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.
Wow. I responded: Jane's accounting for "power out" without including a term for "power in". That's not A = A, it's A = 0 because one of the terms has been ignored. It's led Jane to the absurd conclusion that electrical heating power doesn't depend on the cooler chamber wall temperature. If that's the case, then how did we detect the 2.7K cosmic microwave background radiation with warmer detectors? How do uncooled IR detectors see cooler objects? Again, why is Venus hotter than Mercury?
Maybe khallow's referring to Jane's insistence that:
... all the radiation going IN which strikes the hotter body is effectively reflected or scattered...
But I repeatedly failed to communicate that the grey body equation has to reduce to the black body equation when emissivity = 0, in which case there are no reflections or scattering.
I still haven't found out where the quoted comments in Jane Q. Public's source post came from. I guess it was email or perhaps another endless argument elsewhere which didn't show up in my Google search.
No, everything is public and linked here. If you could be more specific about exactly which quoted comments you can't find, I could easily give you the link.
I side with Jane Q. Public fully (once I saw that he/she explicitly stated an assumption I had concerns about). Fuck you, khayman80.
Charming. You side with Jane Q. Public fully regarding this very simple problem? Let's recap. An electrically heated plate is in a vacuum chamber with cooler chamber walls. The problem is: what's the required electrical heating power?
To solve this problem, start by applying conservation of energy. Draw a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source
Since power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing (conservation of energy):
electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source
Jane, however, insists that:
My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]
So which energy conservation equation do you fully side with, Khallow?
I just reposted the comment Jane emphatically rejected. If there's some logical way to explain why Jane rejected my very simple comment that doesn't involve rejecting the standard physics definition of the term "net" them Jane and/or Khallow should consider providing it.
The only thing I am going to say further, despite what other BS you try to pull here, is that I was saying "NO!" to your line of argument. I was not disagreeing about what "net" is. It's a classic case of "out of context". Which I am sure you well knew. Which makes you a demonstrably dishonest person. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-16]
Jane, my "line of argument" was very simple. If you weren't disagreeing about the definition of the word "net" then why did you scream "NO!!!!!" in response to my comment?
If power in = power out (your own stipulation), and the only NET power INTO a defined spherical region is electrical, and the only NET power OUT of that region is radiative, then net radiative power out at steady-state must therefore be equal to the net electrical power consumed. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]
Jane seems to be saying that at steady-state:
net electrical power consumed = net radiative power out
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:
net electrical power consumed = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in"
However, this new equation doesn't match Jane's earlier equation:
My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]
Notice that Jane's earlier equation doesn't describe net radiative power out, which is why it violates conservation of energy. Is Jane retracting his earlier incorrect equation, or does Jane dispute the definition of the word "net"?
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]
... NASA's climate study budget has gone up 41% while their space budget only went up 7%.... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-16]
Sure, let's ask Sky Dragon Slayers how many satellites should observe and protect our home planet. As soon as they finish mocking NASA's director because Slayers claim that "global warming" is nonexistent. But even when Slayers insist that "NASA needs to pull its head out of faulty climate science and get back to space," they should remember that not even space is compatible with Sky Dragon Slayerism.
After all, what if NASA just sends more missions to Venus and Mercury? Again, if CO2 isn't the reason, then why is Venus hotter than Mercury? Is Venus hotter than Mercury because of CO2, gray Oreos, or basketball player gloves?
Shouldn't Sky Dragon Slayers be able to answer such simple questions before determining NASA's aims and goals?
Furthermore, Jane should explain why he emphatically rejected the standardphysicsdefinition of the term "net". If Jane/Lonny Eachus ever accepts the standard physics definition of the term "net", he'd find that the Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense he's been regurgitating for years is based on a misunderstanding of a basic physics definition.
On that glorious day, Jane/Lonny Eachus would finally have a more credible case for influencing NASA's aims and goals.
