In case my point wasn't clear, I'll spell it out explicitly:
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.
Mr. Postma's derogatory phrases are why I've often been puzzled that Jane cites... Mr. Postma
I cite Mr. Postma because he understands the physics of the problem better than you do.
End of story.
I found it very interesting that his followup article, which I also discovered just today, mentioned the same problem with your version of the physics of Spencer's experiment that I mentioned to you in our prior discussion. To wit:
(a) Your math was fundamentally in error, in that you counted some radiated power twice, and
(b) 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.
All in all, I found his arguments to be mathematically and physically sound, and yours not. That is why I have stopped arguing the point with you. Repeating unsound physics over and over is not going to make it more true, no matter how much you might wish it would.
What issues, raised by whom, in what scientific journal? Link?
I have frequently been astounded by your ability to find past information that suits your purposes, but when it comes to information that may serve to contradict your position, you suddenly appear to have never heard of Google. It is SO ridiculously easy to find references to issues with GRACE that I'm not going to bother to do it for you, and only an idiot would call that confirmation of a contrary position.
By the way -- and admittedly this is slightly, but only slightly, off-topic -- in regard to your Spencer's thought experiment, last year Astrophysicist Joe Postma wrote that your argument in regard to the physics was... well, let's just say he used rather derogatory phrases. I was not aware of this article until today, but I thought you might find it of some interest.
So you should either stop incorrectly claiming that the globe isn't warming, or stop citing Llovel et al. 2014 because their conclusion depends on net warming from 2005 to 2013.
I cited Llovel et al. because of their conclusion regarding the deep ocean. I have already stated what research I would have to do before I could responsibly make a claim that the globe was warming.
I have no intention -- or reason, for that matter -- to reply to you about something someone may have written on Twitter.
However, regarding what you asked above, I have a question of my own: are you unaware of the issues that have been raised about GRACE? That seems unlikely.
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.
I have already admitted I made an error.
But as for dishonesty, yes, you have given me ample and frequent reason to think you have been less than honest. So I won't apologize for suspecting you may be doing so at times when you may not actually be. "Fool me once..." as the saying goes. Here is an example:
Since we now seem to agree that there is significant warming down to 2000m,
Nowhere did I write such a thing. So when you continually -- rather routinely, in my experience, as I have demonstrated on many occasions in the past -- suggest I have stated things that in fact I have not, I have to wonder what the reason is. Given the context and past experience, Occam's Razor would seem to indicate dishonesty. I know of no other reason that is anywhere even remotely as likely.
I'm claiming that this conclusion is inconsistent with your claims that the globe isn't warming. Can we agree that even the bottom edge of the confidence interval is positive, indicating net warming from 2005 to 2013?
No, without looking into it further, I do not agree. I'm not claiming that it is false, either... I would have to look some things up, which I am not free to do at the moment.
One thing I would have to check, just for example, is what those confidence intervals are given the multidecadal variability, which is not -- at least not uncontroversially -- known to any precise degree yet. What has been claimed to be a newly discovered variability in the Atlantic has turned up, for example. Not to mention that we know during La Niña periods of ENSO there tends to be storage, while during El Niño, more of a release. All these factors would need to be considered. Until I do, I neither agree or disagree.
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?
Engaging in your usual context-shifting, I see. But even more: 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"??? , That makes absolutely no sense. No great surprise there, I suppose.
Total sea level rise can be measured using satellite altimetry, and land ice melting can be measured by using the GRACE satellites
Assuming the rather huge problems with GRACE's accuracy have been fixed. It is claimed they were. Perhaps they have been.
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.
Oh, and once again: ocean temperatures down to 2000m are different than sea surface temperatures.
Now, THAT is a fair point. I did in fact get surface temperatures mixed up with upper ocean temperatures. Mea culpa.
But I am just curious. Just a straightforward question: 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?
Most Americans will never comprehend this reality. This is the same mental block that prevents their parents from comprehending that Europeans have built superior internet and phone services. The same thing prevented their parents from realizing that the Japanese were making far superior cars.
You have a point but it is grossly over-stated. First, it is very clear why the U.S. telephone and internet infrastructure currently suck: incompetent (or in some cases corrupt) regulation. When ISPs and phone service providers are allowed to act as oligopolies, they just pocket their money and run, rather than properly investing in better infrastructure. Because they can.
However, there is another issue that is mostly unrelated: the U.S. is less densely populated than most "Western" countries, and the cost of infrastructure for providing comparable service is provably higher. That doesn't excuse the monopolists and incompetent bureaucrats, still it is true. And the U.S. government's attempt to fix the rural infrastructure problem was a comedy of errors, literally ridiculous cost overruns, and incompetence.
