dragon Slayer claims by unilaterally and baselessly declaring victory, and

Furthermore, Jane should explain why he emphatically rejected the standard physics definition of the term "net".

There really appears to be something wrong with you. There are records of ALL our conversations about that. I did no such thing, and I could prove it AGAIN, if I cared to, but I have no reason to re-hash here old arguments you LOST a long time ago. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-16]

There are records of all our conversations about that here: Here are links to this never ending “conversation” 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. BACKUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.

As everyone can see, Jane ended his hundreds of pages of Sky Dragon Slayer claims by unilaterally and baselessly declaring victory, and

Furthermore, Jane should explain why he emphatically rejected the standard physics definition of the term "net".

There really appears to be something wrong with you. There are records of ALL our conversations about that. I did no such thing, and I could prove it AGAIN, if I cared to, but I have no reason to re-hash here old arguments you LOST a long time ago. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-16]

There are records of all our conversations about that here: Here are links to this never ending “conversation” 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. BACKUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.

As everyone can see, Jane ended his hundreds of pages of Sky Dragon Slayer claims by unilaterally and baselessly declaring victory, and

But net radiative power out of a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in", so the equation Jane just described also says:

NO!!!!! .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]

After Jane emphatically rejected the standard physics definition of the term "net", it became clear that Jane is hopelessly confused about the term "net". Sadly, this is typical for Jane/Lonny Eachus and other climate contrarians.

After it became clear that Jane is hopelessly confused about the very term "net" which he keeps screaming in ALL CAPS, I explained conservation of energy in a way that didn't require using that troublesome word. At this point, a real skeptic would either try to address this disagreement about a fundamental definition, or agree to disagree about the definition and solve the problem like I did without using the disputed word. But not Jane/Lonny Eachus:

.. No NET incoming radiation from cooler bodies is absorbed, therefore no NET radiation is crossing your boundary FROM those cooler bodies. It comes in and goes right back out. .. no NET cooler radiation is absorbed in the first place.. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-01]

Instead, Jane kept repeatedly screaming "NET" in ALL CAPS, completely ignoring the fact that his emphatic rejection of its standard physics definition reduces his rant to gibberish. Jane/Lonny Eachus also ignored me after I asked him simple questions about the definition of the word "net", so there doesn't seem to be any way to correct Jane's fundamental misconception.

I try to be tolerant of those who appear to suffer from Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, but one can only be so patient. :o) [Lonny Eachus, 2015-01-09]

Jane/Lonny tries to be tolerant of those he thinks suffer from Dunning-Kruger syndrome, but only if "tolerant" includes endless cussing and screaming garnished with ball washing fantasies. If Jane/Lonny wonders what a Dunning-Kruger victim looks like, he need only look in a mirror:

.. I'm really not sorry to say this after your past behavior, but showing you're wrong is just plain dirt simple. And not JUST wrong, but so ridiculously wrong that I can (and will, believe me!) use it as entertainment for certain of my friends. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-02]

.. It feels as though I'm explaining to a high-school student who has never seen a physics problem before. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-04]

I keep finding myself in a position where I feel I should explain, but I am at a loss as to why I should have to, becau

And your response now to my calling you out for posting spam... is to spam a different topic with unrelated garbage? Are you even sentient? Or are you just so scared of being called out that you hope if you try to harass me, I'll go away? [Rujiel, 2015-01-02]

You didn't call me out for posting spam. You repeatedly told me to kill myself. There's a difference. Once again:

Look, all this isn't remotely believable. You clearly compounded that account's massive spamming attempts by needlessly quoting obscenely huge chunks of his nonsense. [Rujiel, 2014-12-28]

Needlessly? How else should I debunk his baseless claim that I was "rude and insulting" when Jane/Lonny Eachus was actually just projecting his own obscene insults onto me? And if you have a better approach in mind, why not just suggest that better approach rather than repeatedly suggest that I kill myself?

Are they hiring you losers while still in high school these days? The bar for paid oil trolls sure is a low one--any stupid thing to prevent the discussion of the oil cartel's impunity. Do the world a favor and kill yourself. [Rujiel, 2014-11-20]

He's a paid shill and so are you--no amount of verbose whining on your part could hide the role of spamming you were playing in that thread. [Rujiel, 2014-12-28]

Once again, Rujiel accuses me of being a paid oil shill. But once again, why would the oil industry pay me to debunk the same baseless accusations they're helping to spread? I've been debunking misinformation about climate from Jane/Lonny Eachus and many others for 5 years now. Again, why would the oil industry pay me to do that?

