I neither agree or disagree. I'm not even reading your entire comments. I have no reason to. I solved the problem we discussed using standard textbook radiative physics methods. I have ZERO reason to go back and try to do it the "Khayman80" way, which is not exactly what I would call "standard" methodology. The textbook way is fine by me and I'm sticking with it. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]

One thing Jane said is true. Jane's never read my entire comments, or the comments by any other physicist.

But everything else Jane said is sadly wrong. Jane solved the problem using his own incompetent misunderstanding of his own textbooks. That's why inserting the standard physics definition of the word "net" into Jane's equation reproduces the energy conservation equation Jane's still adamantly rejecting.

Another independent way Jane could see that he misunderstood the "textbook way" would be to learn about how to apply conservation of energy. Here are some introductions: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).

If Jane would ever bother to read entire comments by physicists, or textbooks about basic physics, Jane would quickly learn that only power passing through a boundary is included in the energy conservation equation across that boundary.

It's just like crayons in a coloring book, Jane.

No. You do NOT get to take my words out of context, insert your own later comments around them, then try to argue that I said something I explained to you in plain English that I did not mean in the context you are trying to portray them. That's called LYING, man. Or worse. We already had this argument, and you lost. End of story. Go the fuck away, and leave me alone. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]

Once again, all I did there was substitute the standard physics definition of the term "net" into your equation. So if you're not disputing the definition of the word "net", you must agree with that simple substitution. Right?

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"

Once again, all I did there was substitute the standard physics definition of the term "net" into your equation. So if you're not disputing the definition of the word "net", you must agree with that simple substitution. Right?

And once again, would it really be so hard to take a few seconds to write down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the source without wrongly "cancelling" terms? That's another way to see that you should consider using the standard physics definition of the word "net". If you ever learn how to use crayons in a coloring book, that is...

This guy's supposed to be a PhD physicist

Really? Where did "RespekMyAthorati" claim to be a PhD physicist?

Recent federal GAO report: $106 BILLION dollars spend on "climate change" research by 2010. Four years ago. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-14]

... $106 BILLION (GAO rpt.) by 2010 for AGW was wasted. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2014-11-02]

... according to a recent GAO report, our own government spent $106 Billion dollars on "climate change" research, and that was by 2010, 4 years ago. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-20]

A recent GAO report said that $106 BILLION was spent by the US government through 2010 on global warming research. If you figure that was through the end of 2010, that was still 4 years ago, so the number is now much larger. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-30]

US GAO report last year said govt spent $106 BILLION on climate change research by 2010. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-03-07]

... According to the GAO, $106 billion was spent by US government on climate research by 2010. Five years later, that figure is no doubt by now much higher. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-21]

I've already pointed out that research is different from propaganda, but I'd have better luck educating my coffee table about that. So let's focus on a more tangible question.

I clicked on the actual report Jane referenced above, and clicked on Accessible Text to view the full report. There is no reference to $106 billion in that report. If there were, it would be easy for Jane/Lonny Eachus to quote it. Instead, Jane tells us to "begin by totaling up the annual expenditures as shown in the GAO report."

However, totaling up the annual expenditures in the GAO report's "Funding Category: Total;" sums to: $80.529 billion.

Not $106 billion. Where did Jane/Lonny Eachus get that total from?

I haven't "baselessly" accused anyone of anything. I make sure I have very good bases when I make actual accusations. If anything, your comment was a "baseless accusation". And those emails were almost certainly not "hacked". Evidence strongly suggests the leak was an "inside job", as the saying goes See what I mean, folks?. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]

Good grief, Jane. Of course Sky Dragon Slayers like you mistakenly believe the emails were almost certainly not "hacked". And since you're almost completely incapable of admitting when you're wrong, you'll never be reasoned out of that position.

But surely even Jane can see that unless the scientists Jane was quoting and attacking "leaked" the emails, then Jane was using private emails to attack scientists. And apparently that's cool, but responding to public comments is illegal, unethical, despicable lowlife sociopathic behavior.

Janeland is a funny place. For instance:

... I mean look: you want evidence that this guy is short of a full load? Some of those comments are from someone he thinks is me, and not even from Slashdot. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]

It's so adorable how Jane keeps hiding behind a pole.

... call it revenge for not getting to name Charon "Goofy". [Lonny Eachus, 2014-11-07]

... If left up to me, I would have really, honestly, named new 9th planet "Goofy". [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-28]

... You're talking to somebody who thought that other rock should have been named "Goofy". [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-28]

I want the definition to go back the way it was. That way, maybe we will finally get to name its companion "Goofy", rather than that dumbass Charon moniker. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-02-28]

Dumbass Charon moniker? James Christy named Charon because his wife's nickname is "Char".