So you can lay the blame for a lot of this -- perhaps most of it -- directly at the feet of the U.S. government.
Back when we had a telephone system that was a properly regulated utility, it was demonstrably better than in the vast majority of Europe. Many European countries still had competing land-line services that were wholly incompatible with one another.
Also: in the beginning, the Japanese were not making cars that were "far superior" to those built in the U.S.. What they were making were cars that got better mileage and were inexpensive. The quality left a hell of a lot to be desired. So that statement is just plain wrong.
Over time, the quality got better and the U.S. manufacturers (also effectively an oligopoly, or so they thought) did not keep up. So much is undeniable.
Originally, the meaning of "drone" in relation to vehicles meant it was autonomous, with no pilot at all. It had nothing at all to do with line of sight. But Now it is often used to mean remotely-operated craft, regardless of whether they have any autonomous capability, but that's very different indeed from the original.
The word "drone" essentially meant "no human pilot", even a remote one. And it's still that way in a lot of dictionaries.
I've learned how to handle questions by watching you. If you manage to directly answer my question, that will show me that the right thing to do is directly answer your question. If you continue to simply evade my question, that will show me that the right thing to do is evade every question you ask.
I answered your question in my last post.
Did you get my point about "escalating" not just beyond what is socially acceptable, but even further, beyond what is legally acceptable? Once again, to be clear, I'm not accusing you of breaking any laws, I was making a point. Harassment is odious behavior. It is far worse than simply calling people names.
As I stated before: you seem quick to judge others but at the same time appear blind to your own transgressions.
I don't owe you anything, despite what seems to be a feeling on your part that I do. So this is all you're going to get. If you aren't satisfied with the content of my answers, my best suggestion would be to just go away.
In many cases direct genetic modification is *less* intrusive than other techniques of creating more suitable species of plants...the non-GMO method generally involves forcing random mutations via chemicals/radiation and then selecting for the traits you want. Of course there may be a bunch of other mutations that you didn't select for/against that could cause problems in people.
However, we do not know what long-term unintended consequences there may be to this type of gene modification, because there has been no long term. While selective breeding of natural mutations -- even of a relatively "forced" variety -- has been around for millennia.
The point being that one method is time-tested and the other one not. We don't have any long-term examples of jellyfish genes crossed with plant genes. We do have evidence that bacterial and viral genes have invaded other organisms, but again those we have evidence of were very long ago and have had eons to weed out any bad variants or effects.
I do agree, however, that the regulatory system is faulty.
I would suggest that the GMO itself isn't actually harming anything.
And I would disagree.
Societal / economic issue aside, when an altered genome that was controversial in the first place, and was promised not to be cross-fertile, proves otherwise and starts cross-pollinating other strains uncontrollably, we should take that as a strong warning.
Do you somehow think your behavior isn't bullying and harassment?
I don't "think" it, I know it. I haven't been following you around and spamming YOUR comments with insults. That is not a matter of opinion it is provably true. I have only been replying to your own harassing comments.
Listen up: while YOU might find name-calling as a matter of opinion objectionable, there is a line -- and it isn't all that fine of a line -- between that and LIBEL. (I am not accusing you here of libel, that is just a neutral statement of fact.)
There is ALSO a fine line between replying to a comment, no matter how angrily, and HARASSMENT.
Name-calling might not be a nice thing to do, but libel and harassment are behaviors that are so odious they are actually ILLEGAL. Illegal behaviors are grounds for lawsuits. That is also a statement of fact.
Do you understand the difference between those kinds of behaviors, or not?
Well, they also think that they're "agile". And have another expensive trendy tool to ensure it.
But according to the description their methodology very clearly ISN'T "agile", whether they think so or not.
Agile isn't a tool, it's a method. And that method doesn't include eons of top-down planning, no matter what tools are used. But I may be preaching to the choir here.
Since deluded incompetents can't recognize when others demonstrably understand more than they do, how can we stop the deluded incompetents from bullying others who demonstrably understand more about it than they do?
Just curious: are you saying you don't believe GMO corn spread beyond its boundaries and hybridized with other corn, after Monsanto had claimed that wasn't possible in its applications to USDA? (Hint: it has been proven in court.)
Are you claiming that the roundup-ready genes have NOT been found in other plants growing near cornfields?
As I say: I am just curious what your point is here.
Isn't that the same precautionary principle that should have been used before we started spewing CO2 into the atmosphere at unprecedented rates? Especially given that several mass extinctions were preceded by rapid CO2 releases?