.. The experiment we were discussing was Spencer's radiation experiment. Not "global warming". You keep trying to apply my arguments about Spencer's challenge to the broader issue of global warming, aka "climate change", and it's not valid to do so... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-25]
CEASE misreprenting my position and my words. We had an agreement: when we discussed Spencer's "back radiation" experiment, I made it abundantly clear that we were discussion ONLY Spencer's experiment, not "greenhouse warming"... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-07]
How adorable. Once again, the whole reason Slayers dispute Spencer's experiment is because that implies greenhouse gases can't warm the surface:
.. the CO2-warming model rely on the concept of "back radiation", which physicists (not climate scientists) have proved to be impossible. I'm happy to leave actual climate science to climate scientists. But when THEIR models rely on a fundamental misunderstanding of physics, I'll take the physicists' word for it, thank you very much... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-07-05]
.. I can show clearly, to someone with high school level math skills, that he was utterly, abjectly, and rather pathetically wrong, and the "Slayers", as he calls them, were right all along. Because, you see, as I know from experience, it isn't enough to show people the right way. At the same time it is necessary and desirable to show beyond doubt that "global warming alarmist" bullshit is just that: bullshit... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-10]
.. I stipulated before we got into that discussion that we were discussing ONLY Spencer's experiment, nothing else. You agreed to that condition. And now, you're violating it by extrapolating my comments to a completely different context... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-26]
I never agreed to pretend that Jane's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense doesn't conflict with mainstream physicists' understanding of the greenhouse effect. Mainly because I couldn't imagine a Slayer resorting to such an absurd evasion, but also because I can't imagine agreeing to look the other way while he paralyzed his brain by simultaneously insisting that mainstream physicists agree with the Sky Dragon Slayers, while also somehow completely ignoring the National Academies of Science, the American Instituteof Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, the European Physi
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:
After Jane emphatically rejected the standardphysicsdefinition 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 climatecontrarians.
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 contributedopen 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 contributedopen 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?
Jane, before you try to lecture people about orbital mechanics, you should first make sure you understand more fundamental concepts like "conservation of energy".
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!!!!! As I have explained to you innumerable times now, you can also consider your heat source, by itself, that "sphere". The only NET radiative power out comes from the electrical power in. Further, the cooler walls do not contribute any of that NET power out. That's what net means. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]
I've already pointed out that Jane's hopelessly confused about the word "net", but that's just one of the mistakes Jane packed into these few sentences.
Jane's also wrong to imply that energy conservation across one choice of boundary could somehow contradict energy conservation across another boundary choice. That's impossible. Many boundary choices are inconvenient but they all have to be consistent. Otherwise, how could we possibly tell which boundary choice was correct?
So Jane can't object to the simple energy conservation equation I derived by claiming that some other boundary choice would somehow contradict my equation. That's completely impossible, and if Jane doesn't understand that point then he should learn about conservation of energy: example(backup), example(backup), example(backup).
As you can tell after reading those introductions, here's how to apply conservation of energy. Draw a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source
Since power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing:
electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source
I put the boundary around the heat source so the boundary is in vacuum. That's because radiation can't travel through opaque solids like the heat source. So the only way to obtain an energy conservation equation with radiative terms is to place the boundary around the heat source.
For example, I calculated the enclosing shell's inner temperature by drawing the boundary within the enclosing shell. This boundary was inside aluminum, so heat transfer through it was by thermal conduction, not radiation. Notice that even this boundary choice leads to a conduction equation where electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. That's because all boundary choices have to be consistent. The resulting equations can't contradict each other unless one of them is wrong.
After I asked Jane to explain exactly where his boundary would be drawn, Jane replied:
... You can draw the boundary right around the heat source. Electric power comes in, radiative power goes out.
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 contributedopen 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?
If anyone reading this is curious what a troll looks like, find thia dude's "energy conservation" post in that thread. And i'll write your next comment for you to save you from having to consult your one-line script yet again: "y u ask me kill myslef" [Rujiel, 2014-12-14]
Do you mean this post where I explained that Jane Q. Public's climate science denial violates conservation of energy? Again, why did that prompt you to accuse me of being a paid oil troll?
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]
Why would a paid oil troll defend mainstream climate science? This is one reason why I think you might be mistaking me for someone else. Why would the oil industry pay me to debunk the same baseless accusations they're helping to spread?
Another reason I think you might be mistaking me for someone else is that in that post I quoted Jane Q. Public to respond to his baseless accusation:
.. Ever since I challenged his incorrect answer to a question of physics several years ago, he has been rude and insulting.. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-20]
... seriously, "rude and insulting"? Here are just a few of Jane's most recent charming statements to me. If Jane was telling the truth about my comments, Jane should be able to produce quotes of similar length which are just as "rude and insulting" as Jane's. Jane can't do that because he's just projecting his own rude, cuss-filled insults onto me.