... Save our collective unconscious from your fevered ego--kill yourself. your net sum contribution to society is at a negative. [Rujiel, 2014-11-26]

Really? Among other things, I've contributed open source software to estimate mass changes on the surface of the Earth using GRACE satellite data. Here's my dissertation which explains the methods. Does that count for anything, or should I kill myself?

Your response is akin to someone who has just spent the last hour rolling in his own shit and flinging it at passers-by, standing up all at once and asking the surrounding crowd what's wrong. You're seriously so bad at this. Even your employer would be better off if you killed yourself. [Rujiel, 2014-11-30]

I really don't understand why people like Jane/Lonny Eachus and Rujiel are filled with so much hatred. However, sociology research suggests that people are less likely to hurl abuse at other people after seeing their faces. So here I am at JPL's open house explaining that our CO2 emissions are melting ice sheets. And here's a clip from the Weather Channel where I explained (at 19m36s

Look, all this isn't remotely believable. You clearly compounded that account's massive spamming attempts by needlessly quoting obscenely huge chunks of his nonsense. [Rujiel, 2014-12-28]

Needlessly? How else should I debunk his baseless claim that I was "rude and insulting" when Jane/Lonny Eachus was actually just projecting his own obscene insults onto me? And if you have a better approach in mind, why not just suggest that better approach rather than repeatedly suggest that I kill myself?

Are they hiring you losers while still in high school these days? The bar for paid oil trolls sure is a low one--any stupid thing to prevent the discussion of the oil cartel's impunity. Do the world a favor and kill yourself. [Rujiel, 2014-11-20]

He's a paid shill and so are you--no amount of verbose whining on your part could hide the role of spamming you were playing in that thread. [Rujiel, 2014-12-28]

Once again, Rujiel accuses me of being a paid oil shill. But once again, why would the oil industry pay me to debunk the same baseless accusations they're helping to spread? I've been debunking misinformation about climate from Jane/Lonny Eachus and many others for 5 years now. Again, why would the oil industry pay me to do that?

... Save our collective unconscious from your fevered ego--kill yourself. your net sum contribution to society is at a negative. [Rujiel, 2014-11-26]

Really? Among other things, I've contributed open source software to estimate mass changes on the surface of the Earth using GRACE satellite data. Here's my dissertation which explains the methods. Does that count for anything, or should I kill myself?

Your response is akin to someone who has just spent the last hour rolling in his own shit and flinging it at passers-by, standing up all at once and asking the surrounding crowd what's wrong. You're seriously so bad at this. Even your employer would be better off if you killed yourself. [Rujiel, 2014-11-30]

I really don't understand why people like Jane/Lonny Eachus and Rujiel are filled with so much hatred. However, sociology research suggests that people are less likely to hurl abuse at other people after seeing their faces. So here I am at JPL's open house explaining that our CO2 emissions are melting ice sheets. And here's a clip from the Weather Channel where I explained (at 19m36s and 26m34s) how NASA measures these ice sheets from space.

Rujiel, now that you've seen my face, do you still hate me so much that you still think I should kill myself? Or would you like to retract those odious statements?

Look, all this isn't remotely believable. You clearly compounded that account's massive spamming attempts by needlessly quoting obscenely huge chunks of his nonsense. [Rujiel, 2014-12-28]

Needlessly? How else should I debunk his baseless claim that I was "rude and insulting" when Jane/Lonny Eachus was actually just projecting his own obscene insults onto me? And if you have a better approach in mind, why not just suggest that better approach rather than repeatedly suggest that I kill myself?

Are they hiring you losers while still in high school these days? The bar for paid oil trolls sure is a low one--any stupid thing to prevent the discussion of the oil cartel's impunity. Do the world a favor and kill yourself. [Rujiel, 2014-11-20]

He's a paid shill and so are you--no amount of verbose whining on your part could hide the role of spamming you were playing in that thread. [Rujiel, 2014-12-28]

Once again, Rujiel accuses me of being a paid oil shill. But once again, why would the oil industry pay me to debunk the same baseless accusations they're helping to spread? I've been debunking misinformation about climate from Jane/Lonny Eachus and many others for 5 years now. Again, why would the oil industry pay me to do that?

... Save our collective unconscious from your fevered ego--kill yourself. your net sum contribution to society is at a negative. [Rujiel, 2014-11-26]

Really? Among other things, I've contributed open source software to estimate mass changes on the surface of the Earth using GRACE satellite data. Here's my dissertation which explains the methods. Does that count for anything, or should I kill myself?