Since the satellite AND balloon AND un-"adjusted" ground temperature measurements ALL say the globe isn't warming, even while CO2 has risen significantly, I wouldn't worry much about it.
But more to the point: even if that were not true, and CO2 warming were proved (it is not), we didn't really suspect any actual warming until the late 70s... more than a hundred years after we started "spewing" it into the air. So... no.
The fact that Jane mistakenly thinks the very first, most fundamental equation in this problem is "irrelevant" should be a red flag that Jane doesn't understand physics as well as professional physicists.
The fact that you insist that I provide you with something I already gave you, a long time ago and repeatedly, represents either a fundamental failure to understand on your part to understand the concept, or simple dishonesty. But your lack of understanding -- OR dishonesty, whichever it turns out to be -- is not my responsibility.
As before, I'm writing this for other readers, so that they are not taken in by your misinformation. That is the ONLY reason I have replied again.
I have no obligation to prove to you AGAIN what I have already proved. As others will have no problem seeing when I publish.
I shall not reply again. Stop harassing me. Your comments have been reported.
Slashdot Mirror
In case my point wasn't clear, I'll spell it out explicitly:
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.
Mr. Postma's derogatory phrases are why I've often been puzzled that Jane cites... Mr. Postma
I cite Mr. Postma because he understands the physics of the problem better than you do.
End of story.
I found it very interesting that his followup article, which I also discovered just today, mentioned the same problem with your version of the physics of Spencer's experiment that I mentioned to you in our prior discussion. To wit:
(a) Your math was fundamentally in error, in that you counted some radiated power twice, and
(b) 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.
All in all, I found his arguments to be mathematically and physically sound, and yours not. That is why I have stopped arguing the point with you. Repeating unsound physics over and over is not going to make it more true, no matter how much you might wish it would.
It was a business venture, and they knew it wouldn't succeed based on morals alone.
They knew it wouldn't succeed based on economics alone. At no time in recent years would I have called Google very cognizant of morals.
What issues, raised by whom, in what scientific journal? Link?
I have frequently been astounded by your ability to find past information that suits your purposes, but when it comes to information that may serve to contradict your position, you suddenly appear to have never heard of Google. It is SO ridiculously easy to find references to issues with GRACE that I'm not going to bother to do it for you, and only an idiot would call that confirmation of a contrary position.
... well, let's just say he used rather derogatory phrases. I was not aware of this article until today, but I thought you might find it of some interest.
By the way -- and admittedly this is slightly, but only slightly, off-topic -- in regard to your Spencer's thought experiment, last year Astrophysicist Joe Postma wrote that your argument in regard to the physics was
So you should either stop incorrectly claiming that the globe isn't warming, or stop citing Llovel et al. 2014 because their conclusion depends on net warming from 2005 to 2013.
I cited Llovel et al. because of their conclusion regarding the deep ocean. I have already stated what research I would have to do before I could responsibly make a claim that the globe was warming.
However, regarding what you asked above, I have a question of my own: are you unaware of the issues that have been raised about GRACE? That seems unlikely.
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.
I have already admitted I made an error.
But as for dishonesty, yes, you have given me ample and frequent reason to think you have been less than honest. So I won't apologize for suspecting you may be doing so at times when you may not actually be. "Fool me once..." as the saying goes. Here is an example:
Since we now seem to agree that there is significant warming down to 2000m,
Nowhere did I write such a thing. So when you continually -- rather routinely, in my experience, as I have demonstrated on many occasions in the past -- suggest I have stated things that in fact I have not, I have to wonder what the reason is. Given the context and past experience, Occam's Razor would seem to indicate dishonesty. I know of no other reason that is anywhere even remotely as likely.
I'm claiming that this conclusion is inconsistent with your claims that the globe isn't warming. Can we agree that even the bottom edge of the confidence interval is positive, indicating net warming from 2005 to 2013?
No, without looking into it further, I do not agree. I'm not claiming that it is false, either... I would have to look some things up, which I am not free to do at the moment.
One thing I would have to check, just for example, is what those confidence intervals are given the multidecadal variability, which is not -- at least not uncontroversially -- known to any precise degree yet. What has been claimed to be a newly discovered variability in the Atlantic has turned up, for example. Not to mention that we know during La Niña periods of ENSO there tends to be storage, while during El Niño, more of a release. All these factors would need to be considered. Until I do, I neither agree or disagree.
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?
Engaging in your usual context-shifting, I see. But even more: 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"??? , That makes absolutely no sense. No great surprise there, I suppose.