".. Jesus, you're a dumbshit... your adolescent, antisocial behavior.. keep making a fool of yourself... you're being such a dumbass.. your analysis of it is a total clusterfuck... you're so damned arrogant you think I'm the one being stupid... you were too goddamned stupid.."[Jane Q. Public]
As you can tell by clicking those links, all those insulting comments were actually quotes from Jane Q. Public, directed at me. As you can tell, Jane Q. Public has been cussing at me for months, and I never responded in kind. That's why I found it bewildering that he accused me of being "rude and insulting". So I quoted some of Jane's bizarre insults to show that Jane's baseless accusation was textbook psychological projection.
It's still not clear why this caused you to hate me so much that you've suggested I kill myself three times.
Jane's "interest" in that NAS report evaporated after I showed that Jane had been fooled by "Steven Goddard" once again. So let's return to Jane's confusion about basic thermodynamics.
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!!!!! As I have explained to you innumerable times now, you can also consider your heat source, by itself, that "sphere". The only NET radiative power out comes from the electrical power in. Further, the cooler walls do not contribute any of that NET power out. That's what net means. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]
I've already pointed out that Jane's hopelessly confused about the word "net", but that's just one of the mistakes Jane packed into these few sentences.
Jane's also wrong to imply that energy conservation across one choice of boundary could somehow contradict energy conservation across another boundary choice. That's impossible. Many boundary choices are inconvenient but they all have to be consistent. Otherwise, how could we possibly tell which boundary choice was correct?
So Jane can't object to the simple energy conservation equation I derived by claiming that some other boundary choice would somehow contradict my equation. That's completely impossible, and if Jane doesn't understand that point then he should learn about conservation of energy: example(backup), example(backup), example(backup).
As you can tell after reading those introductions, here's how to apply conservation of energy. Draw a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source
Since power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing:
electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source
I put the boundary around the heat source so the boundary is in vacuum. That's because radiation can't travel through opaque solids like the heat source. So the only way to obtain an energy conservation equation with radiative terms is to place the boundary around the heat source.
For example, I calculated the enclosing shell's inner temperature by drawing the boundary within the enclosing shell. This boundary was inside aluminum, so heat transfer through it was by thermal conduction, not radiation. Notice that even this boundary choice leads to a conduction equation where electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. That's because all boundary choices have to be consistent. They can't contradict each other unless one of them is wrong.
After I asked Jane to explain exactly where his boundary would be drawn, Jane replied:
Jane's "interest" in that NAS report evaporated after I showed that Jane had been fooled by "Steven Goddard" once again. So let's return to Jane's confusion about basic thermodynamics.
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!!!!! As I have explained to you innumerable times now, you can also consider your heat source, by itself, that "sphere". The only NET radiative power out comes from the electrical power in. Further, the cooler walls do not contribute any of that NET power out. That's what net means. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]
I've already pointed out that Jane's hopelessly confused about the word "net", but that's just one of the mistakes Jane packed into these few sentences.
Jane's also wrong to imply that energy conservation across one choice of boundary could somehow contradict energy conservation across another boundary choice. That's impossible. Many boundary choices are inconvenient but they all have to be consistent. Otherwise, how could we possibly tell which boundary choice was correct?
So Jane can't object to the simple energy conservation equation I derived by claiming that some other boundary choice would somehow contradict my equation. That's completely impossible, and if Jane doesn't understand that point then he should learn about conservation of energy: example(backup), example(backup), example(backup).
As you can tell after reading those introductions, here's how to apply conservation of energy. Draw a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source
Since power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing:
electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source
I put the boundary around the heat source so the boundary is in vacuum. That's because radiation can't travel through opaque solids like the heat source. So the only way to obtain an energy conservation equation with radiative terms is to place the boundary around the heat source.
For example, I calculated the enclosing shell's inner temperature by drawing the boundary within the enclosing shell. This boundary was inside aluminum, so heat transfer through it was by thermal conduction, not radiation. Notice that even this boundary choice leads to a conduction equation where electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. That's because all boundary choices have to be consistent. They can't contradict each other unless one of them is wrong.