Your response is akin to someone who has just spent the last hour rolling in his own shit and flinging it at passers-by, standing up all at once and asking the surrounding crowd what's wrong. You're seriously so bad at this. Even your employer would be better off if you killed yourself. [Rujiel, 2014-11-30]

I really don't understand why people like Jane/Lonny Eachus and Rujiel are filled with so much hatred. However, sociology research suggests that people are less likely to hurl abuse at people after seeing their faces. So here I am at JPL's open house explaining how our CO2 emissions are causing ice sheets to melt. And here's a clip from the Weather Channel where I explained (at 19m36s and 26m34s) how NASA measures these ice sheets from space.

Rujiel, now that you've seen my face, do you still hate me so much that you still think I should kill myself? Or would you like to retract those odious statements?

You're regurgitating complete nonsense. Once again, here’s figure 1 from Peterson et al. 2008. Notice that papers predicting warming vastly outnumbered those predicting cooling, even in the 1970s. Ironically:

• The term “global warming” was first used in a 1975 Science article by Wally Broecker called “Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?”.
• Sawyer 1972 estimated climate sensitivity as 2.4C, and Schneider 1975 gave a preliminary range of 1.5C to 3.0C.
• Manabe and Wetherald, 1975: “The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the climate of a General Circulation Model.”
• In 1977, Freeman Dyson wrote that the “prevailing opinion is that the dangers [of the rise in CO2] greatly outweigh the benefits.”
• In 1977, Robert M. White, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, wrote a report for the National Academy of Sciences that said “We now understand that industrial wastes, such as the carbon dioxide released in the burning of fossil fuels, can have consequences for climate that pose a considerable risk to future society.” [White, Robert, 1978, Oceans and Climate Introduction, Oceanus, 21:2-3]
• The 1979 JASON report “The long-term impact of atmospheric carbon dioxide on climate” estimated climate sensitivity as 2.4C to 2.8C.
• The National Academy of Science’s 1979 Charney report estimated climate sensitivity as 1.5C to 4.5C and said “If carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we] find no reason to doubt that climate changes will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.”

While Jane is reading those papers, he should also consider addressing this issue with his basic thermodynamics:

Your own insistence that power in = power out (assuming perfect conversion and no entropic losses) belies this argument. You are arguing against yourself and you refuse to see that. If power in = power out (your own stipulation) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

I'm not the only one insisting that power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing. Once again, that's a fundamental principle called "conservation of energy". Here are some introductions: example (backup), example (backup), example

You're regurgitating complete nonsense. Once again, here’s figure 1 from Peterson et al. 2008. Notice that papers predicting warming vastly outnumbered those predicting cooling, even in the 1970s. Ironically:

• The term “global warming” was first used in a 1975 Science article by Wally Broecker called “Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?”.
• Sawyer 1972 estimated climate sensitivity as 2.4C, and Schneider 1975 gave a preliminary range of 1.5C to 3.0C.
• Manabe and Wetherald, 1975: “The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the climate of a General Circulation Model.”
• In 1977, Freeman Dyson wrote that the “prevailing opinion is that the dangers [of the rise in CO2] greatly outweigh the benefits.”
• In 1977, Robert M. White, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, wrote a report for the National Academy of Sciences that said “We now understand that industrial wastes, such as the carbon dioxide released in the burning of fossil fuels, can have consequences for climate that pose a considerable risk to future society.” [White, Robert, 1978, Oceans and Climate Introduction, Oceanus, 21:2-3]
• The 1979 JASON report “The long-term impact of atmospheric carbon dioxide on climate” estimated climate sensitivity as 2.4C to 2.8C.
• The National Academy of Science’s 1979 Charney report estimated climate sensitivity as 1.5C to 4.5C and said “If carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we] find no reason to doubt that climate changes will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.”

While Jane is reading those papers, he should also consider addressing this issue with his basic thermodynamics:

Your own insistence that power in = power out (assuming perfect conversion and no entropic losses) belies this argument. You are arguing against yourself and you refuse to see that. If power in = power out (your own stipulation) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

I'm not the only one insisting that power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing. Once again, that's a fundamental principle called "conservation of energy". Here are some introductions: example (backup), example (backup), example

No,no. Global cooling. Haven't you read the scientific papers from top agencies and researchers from the 70's. Sheesh

You're regurgitating complete nonsense. Once again, here’s figure 1 from Peterson et al. 2008. Notice that papers predicting warming vastly outnumbered those predicting cooling, even in the 1970s. Ironically:

• The term “global warming” was first used in a 1975 Science article by Wally Broecker called “Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?”.
• Sawyer 1972 estimated climate sensitivity as 2.4C, and Schneider 1975 gave a preliminary range of 1.5C to 3.0C.
• Manabe and Wetherald, 1975: “The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the climate of a General Circulation Model.”
• In 1977, Freeman Dyson wrote that the “prevailing opinion is that the dangers [of the rise in CO2] greatly outweigh the benefits.”
• In 1977, Robert M. White, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, wrote a report for the National Academy of Sciences that said “We now understand that industrial wastes, such as the carbon dioxide released in the burning of fossil fuels, can have consequences for climate that pose a considerable risk to future society.” [White, Robert, 1978, Oceans and Climate Introduction, Oceanus, 21:2-3]
• The 1979 JASON report “The long-term impact of atmospheric carbon dioxide on climate” estimated climate sensitivity as 2.4C to 2.8C.
• The National Academy of Science’s 1979 Charney report estimated climate sensitivity as 1.5C to 4.5C and said “If carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we] find no reason to doubt that climate changes will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.”