Total sea level rise can be measured using satellite altimetry, and land ice melting can be measured by using the GRACE satellites
Assuming the rather huge problems with GRACE's accuracy have been fixed. It is claimed they were. Perhaps they have been.
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.
Oh, and once again: ocean temperatures down to 2000m are different than sea surface temperatures.
Now, THAT is a fair point. I did in fact get surface temperatures mixed up with upper ocean temperatures. Mea culpa.
But I am just curious. Just a straightforward question: 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?
Thanks, Obama.
Most Americans will never comprehend this reality. This is the same mental block that prevents their parents from comprehending that Europeans have built superior internet and phone services. The same thing prevented their parents from realizing that the Japanese were making far superior cars.
You have a point but it is grossly over-stated. First, it is very clear why the U.S. telephone and internet infrastructure currently suck: incompetent (or in some cases corrupt) regulation. When ISPs and phone service providers are allowed to act as oligopolies, they just pocket their money and run, rather than properly investing in better infrastructure. Because they can.
However, there is another issue that is mostly unrelated: the U.S. is less densely populated than most "Western" countries, and the cost of infrastructure for providing comparable service is provably higher. That doesn't excuse the monopolists and incompetent bureaucrats, still it is true. And the U.S. government's attempt to fix the rural infrastructure problem was a comedy of errors, literally ridiculous cost overruns, and incompetence.
So you can lay the blame for a lot of this -- perhaps most of it -- directly at the feet of the U.S. government.
Back when we had a telephone system that was a properly regulated utility, it was demonstrably better than in the vast majority of Europe. Many European countries still had competing land-line services that were wholly incompatible with one another.
Also: in the beginning, the Japanese were not making cars that were "far superior" to those built in the U.S.. What they were making were cars that got better mileage and were inexpensive. The quality left a hell of a lot to be desired. So that statement is just plain wrong.
Over time, the quality got better and the U.S. manufacturers (also effectively an oligopoly, or so they thought) did not keep up. So much is undeniable.
Originally, the meaning of "drone" in relation to vehicles meant it was autonomous, with no pilot at all. It had nothing at all to do with line of sight. But Now it is often used to mean remotely-operated craft, regardless of whether they have any autonomous capability, but that's very different indeed from the original.
The word "drone" essentially meant "no human pilot", even a remote one. And it's still that way in a lot of dictionaries.
So it's wrong to say "the globe isn't warming."
I know what it says; I'm the one who linked to the paper.
I would simply repeat my questions above, but based on past experience you would continue to not get it.
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.
No, that source 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."
Are you able to read? Did you see that my comment was about DEEP ocean? Did you see that the very title of the paper is:
Deep-ocean contribution to sea level and energy budget not detectable over the past decade
??? The comment about temperatures at other depths is irrelevant to the point I made ABOUT THAT PAPER.
Do you know what the word "context" means?
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?
I've learned how to handle questions by watching you. If you manage to directly answer my question, that will show me that the right thing to do is directly answer your question. If you continue to simply evade my question, that will show me that the right thing to do is evade every question you ask.
I answered your question in my last post.
Did you get my point about "escalating" not just beyond what is socially acceptable, but even further, beyond what is legally acceptable? Once again, to be clear, I'm not accusing you of breaking any laws, I was making a point. Harassment is odious behavior. It is far worse than simply calling people names.
As I stated before: you seem quick to judge others but at the same time appear blind to your own transgressions.
I don't owe you anything, despite what seems to be a feeling on your part that I do. So this is all you're going to get. If you aren't satisfied with the content of my answers, my best suggestion would be to just go away.
In many cases direct genetic modification is *less* intrusive than other techniques of creating more suitable species of plants...the non-GMO method generally involves forcing random mutations via chemicals/radiation and then selecting for the traits you want. Of course there may be a bunch of other mutations that you didn't select for/against that could cause problems in people.
However, we do not know what long-term unintended consequences there may be to this type of gene modification, because there has been no long term. While selective breeding of natural mutations -- even of a relatively "forced" variety -- has been around for millennia.
The point being that one method is time-tested and the other one not. We don't have any long-term examples of jellyfish genes crossed with plant genes. We do have evidence that bacterial and viral genes have invaded other organisms, but again those we have evidence of were very long ago and have had eons to weed out any bad variants or effects.
I do agree, however, that the regulatory system is faulty.
I would suggest that the GMO itself isn't actually harming anything.
And I would disagree.