Feel free to cite the actual scientific papers predicting global cooling, as opposed to media hype about some speculation at the time. [david_thornley]
... the National Academy of Sciences itself was convinced enough of the "Global Cooling" scare to actually publish a call for immediate action (Science News, Jan. 25 1975, p. 52).... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]
As for the mentioned announcement it is in THIS issue of Science News, in the article "NAS Warning On Climate Changes". Exactly as mentioned in the "Chilling Possibilities" article that is linked to in the page that I originally linked to, and EXACTLY as I stated it. The "NAS Warning On Climate Changes" article itself is behind a paywall. If it weren't, I would have linked to it directly. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]
Okay, so you read a blog which linked to an article which mentioned an announcement by the NAS. Then you responded to David Thornley's request for actual scientific papers predicting global cooling by saying "the NAS was convinced enough of the "Global Cooling" scare to actually publish a call for immediate action."
Did you ever think it might be educational to actually read that NAS report first-hand rather than relying on third-hand interpretations of interpretations? If you did, you'd discover that the 1975 NAS report (PDF) "Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action" doesn't predict global cooling. Quite the opposite! Read their words:
"Of the two forms of pollution, the carbon dioxide increase is probably the more influential at the present time in changing temperatures near the earth's surface (Mitchell, 1973a)."
"The corresponding changes of mean atmospheric temperature due to CO2 [as calculated by Manabe (1971) on the assumption of constant relative humidity and fixed cloudiness] are about 0.3C per 10 percent change of CO2 and appear capable of accounting for only a fraction of the observed warming of the earth between 1880 and 1940. They could, however, conceivably aggregate to a further warming of about 0.5C between now and the end of the century."
How ironic! Instead of predicting global cooling, the NAS actually predicted "about 0.5C" of CO2-based warming between 1975 and 2000. To see how their prediction fared, let's plot HadCRUT4 over that timespan. The raw data shows warming of 0.47C from 1975 to 2000, which rounds up to 0.5C.
So that 1975 NAS report wasn't predicting global cooling! Its warming prediction was actually fairly accurate, and was certainly within the statistical uncertainties.
Again, that's probably why 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 tries to explain why that NAS report predicting about 0.5C of
... the National Academy of Sciences itself was convinced enough of the "Global Cooling" scare to actually publish a call for immediate action (Science News, Jan. 25 1975, p. 52). [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]
I merely pointed out the established truth that it was taken seriously. And again: the cited announcement by National Academy of Sciences is not "nonsense". It, too, is real. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]
You linked to a blog and claimed it linked to an announcement in Science News, Jan. 25 1975, p. 52. But the blog you linked has two "Science News" links which lead here and here. Neither of those links lead to Science News, Jan. 25 1975, p. 52. Could you please post the link to Science News, Jan. 25 1975, p. 52?
While Jane looks for that link, he should also consider addressing this issue with his basic thermodynamics:
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!!!!! As I have explained to you innumerable times now, you can also consider your heat source, by itself, that "sphere". The only NET radiative power out comes from the electrical power in. Further, the cooler walls do not contribute any of that NET power out. That's what net means. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]
As I suspected, Jane disputes the definition of the word"net". Jane didn't get his nonsensical definition from any of his textbooks, because in physics, net power through a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in".
That's what net means. But after it became clear that Jane is hopelessly confused about the very term "NET" which he keeps capitalizing, I explained conservation of energy in a way that didn't require using that troublesome word. Draw a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source
Since power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing:
electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source
Notice that this equation is equivalent to the equation Jane just described, but only if Jane uses the physics definition of the word "net". And in order to derive it, I didn't even have to use that word which has Jane hopelessly confused. All I had to use was conservation of energy.
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!!!!! As I have explained to you innumerable times now, you can also consider your heat source, by itself, that "sphere". The only NET radiative power out comes from the electrical power in. Further, the cooler walls do not contribute any of that NET power out. That's what net means. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]
As I suspected, Jane disputes the definition of the word"net". Jane didn't get his nonsensical definition from any of his textbooks, because in physics, net power through a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in".