No,no. Global cooling. Haven't you read the scientific papers from top agencies and researchers from the 70's. Sheesh

You're regurgitating complete nonsense. Once again, here’s figure 1 from Peterson et al. 2008. Notice that papers predicting warming vastly outnumbered those predicting cooling, even in the 1970s. Ironically:

• The term “global warming” was first used in a 1975 Science article by Wally Broecker called “Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?”.
• Sawyer 1972 estimated climate sensitivity as 2.4C, and Schneider 1975 gave a preliminary range of 1.5C to 3.0C.
• Manabe and Wetherald, 1975: “The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the climate of a General Circulation Model.”
• In 1977, Freeman Dyson wrote that the “prevailing opinion is that the dangers [of the rise in CO2] greatly outweigh the benefits.”
• In 1977, Robert M. White, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, wrote a report for the National Academy of Sciences that said “We now understand that industrial wastes, such as the carbon dioxide released in the burning of fossil fuels, can have consequences for climate that pose a considerable risk to future society.” [White, Robert, 1978, Oceans and Climate Introduction, Oceanus, 21:2-3]
• The 1979 JASON report “The long-term impact of atmospheric carbon dioxide on climate” estimated climate sensitivity as 2.4C to 2.8C.
• The National Academy of Science’s 1979 Charney report estimated climate sensitivity as 1.5C to 4.5C and said “If carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we] find no reason to doubt that climate changes will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.”

I'm getting plain fed up with all these cockamamie "CO2-based disaster" predictions. It's nothing but speculation run amok, and all the more baneful because it's politically- and money-driven. Fact: we have no real, objective evidence that CO2 is going to cause us any real problems. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

Really? Then why did over a dozen national science academies say with one voice that "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable"?

The scientific evidence has been stacking up against the idea for at least 10 years. It isn't happening, it isn't going to happen. And even if it did, it would probably benefit us more than hurt us. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

Even if CO2 causes us real problems, it would probably benefit us more than hurt us? Really? In 2014, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society (U.K.) wrote a joint publication (PDF).

Here's another 2014 publication by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal Science.

Those scientific reports don't agree with Jane, nor do statements made by all these large scientific societies.

The problem with this is that climate changes, whether or not humanity is involved. [Anonymous Coward, 2014-12-11]

Once again, I've tried to point out that the scientific community who's warning about human-caused climate change is the same scientific community who discovered and named many of these modes of natural variability.

I've tried to point out that NASA's been measuring the Sun's brightness (etc.) for decades and concluded that natural variation can't explain the warming since 1950.

I've tried to point out that if the natural climate hadn't changed before, that would imply that it hadn't ever changed so we couldn't possibly change it now.

I've tried to point out that 420 million years of natural climate change support the idea that we are changing the climate, precisely because it has varied before.

I've tried to point out that some of the closest natural analogues to modern human-caused climate change, like the PETM and end-Permian, just reinforce my concern about treating the atmosphere like a free sewer.

I've repeatedly failed to communicate, and considering the stakes involved the weight of all these failures is becoming unbearable. I wish I could effectively counter the asymmetric strategies of the merchants of doubt.

The article you linked is now 5 years old, the cited studies even older, and I've been told by meteorologists that work for NOAA that some of these are tending in the opposite direction now. [Anonymous Coward, 2014-12-11]

Oh, some anonymous NOAA meteorologists told an anonymous coward that "some of those are tending in the opposite direction now"? Even if we humor this vague unverifiable anecdote, how could we figure out if it paints the whole picture accurately?

One way would be to skip the anonymous anecdotes, and see what NOAA actually says. NOAA runs www.climate.gov which has a number of educational resources for topics like the greenhouse effect and causes of climate change. Anyone who learns science from these NOAA resources will understand that the globe is warming, and humans are primarily responsible. And, of course, dozens of large scientific societies agree. That seems like a more accurate way of painting the whole picture.

But what about even more recent publications? In 2014, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society (U.K.) wrote a joint publication (PDF). Anyone who learns science from this NAS/Royal Society publication will understand that the globe is warming, and humans are primarily responsible.