In fact, "Charon is informally pronounced "SHAR-on," similar to the name of the discoverer's wife, Charlene."

The man who discovered Pluto wanted to name its moon after his wife, and astronomers pronounce it "SHAR-on" to honor his choice. Why does Jane/Lonny Eachus call this a dumbass moniker?

... I have explained to you many times that I was not disputing the definition of "net". So STOP LYING. Because that's what you are doing. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]

Once again, you disputed my simple substitution of the standard physics definition of the term "net" into your equation, and simultaneously insisted that you don't dispute the standard physics definition.

Who do you think that's going to fool, Jane? I don't think it's likely to fool anyone who understands what a "definition" is. Not to mention the fact that you repeatedly pretended not to understand how a crayon mark representing cooler power doesn't pass through a boundary inside the cooler wall.

If you're actually this confused about basic physics, why are you lecturing physicists about physics?

If you're not actually confused, why has Jane/Lonny Eachus betrayed humanity?

I mean look: you want evidence that this guy is short of a full load?

Charming. Jane, keep in mind that you're saying this right after adamantly rejecting the standard physics definition of the word "net", and pretending not to understand how a crayon mark representing cooler power doesn't pass through a boundary inside the cooler wall.

Looks like you were lying yet again, when you claimed that you'd be happy to declare to everyone that you were wrong about your Latour Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense. Or maybe you'd like to keep disputing basic physics definitions and the esoteric art of using crayons in a coloring book?

I'm sorry for disrupting the discussion. But I'm a little more concerned about the fact that Jane's spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation about one of the defining issues of our time, and libeling scientists by repeatedly and baselessly accusing them of fraud.

Every minute Jane spends cussing and screaming at me is one minute he can't spend trying to confuse someone else, or attacking yet another scientist.

He also doesn't seem to realize I do not have a similar obsession about him. Quite the opposite: I would appreciate it very much if he went away and left me alone. It's kind of ironic that he posts here where the topic is harassment.

Once again, leave you in peace so you can keep baselessly accusing scientists of fraud? If you want to keep baselessly accusing scientists of fraud, you're going to have to go through me first.

Once again, don't flatter yourself. Debunking misinformation and defending scientists against baseless attacks are my unhealthy obsessions. It's hardly my fault that you're one of the most prolific misinformers I've ever seen. If you didn't want people responding to your claims, you probably should've written them in a notebook instead of on a public website. It's also strange that you call my responses to your public comments "stalking and harassment" while quoting hacked private emails from years ago to baselessly attack scientists.

I think you've been on the Internet long enough to know that just because someone uses a female handle/nick, doesn't mean they are actively trying to deceive others into believing they are female.

Right, I've explicitly said that pseudonyms don't constitute lying.

The reasons I say Jane's actively trying to deceive people are too numerous to list here. For starters, Jane has made it clear that he's either a woman or a "flamer" (his words). Jane insists that most people who bothered to look have referred to him as a gal, etc. Jane/Lonny Eachus didn't need to pepper his comments with all these lies, which is why I call them pathological lies.

Apparently you feel that you have a right to be offended, but not I. [Lonny Eachus, 2010-12-06]

There is no "right to not be offended". The very notion is a mockery of American values. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-22]

Some folks got this weird idea they have a right to not be offended. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-28]

THERE IS NO “RIGHT” TO NOT BE OFFENDED. THERE IS AN OBLIGATION TO BE HUMBLE WHEN YOU OFFEND EGREGIOUSLY, THOUGHTLESSLY, OR GRATUITOUSLY. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-03]

I’ve met lot of people who seem to think “Right To Not Be Offended” is in the 1st Amendment. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2014-06-24]

This is very sad. It implies that people have some kind of “right” to not be offended, which is ludicrous. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-03]

Some people need to get over the ridiculous notion that they have some kind of "right" to not be offended. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-22]

No one is complaining that they should have the "right" not to be offended.

Wrong. LOTS of people do it. I see that kind of crap from one person or another on social media almost every day. And I have gotten it at work, too. Not for a long time, but it did happen. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-22]

No, Jane. You might think you're seeing "that kind of crap" almost every day, but as usual you're just putting words in peoples' mouths.