That's what net means. But after it became clear that Jane is hopelessly confused about the very term "NET" which he keeps capitalizing, I explained conservation of energy in a way that didn't require using that troublesome word. Draw a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source
Since power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing:
electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source
Notice that this equation is equivalent to the equation Jane just described, but only if Jane uses the physics definition of the word "net". And in order to derive it, I didn't even have to use that word which has Jane hopelessly confused. All I had to use was conservation of energy.
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
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. I responded: Jane's accounting for "power out" without including a term for "power in". That's not A = A, it's A = 0 because one of the terms has been ignored. It's led Jane to the absurd conclusion that electrical heating power doesn't depend on the cooler chamber wall temperature. If that's the case, then how did we detect the 2.7K cosmic microwave background radiation with warmer detectors? How do uncooled IR detectors see cooler objects? Again, why is Venus hotter than Mercury?
Maybe khallow's referring to Jane's insistence that:
But I repeatedly failed to communicate that the grey body equation has to reduce to the black body equation when emissivity = 0, in which case there are no reflections or scattering.
No, everything is public and linked here. If you could be more specific about exactly which quoted comments you can't find, I could easily give you the link.
Charming. You side with Jane Q. Public fully regarding this very simple problem? Let's recap. An electrically heated plate is in a vacuum chamber with cooler chamber walls. The problem is: what's the required electrical heating power?
To solve this problem, start by applying conservation of energy. Draw a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source
Since power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing (conservation of energy):
electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source
Jane, however, insists that:
So which energy conservation equation do you fully side with, Khallow?
s/them/then
I just reposted the comment Jane emphatically rejected. If there's some logical way to explain why Jane rejected my very simple comment that doesn't involve rejecting the standard physics definition of the term "net" them Jane and/or Khallow should consider providing it.
Jane, my "line of argument" was very simple. If you weren't disagreeing about the definition of the word "net" then why did you scream "NO!!!!!" in response to my comment?
Jane seems to be saying that at steady-state:
net electrical power consumed = net radiative power out
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:
net electrical power consumed = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in"
However, this new equation doesn't match Jane's earlier equation:
Notice that Jane's earlier equation doesn't describe net radiative power out, which is why it violates conservation of energy. Is Jane retracting his earlier incorrect equation, or does Jane dispute the definition of the word "net"?
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
Sure, let's ask Sky Dragon Slayers how many satellites should observe and protect our home planet. As soon as they finish mocking NASA's director because Slayers claim that "global warming" is nonexistent. But even when Slayers insist that "NASA needs to pull its head out of faulty climate science and get back to space," they should remember that not even space is compatible with Sky Dragon Slayerism.
After all, what if NASA just sends more missions to Venus and Mercury? Again, if CO2 isn't the reason, then why is Venus hotter than Mercury? Is Venus hotter than Mercury because of CO2, gray Oreos, or basketball player gloves?
Shouldn't Sky Dragon Slayers be able to answer such simple questions before determining NASA's aims and goals?
Furthermore, Jane should explain why he emphatically rejected the standard physics definition of the term "net". If Jane/Lonny Eachus ever accepts the standard physics definition of the term "net", he'd find that the Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense he's been regurgitating for years is based on a misunderstanding of a basic physics definition.
On that glorious day, Jane/Lonny Eachus would finally have a more credible case for influencing NASA's aims and goals.
Oops, Jane started cheerleading a few weeks later. Also, "ineffiency" should be inefficiences.
How adorable. Once again, the whole reason Slayers dispute Spencer's experiment is because that implies greenhouse gases can't warm the surface:
I never agreed to pretend that Jane's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense doesn't conflict with mainstream physicists' understanding of the greenhouse effect. Mainly because I couldn't imagine a Slayer resorting to such an absurd evasion, but also because I can't imagine agreeing to look the other way while he paralyzed his brain by simultaneously insisting that mainstream physicists agree with the Sky Dragon Slayers, while also somehow completely ignoring the National Academies of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, the European Physi
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:
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.
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:
You didn't call me out for posting spam. You repeatedly told me to kill myself. There's a difference. Once again:
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?
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?
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?
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
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?
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?
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?
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?
Jane/Lonny Eachus keeps lecturing about physics.
Jane, before you try to lecture people about orbital mechanics, you should first make sure you understand more fundamental concepts like "conservation of energy".