You can appear to “prove” almost anything you want if you restrict your study to relatively isolated phenomena, and ignore the bigger picture. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-05-12]

I know my argument is anecdotal vs. Yours which has very nicely laid out citations, but my overall point is simply this: you can get these studies to show just about anything you want if you work the numbe

You simply aren't reading my posts. It's not "CO2 emissions aren't a concern"; it's "CO2 emissions aren't a concern if all you use is high school physics". It's all explained above.

Nobody here is only using high school physics. I just showed that my explanations of the greenhouse effect match that of Ray Pierrehumbert, author of Principles of Planetary Climate. (Just in case you've never heard of this textbook, it isn't a high school textbook.)

It's disappointing (but sadly not surprising after meeting Sky Dragon Slayers like Jane) to find that lgw can't or won't cite even a single peer-reviewed study of equilibrium CO2 climate sensitivities that he actually accepts. And, frankly, ocean acidification is pretty close to being high school chemistry. Does lgw dismiss ocean acidification like Jane and the Sky Dragon Slayers do?

At combustion-chamber temperatures, CO2 actually reflects infrared, vs absorbing it, which is a much more dramatic effect.

There are two way in which CO2 interacts with IR radiation:

1) It can absorb IR, becoming warmer, and in turn emit IR as a blackbody.
2) It can reflect IR.

The energy transferred by effect 1 depends on the temp of the CO2. The energy transferred by effect 2 depends instead on the temp of what's being reflected. As these are "4th power of temp" effects, the difference is critical.

If this is such a critical and dramatic effect, you should easily be able to cite peer-reviewed articles (other than G&T) supporting and quantifying it. Right?

Saying "but what about Venus" gets the physics wrong (and also implies that the Earth could somehow one day become like Venus, when there's no mechanism for that).

No, I've actually emphasized that:

"I'm not saying that the Earth will turn into Venus. That would be absurd. We have no reason to think that the 'runaway greenhouse' on Venus is even possible on Earth."

Rasmus Benestad and Ray Pierrehumbert agree:

"The Earth may well succumb to a runaway greenhouse as the Sun continues to brighten over the next billion years or so, but the amount of CO2 we could add to the atmosphere by burning all available fossil fuel reserves would not move us significantly closer to the runaway greenhouse threshold. There are plenty of nightmares lurking in anthropogenic global warming, but the runaway greenhouse is not among them."

CO2 plays a role in absorbing a small percentage of the IR that is not reflected (which is itself a small percentage of the heat loss from the surface), and becoming warmer. The increase in blackbody radiation from the warmer CO2 is trivial. Thinking of this as "look, simple physics at work here" gets it wrong.

I've already explained complex factors like pressure broadening, which don't change the fact that CO2 warms the surface. For instance, how would surface temperatures change if all the CO2 in the atmosphere suddenly vanished? Sky Dragon Slayers have a simple (and wrong) answer: it wouldn't. What's yours?

Most of the heat transfer away from the surface of the Earth is by convection - radiative heat loss is a small effect by comparison.

I've explained that to a first approximation, convection establishes the lapse rate (the rate at which temperature drops with altitude in the troposphere). That estab

You simply aren't reading my posts. It's not "CO2 emissions aren't a concern"; it's "CO2 emissions aren't a concern if all you use is high school physics". It's all explained above.

Nobody here is only using high school physics. I just showed that my explanations of the greenhouse effect match that of Ray Pierrehumbert, author of Principles of Planetary Climate. (Just in case you've never heard of this textbook, it isn't a high school textbook.)

It's disappointing (but sadly not surprising after meeting Sky Dragon Slayers like Jane) to find that lgw can't or won't cite even a single peer-reviewed study of equilibrium CO2 climate sensitivities that he actually accepts. And, frankly, ocean acidification is pretty close to being high school chemistry. Does lgw dismiss ocean acidification like Jane and the Sky Dragon Slayers do?

At combustion-chamber temperatures, CO2 actually reflects infrared, vs absorbing it, which is a much more dramatic effect.

There are two way in which CO2 interacts with IR radiation:

1) It can absorb IR, becoming warmer, and in turn emit IR as a blackbody.
2) It can reflect IR.

The energy transferred by effect 1 depends on the temp of the CO2. The energy transferred by effect 2 depends instead on the temp of what's being reflected. As these are "4th power of temp" effects, the difference is critical.

If this is such a critical and dramatic effect, you should easily be able to cite peer-reviewed articles (other than G&T) supporting and quantifying it. Right?

Saying "but what about Venus" gets the physics wrong (and also implies that the Earth could somehow one day become like Venus, when there's no mechanism for that).