Societal / economic issue aside, when an altered genome that was controversial in the first place, and was promised not to be cross-fertile, proves otherwise and starts cross-pollinating other strains uncontrollably, we should take that as a strong warning.
Ever read Jurassic Park? The book, not the movie.
Since the oceans are warming, it's wrong to say "the globe isn't warming."
Warming, according to whom?
This says long-term trends have not been detected, up to 2000.
This says no warming trend in upper ocean SINCE 2000.
This -- which is the longest and most comprehensive study to date -- says there is no detectable warming in the deep ocean.
So I don't know who you've been listening to, but my sources say it isn't happening to any noticeable degree.
Do you somehow think your behavior isn't bullying and harassment?
I don't "think" it, I know it. I haven't been following you around and spamming YOUR comments with insults. That is not a matter of opinion it is provably true. I have only been replying to your own harassing comments.
Listen up: while YOU might find name-calling as a matter of opinion objectionable, there is a line -- and it isn't all that fine of a line -- between that and LIBEL. (I am not accusing you here of libel, that is just a neutral statement of fact.)
There is ALSO a fine line between replying to a comment, no matter how angrily, and HARASSMENT.
Name-calling might not be a nice thing to do, but libel and harassment are behaviors that are so odious they are actually ILLEGAL. Illegal behaviors are grounds for lawsuits. That is also a statement of fact.
Do you understand the difference between those kinds of behaviors, or not?
Tell us exactly what the problem is with this corn. Is it killing anything? Is it affecting anything?
I would very definitely call this HARM.
Introduced plants spreading where they are very definitely unwanted are called invasive species.
Companies suing farmers whose fields have been invaded without their consent is abusive monopolistic behavior. (Read: "corporatism".)
I could go on, but those are 2 harms that have been proved. One to crop diversity, the other to society and free markets.
Here's a quiz, Jane. Is the rest of this comment a proportional response, or is it an anger-driven escalating over-reaction?
You just gave away who you are. But I knew already.
Sock-puppetry is another form of dishonesty. It's also universally despised here on Slashdot.
But you've been told that before. So why don't you cease the BS, and STOP HARASSING ME?
Or do you somehow think that my behavior is evil, but bullying and harassment isn't? It's that hypocrisy rearing its head again.
Well, they also think that they're "agile". And have another expensive trendy tool to ensure it.
But according to the description their methodology very clearly ISN'T "agile", whether they think so or not.
Agile isn't a tool, it's a method. And that method doesn't include eons of top-down planning, no matter what tools are used. But I may be preaching to the choir here.
That I don't view genetic modification as an extraordinary source of danger
Well, in my opinion -- I admit that's all it is -- that suggests that you may not understand it very well.
If the globe isn't warming, that must mean the oceans aren't warming because they're part of the globe. Is that the case, Jane?
I stated what I stated. If you have a specific argument to make, then make it. Otherwise kindly go away. I won't argue over insinuations.
Since deluded incompetents can't recognize when others demonstrably understand more than they do, how can we stop the deluded incompetents from bullying others who demonstrably understand more about it than they do?
That's a fair point.
Just curious: are you saying you don't believe GMO corn spread beyond its boundaries and hybridized with other corn, after Monsanto had claimed that wasn't possible in its applications to USDA? (Hint: it has been proven in court.)
Are you claiming that the roundup-ready genes have NOT been found in other plants growing near cornfields?
As I say: I am just curious what your point is here.
Isn't that the same precautionary principle that should have been used before we started spewing CO2 into the atmosphere at unprecedented rates? Especially given that several mass extinctions were preceded by rapid CO2 releases?
Since the satellite AND balloon AND un-"adjusted" ground temperature measurements ALL say the globe isn't warming, even while CO2 has risen significantly, I wouldn't worry much about it.
But more to the point: even if that were not true, and CO2 warming were proved (it is not), we didn't really suspect any actual warming until the late 70s... more than a hundred years after we started "spewing" it into the air. So... no.
The fact that Jane mistakenly thinks the very first, most fundamental equation in this problem is "irrelevant" should be a red flag that Jane doesn't understand physics as well as professional physicists.
The fact that you insist that I provide you with something I already gave you, a long time ago and repeatedly, represents either a fundamental failure to understand on your part to understand the concept, or simple dishonesty. But your lack of understanding -- OR dishonesty, whichever it turns out to be -- is not my responsibility.
As before, I'm writing this for other readers, so that they are not taken in by your misinformation. That is the ONLY reason I have replied again.
I have no obligation to prove to you AGAIN what I have already proved. As others will have no problem seeing when I publish.
I shall not reply again. Stop harassing me. Your comments have been reported.