I've already pointed out that Jane's hopelessly confused about the word "net", but that's just one of the mistakes Jane packed into these few sentences.
Jane's also wrong to imply that energy conservation across one choice of boundary could somehow contradict energy conservation across another boundary choice. That's impossible. Many boundary choices are inconvenient but they all have to be consistent. Otherwise, how could we possibly tell which boundary choice was correct?
So Jane can't object to the simple energy conservation equation I derived by claiming that some other boundary choice would somehow contradict my equation. That's completely impossible, and if Jane doesn't understand that point then he should learn about conservation of energy: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).
As you can tell after reading those introductions, here's how to apply conservation of energy. Draw a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source
Since power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing:
electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source
I put the boundary around the heat source so the boundary is in vacuum. That's because radiation can't travel through opaque solids like the heat source. So the only way to obtain an energy conservation equation with radiative terms is to place the boundary around the heat source.
For example, I calculated the enclosing shell's inner temperature by drawing the boundary within the enclosing shell. This boundary was inside aluminum, so heat transfer through it was by thermal conduction, not radiation. Notice that even this boundary choice leads to a conduction equation where electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. That's because all boundary choices have to be consistent. The resulting equations can't contradict each other unless one of them is wrong.
After I asked Jane to explain exactly where his boundary would be drawn, Jane replied:
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?
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?
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?
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?
Sadly, Jane/Lonny Eachus repeatedly chooses the second option. Once again.
Sadly, Jane/Lonny Eachus repeatedly chooses the second option. Once again.
Do you mean this post where I explained that Jane Q. Public's climate science denial violates conservation of energy? Again, why did that prompt you to accuse me of being a paid oil troll?
Why would a paid oil troll defend mainstream climate science? This is one reason why I think you might be mistaking me for someone else. Why would the oil industry pay me to debunk the same baseless accusations they're helping to spread?
Another reason I think you might be mistaking me for someone else is that in that post I quoted Jane Q. Public to respond to his baseless accusation:
As you can tell by clicking those links, all those insulting comments were actually quotes from Jane Q. Public, directed at me. As you can tell, Jane Q. Public has been cussing at me for months, and I never responded in kind. That's why I found it bewildering that he accused me of being "rude and insulting". So I quoted some of Jane's bizarre insults to show that Jane's baseless accusation was textbook psychological projection.
It's still not clear why this caused you to hate me so much that you've suggested I kill myself three times.
Jane's "interest" in that NAS report evaporated after I showed that Jane had been fooled by "Steven Goddard" once again. So let's return to Jane's confusion about basic thermodynamics.
I've already pointed out that Jane's hopelessly confused about the word "net", but that's just one of the mistakes Jane packed into these few sentences.
Jane's also wrong to imply that energy conservation across one choice of boundary could somehow contradict energy conservation across another boundary choice. That's impossible. Many boundary choices are inconvenient but they all have to be consistent. Otherwise, how could we possibly tell which boundary choice was correct?
So Jane can't object to the simple energy conservation equation I derived by claiming that some other boundary choice would somehow contradict my equation. That's completely impossible, and if Jane doesn't understand that point then he should learn about conservation of energy: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).
As you can tell after reading those introductions, here's how to apply conservation of energy. Draw a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source
Since power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing:
electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source
I put the boundary around the heat source so the boundary is in vacuum. That's because radiation can't travel through opaque solids like the heat source. So the only way to obtain an energy conservation equation with radiative terms is to place the boundary around the heat source.
For example, I calculated the enclosing shell's inner temperature by drawing the boundary within the enclosing shell. This boundary was inside aluminum, so heat transfer through it was by thermal conduction, not radiation. Notice that even this boundary choice leads to a conduction equation where electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. That's because all boundary choices have to be consistent. They can't contradict each other unless one of them is wrong.
After I asked Jane to explain exactly where his boundary would be drawn, Jane replied:
Jane's "interest" in that NAS report evaporated after I showed that Jane had been fooled by "Steven Goddard" once again. So let's return to Jane's confusion about basic thermodynamics.
I've already pointed out that Jane's hopelessly confused about the word "net", but that's just one of the mistakes Jane packed into these few sentences.