No, I've actually emphasized that:

"I'm not saying that the Earth will turn into Venus. That would be absurd. We have no reason to think that the 'runaway greenhouse' on Venus is even possible on Earth."

Rasmus Benestad and Ray Pierrehumbert agree:

"The Earth may well succumb to a runaway greenhouse as the Sun continues to brighten over the next billion years or so, but the amount of CO2 we could add to the atmosphere by burning all available fossil fuel reserves would not move us significantly closer to the runaway greenhouse threshold. There are plenty of nightmares lurking in anthropogenic global warming, but the runaway greenhouse is not among them."

CO2 plays a role in absorbing a small percentage of the IR that is not reflected (which is itself a small percentage of the heat loss from the surface), and becoming warmer. The increase in blackbody radiation from the warmer CO2 is trivial. Thinking of this as "look, simple physics at work here" gets it wrong.

I've already explained complex factors like pressure broadening, which don't change the fact that CO2 warms the surface. For instance, how would surface temperatures change if all the CO2 in the atmosphere suddenly vanished? Sky Dragon Slayers have a simple (and wrong) answer: it wouldn't. What's yours?

Most of the heat transfer away from the surface of the Earth is by convection - radiative heat loss is a small effect by comparison.

I've explained that to a first approximation, convection establishes the lapse rate (the rate at which temperature drops with altitude in the troposphere). That estab

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

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

Jane's "conversations" about Earth rely on Sky Dragon Slayer denial that CO2 warms the surface. It's quite relevant that Venus is hotter than Mercury. Sky Dragon Slayers should explain why Venus is hotter than Mercury if CO2 can't warm the surface. They usually respond by fantasizing about gray Oreos or basketball player gloves.

Nobody has proved beyond reasonable doubt -- and I emphasize the word reasonable -- that it has caused ANY harm, at all. Nobody has been able to show, convincingly, that ANY weather pattern, or either singular or collective weather events, have been caused by "CO2-based warming". Lots of stuff has been BLAMED on it, but I'm talking about actual evidence. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-05]

Jane wouldn't be able to recognize actual evidence because he's a Sky Dragon Slayer who strenuously denies that "CO2-based warming" even exists. A reasonable skeptic who took this position would feel obliged to explain why Venus is hotter than Mercury. Is Venus hotter than Mercury because of CO2, gray Oreos, or basketball player gloves?

... And I'm sure as hell not willing to pay to clean up some CO2 demon which science says is largely imaginary. Not the CO2. That's real enough. But any "harm" is so far only theory, and that theory is looking shakier every day. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-05]

An imaginary and shaky "demon"? Really? Then why did over a dozen national science academies say with one voice that "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable"?

Ironically, Jane probably won't even have to pay when we take action to address climate change. This study calculates that a revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend will save lives and add jobs while increasing Americans' real disposable income. Even though fossil fuel companies pass the cost of the carbon fee onto consumers, that fee is just returned to the consumer anyway.

For a regional analysis, see figure 3.25 on page 38. Out of nine regions, real disposable income per capita only decreases in one (the western north central states). That one regional decrease is much smaller than the increases in other regions like the pacific region which includes Washington.

... I was referring to your original "solution" to Spencer's problem, which you posted publicly on your website as a "refutation" of a comment of my own. Your explanation of how you found that solution led directly to a positive feedback loop, which I mentioned to you at the time. That has been a couple of years now. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-27]

Once again, 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. If Jane thinks he's found a mistake in MIT's derivation, please let everyone know exactly where.

And Jane, that wasn't a couple of years ago. I refuted your Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense 3 months ago, not a couple of years ago. It probably just feels like years because you've been cussing and screaming and insisting you're right and I'm wrong for hundreds of pages. Seriously, look at the index at the top of that comment, which has links to this never ending “conversation” LINK, LINK, LINK. BACKUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

But you have never acknowledged your original error. Ever moving the goalposts, ever finding new "explanations" for how your "solution" somehow didn't ACTUALLY violate conservation of energy. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-27]

Jane, have you ever considered the possibility that I didn't make an error, and that you simply don't understand physics as well as professional physicists do? For instance, you screwed up the very first equation because you don't know how to apply conservation of energy to a boundary around the heated source. I've tried to show you how to derive that equation, but you've repeatedly refused. Why?

Furthermore, you won't even ask a physicist you respect if electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. This would be even easier than writing down a single equation. Just ask Prof. Cox (or any other mainstream physicist) and their answer might finally help you see why your Sky Dragon Slaye

... I was referring to your original "solution" to Spencer's problem, which you posted publicly on your website as a "refutation" of a comment of my own. Your explanation of how you found that solution led directly to a positive feedback loop, which I mentioned to you at the time. That has been a couple of years now. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-27]

Once again, 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. If Jane thinks he's found a mistake in MIT's derivation, please let everyone know exactly where.