I worked in an office that the women basically ran, and believe me, they were sexist tyrants! They could tell jokes, men could not. I was told that ANYTHING they found offensive (in any way) would be considered sexual harassment. [Lonny Eachus, 2009-04-30]

... While discussing harassment at the workplace, the bookkeeper (who I found to be a pretty offensive person herself) said "ANYTHING I consider to be offensive is sexual harassment." Thinking she didn't mean that quite the way she said it, I said "You mean anything sexual you find offensive is sexual harassment." She gave me a rather nasty look and said: "No. ANYTHING I find offensive is sexual harassment." ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-22]

Poor Jane/Lonny Eachus. Was this why you started posing as a woman on the internet? To get back at the sexist tyrant women by making all women look bad?

I've repeatedly failed to explain that the power to the cooled walls you keep talking about is completely irrelevant because it doesn't pass through that boundary.

No, you haven't "failed to explain" this. What you did -- typically in your fashion, in my experience -- was change your story when you realized that it was not a viable avenue of attack. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-20]

Don't be ridiculous, Jane. Anyone who clicks that link will see that I've consistently told you that only power which passes through a boundary is included in its energy conservation equation. Again, the source heating power passes through that boundary, but the exterior wall cooler power doesn't pass through that boundary.

It's just like crayons in a coloring book, Jane.

I repeat: I have all this already on record. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-20]

Gosh, really? Before you give a copy of your cussing and screaming to your grandchildren, you might want to consider giving it to them before they've mastered coloring books. Otherwise "Grandma Jane" will have to answer a lot of awkward questions.

And again, inserting the standard physics definition of the word "net" into your equation reproduces the energy conservation equation you're still adamantly rejecting. That's another independent way to see that you should consider the possibility that only power passing through a boundary should be included in the energy conservation equation across that boundary.

No, the electrical power input is however many watts are sent in through the boundary around the heat source. That's why it's included in the energy conservation equation through that boundary.

You have just contradicted yourself AGAIN, because I have records of you clearly arguing that the input power was to maintain a temperature difference between the heat source and the walls, while I was arguing that the input to the heat source was constant but the power to the cooled walls was not stipulated and could be variable. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-20]

Again, the reason the electrical input power heating the source is included in the energy conservation equation through a boundary around the heat source is because it passes through that boundary. That's the important point.

You still don't seem to understand that power which doesn't pass through that boundary isn't included in that energy conservation equation. I've repeatedly failed to explain that the power to the cooled walls you keep talking about is completely irrelevant because it doesn't pass through that boundary.

Jane, this is on the level of "drawing within the lines." Does the power pass through the boundary or not? Just think about whether a crayon line crosses the lines in a coloring book. If it does, that power gets included in the energy equation through that boundary.

Seriously, take a few seconds to write down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the source without wrongly "cancelling" terms. You'd quickly find that:

(1) The power to the cooled walls is irrelevant.
(2) Because only the power passing through the boundary is included, the electrical power heating the source maintains a temperature difference between the heat source and the walls.

And again, inserting the standard physics definition of the word "net" into your equation reproduces the energy conservation equation you're still adamantly rejecting. That's another independent way to see that you should consider the possibility that only power passing through a boundary should be included in the energy conservation equation across that boundary.

... Spencer's experiment stipulated that the outer wall be kept at a constant temperature. Given that it is being given input from interior heat sources, it would take energy (over time, power of course) to maintain that low temperature. This was obviously Spencer's attempt to model the radiation "escaping to space". ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-20]

Again, any power used to maintain that low temperature is simply being moved from some point outside the boundary to another point which is also outside the boundary. Because that power never crosses the boundary, it's irrelevant.

... However, YOU have repeatedly stated that your electrical power input was considered to be maintaining a temperature difference between the heat source and the outer wall. In fact that was the stated basis for many of your arguments about conservation of energy. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-20]

No, the electrical power input is however many watts are sent in through the boundary around the heat source. That's why it's included in the energy conservation equation through that boundary.

... But your input energy was supposed to be constant. So you're either violating the parameters of the experiment, or you are creating energy from nothing. You don't get to have it both ways, and again your "solution" contradicts itself. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-20]

The electrical power input which crosses the boundary around the heat source is constant. Any power which doesn't cross that boundary is irrelevant, because it isn't included in that energy conservation equation.

And again, inserting the standard physics definition of the word "net" into your equation reproduces the energy conservation equation you're still adamantly rejecting. Would it really be so hard to take a few seconds to write down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the source without wrongly "cancelling" terms? That's another way to see that you should consider using the standard physics definition of the word "net".

This is really basic physics, Jane. If you're actually this hopelessly confused, maybe you shouldn't be lecturing physicists about physics.

And for your sake I hope you actually are just confused. It's difficult to understand why anyone would deliberately spread misinformation about what the National Academy of Sciences calls "one of the defining issues of our time."