Jane's also wrong to imply that energy conservation across one choice of boundary could somehow contradict energy conservation across another boundary choice. That's impossible. Many boundary choices are inconvenient but they all have to be consistent. Otherwise, how could we possibly tell which boundary choice was correct?
So Jane can't object to the simple energy conservation equation I derived by claiming that some other boundary choice would somehow contradict my equation. That's completely impossible, and if Jane doesn't understand that point then he should learn about conservation of energy: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).
As you can tell after reading those introductions, here's how to apply conservation of energy. Draw a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source
Since power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing:
electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source
I put the boundary around the heat source so the boundary is in vacuum. That's because radiation can't travel through opaque solids like the heat source. So the only way to obtain an energy conservation equation with radiative terms is to place the boundary around the heat source.
For example, I calculated the enclosing shell's inner temperature by drawing the boundary within the enclosing shell. This boundary was inside aluminum, so heat transfer through it was by thermal conduction, not radiation. Notice that even this boundary choice leads to a conduction equation where electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. That's because all boundary choices have to be consistent. They can't contradict each other unless one of them is wrong.
After I asked Jane to expl
Continued here, here, and here.
Okay, so you read a blog which linked to an article which mentioned an announcement by the NAS. Then you responded to David Thornley's request for actual scientific papers predicting global cooling by saying "the NAS was convinced enough of the "Global Cooling" scare to actually publish a call for immediate action."
Did you ever think it might be educational to actually read that NAS report first-hand rather than relying on third-hand interpretations of interpretations? If you did, you'd discover that the 1975 NAS report (PDF) "Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action" doesn't predict global cooling. Quite the opposite! Read their words:
"Of the two forms of pollution, the carbon dioxide increase is probably the more influential at the present time in changing temperatures near the earth's surface (Mitchell, 1973a)."
"The corresponding changes of mean atmospheric temperature due to CO2 [as calculated by Manabe (1971) on the assumption of constant relative humidity and fixed cloudiness] are about 0.3C per 10 percent change of CO2 and appear capable of accounting for only a fraction of the observed warming of the earth between 1880 and 1940. They could, however, conceivably aggregate to a further warming of about 0.5C between now and the end of the century."
How ironic! Instead of predicting global cooling, the NAS actually predicted "about 0.5C" of CO2-based warming between 1975 and 2000. To see how their prediction fared, let's plot HadCRUT4 over that timespan. The raw data shows warming of 0.47C from 1975 to 2000, which rounds up to 0.5C.
So that 1975 NAS report wasn't predicting global cooling! Its warming prediction was actually fairly accurate, and was certainly within the statistical uncertainties.
Again, that's probably why 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 tries to explain why that NAS report predicting about 0.5C of
You linked to a blog and claimed it linked to an announcement in Science News, Jan. 25 1975, p. 52. But the blog you linked has two "Science News" links which lead here and here. Neither of those links lead to Science News, Jan. 25 1975, p. 52. Could you please post the link to Science News, Jan. 25 1975, p. 52?
While Jane looks for that link, he should also consider addressing this issue with his basic thermodynamics:
As I suspected, Jane disputes the definition of the word "net". Jane didn't get his nonsensical definition from any of his textbooks, because in physics, net power through a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in".
That's what net means. But after it became clear that Jane is hopelessly confused about the very term "NET" which he keeps capitalizing, I explained conservation of energy in a way that didn't require using that troublesome word. Draw a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source
Since power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing:
electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source
Notice that this equation is equivalent to the equation Jane just described, but only if Jane uses the physics definition of the word "net". And in order to derive it, I didn't even have to use that word which has Jane hopelessly confused. All I had to use was conservation of energy.
As I suspected, Jane disputes the definition of the word "net". Jane didn't get his nonsensical definition from any of his textbooks, because in physics, net power through a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in".
That's what net means. But after it became clear that Jane is hopelessly confused about the very term "NET" which he keeps capitalizing, I explained conservation of energy in a way that didn't require using that troublesome word. Draw a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source
Since power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing:
electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source
Notice that this equation is equivalent to the equation Jane just described, but only if Jane uses the physics definition of the word "net". And in order to derive it, I didn't even have to use that word which has Jane hopelessly confused. All I had to use was conservation of energy.
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:
While Jane is reading those papers, he should also consider addressing this issue with his basic thermodynamics:
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