And Jane, that wasn't a couple of years ago. I refuted your Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense 3 months ago, not a couple of years ago. It probably just feels like years because you've been cussing and screaming and insisting you're right and I'm wrong for hundreds of pages. Seriously, look at the index at the top of that comment, which has links to this never ending “conversation” LINK, LINK, LINK. BACKUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

But you have never acknowledged your original error. Ever moving the goalposts, ever finding new "explanations" for how your "solution" somehow didn't ACTUALLY violate conservation of energy. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-27]

Jane, have you ever considered the possibility that I didn't make an error, and that you simply don't understand physics as well as professional physicists do? For instance, you screwed up the very first equation because you don't know how to apply conservation of energy to a boundary around the heated source. I've tried to show you how to derive that equation, but you've repeatedly refused. Why?

Furthermore, you won't even ask a physicist you respect if electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. This would be even easier than writing down a single equation. Just ask Prof. Cox (or any other mainstream physicist) and their answer might finally help you see why your Sky Dragon Slaye

... I was referring to your original "solution" to Spencer's problem, which you posted publicly on your website as a "refutation" of a comment of my own. Your explanation of how you found that solution led directly to a positive feedback loop, which I mentioned to you at the time. That has been a couple of years now. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-27]

Once again, 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. If Jane thinks he's found a mistake in MIT's derivation, please let everyone know exactly where.

And Jane, that wasn't a couple of years ago. I refuted your Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense 3 months ago, not a couple of years ago. It probably just feels like years because you've been cussing and screaming and insisting you're right and I'm wrong for hundreds of pages. Seriously, look at the index at the top of that comment, which has links to this never ending “conversation” LINK, LINK, LINK. BACKUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

But you have never acknowledged your original error. Ever moving the goalposts, ever finding new "explanations" for how your "solution" somehow didn't ACTUALLY violate conservation of energy. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-27]

Jane, have you ever considered the possibility that I didn't make an error, and that you simply don't understand physics as well as professional physicists do? For instance, you screwed up the very first equation because you don't know how to apply conservation of energy to a boundary around the heated source. I've tried to show you how to derive that equation, but you've repeatedly refused. Why?

Furthermore, you won't even ask a physicist you respect if electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. This would be even easier than writing down a single equation. Just ask Prof. Cox (or any other mainstream physicist) and their answer might finally help you see why your Sky Dragon Slaye

... I was referring to your original "solution" to Spencer's problem, which you posted publicly on your website as a "refutation" of a comment of my own. Your explanation of how you found that solution led directly to a positive feedback loop, which I mentioned to you at the time. That has been a couple of years now. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-27]

Once again, 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. If Jane thinks he's found a mistake in MIT's derivation, please let everyone know exactly where.

And Jane, that wasn't a couple of years ago. I refuted your Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense 3 months ago, not a couple of years ago. It probably just feels like years because you've been cussing and screaming and insisting you're right and I'm wrong for hundreds of pages. Seriously, look at the index at the top of that comment, which has links to this never ending “conversation” LINK, LINK, LINK. BACKUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

But you have never acknowledged your original error. Ever moving the goalposts, ever finding new "explanations" for how your "solution" somehow didn't ACTUALLY violate conservation of energy. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-27]

Jane, have you ever considered the possibility that I didn't make an error, and that you simply don't understand physics as well as professional physicists do? For instance, you screwed up the very first equation because you don't know how to apply conservation of energy to a boundary around the heated source. I've tried to show you how to derive that equation, but you've repeatedly refused. Why?

Furthermore, you won't even ask a physicist you respect if electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. This would be even easier than writing down a single equation. Just ask Prof. Cox (or any other mainstream physicist) and their answer might finally help you see why your Sky Dragon Slaye

... I was referring to your original "solution" to Spencer's problem, which you posted publicly on your website as a "refutation" of a comment of my own. Your explanation of how you found that solution led directly to a positive feedback loop, which I mentioned to you at the time. That has been a couple of years now. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-27]

Once again, 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. If Jane thinks he's found a mistake in MIT's derivation, please let everyone know exactly where.

And Jane, that wasn't a couple of years ago. I refuted your Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense 3 months ago, not a couple of years ago. It probably just feels like years because you've been cussing and screaming and insisting you're right and I'm wrong for hundreds of pages. Seriously, look at the index at the top of that comment, which has links to this never ending “conversation” LINK, LINK, LINK. BACKUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

But you have never acknowledged your original error. Ever moving the goalposts, ever finding new "explanations" for how your "solution" somehow didn't ACTUALLY violate conservation of energy. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-27]

Jane, have you ever considered the possibility that I didn't make an error, and that you simply don't understand physics as well as professional physicists do? For instance, you screwed up the very first equation because you don't know how to apply conservation of energy to a boundary around the heated source. I've tried to show you how to derive that equation, but you've repeatedly refused. Why?

Furthermore, you won't even ask a physicist you respect if electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. This would be even easier than writing down a single equation. Just ask Prof. Cox (or any other mainstream physicist) and their answer might finally help you see why your Sky Dragon Slaye

... I was referring to your original "solution" to Spencer's problem, which you posted publicly on your website as a "refutation" of a comment of my own. Your explanation of how you found that solution led directly to a positive feedback loop, which I mentioned to you at the time. That has been a couple of years now. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-27]

Once again, 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. If Jane thinks he's found a mistake in MIT's derivation, please let everyone know exactly where.

And Jane, that wasn't a couple of years ago. I refuted your Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense 3 months ago, not a couple of years ago. It probably just feels like years because you've been cussing and screaming and insisting you're right and I'm wrong for hundreds of pages. Seriously, look at the index at the top of that comment, which has links to this never ending “conversation” LINK, LINK, LINK. BACKUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

But you have never acknowledged your original error. Ever moving the goalposts, ever finding new "explanations" for how your "solution" somehow didn't ACTUALLY violate conservation of energy. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-27]

Jane, have you ever considered the possibility that I didn't make an error, and that you simply don't understand physics as well as professional physicists do? For instance, you screwed up the very first equation because you don't know how to apply conservation of energy to a boundary around the heated source. I've tried to show you how to derive that equation, but you've repeatedly refused. Why?

Furthermore, you won't even ask a physicist you respect if electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. This would be even easier than writing down a single equation. Just ask Prof. Cox (or any other mainstream physicist) and their answer might finally help you see why your Sky Dragon Slaye

... I was referring to your original "solution" to Spencer's problem, which you posted publicly on your website as a "refutation" of a comment of my own. Your explanation of how you found that solution led directly to a positive feedback loop, which I mentioned to you at the time. That has been a couple of years now. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-27]

Once again, 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. If Jane thinks he's found a mistake in MIT's derivation, please let everyone know exactly where.

And Jane, that wasn't a couple of years ago. I refuted your Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense 3 months ago, not a couple of years ago. It probably just feels like years because you've been cussing and screaming and insisting you're right and I'm wrong for hundreds of pages. Seriously, look at the index at the top of that comment, which has links to this never ending “conversation” LINK, LINK, LINK. BACKUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

But you have never acknowledged your original error. Ever moving the goalposts, ever finding new "explanations" for how your "solution" somehow didn't ACTUALLY violate conservation of energy. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-27]

Jane, have you ever considered the possibility that I didn't make an error, and that you simply don't understand physics as well as professional physicists do? For instance, you screwed up the very first equation because you don't know how to apply conservation of energy to a boundary around the heated source. I've tried to show you how to derive that equation, but you've repeatedly refused. Why?

Furthermore, you won't even ask a physicist you respect if electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. This would be even easier than writing down a single equation. Just ask Prof. Cox (or any other mainstream physicist) and their answer might finally help you see why your Sky Dragon Slaye

... I was referring to your original "solution" to Spencer's problem, which you posted publicly on your website as a "refutation" of a comment of my own. Your explanation of how you found that solution led directly to a positive feedback loop, which I mentioned to you at the time. That has been a couple of years now. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-27]

Once again, 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. If Jane thinks he's found a mistake in MIT's derivation, please let everyone know exactly where.

And Jane, that wasn't a couple of years ago. I refuted your Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense 3 months ago, not a couple of years ago. It probably just feels like years because you've been cussing and screaming and insisting you're right and I'm wrong for hundreds of pages. Seriously, look at the index at the top of that comment, which has links to this never ending “conversation” LINK, LINK, LINK. BACKUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

But you have never acknowledged your original error. Ever moving the goalposts, ever finding new "explanations" for how your "solution" somehow didn't ACTUALLY violate conservation of energy. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-27]

Jane, have you ever considered the possibility that I didn't make an error, and that you simply don't understand physics as well as professional physicists do? For instance, you screwed up the very first equation because you don't know how to apply conservation of energy to a boundary around the heated source. I've tried to show you how to derive that equation, but you've repeatedly refused. Why?

Furthermore, you won't even ask a physicist you respect if electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. This would be even easier than writing down a single equation. Just ask Prof. Cox (or any other mainstream physicist) and their answer might finally help you see why your Sky Dragon Slaye