Comment Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score 1) 92
... 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]
Once again, how bizarre. The whole reason Slayers deny that an enclosed source warms is because that implies greenhouse gases can't warm the surface:
.. the CO2-warming model rely on the concept of "back radiation", which physicists (not climate scientists) have proved to be impossible. I'm happy to leave actual climate science to climate scientists. But when THEIR models rely on a fundamental misunderstanding of physics, I'll take the physicists' word for it, thank you very much.
.. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-07-05]
... The only reason I agreed to work through the Spencer experiment with you was because I already knew you were wrong, and wanted the chance to show that to everybody, unequivocally. Well, I got that chance. And as soon as I get it written up (which as I have stated before will take a while), I fully intend to show everybody. You asked me if I really was willing to publish the results, no matter the outcome. Well, now that in fact it didn't go well for you, sour grapes isn't going to get you anywhere.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-25]
If Jane is so sure that his Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense is correct, why can't he write down a simple energy conservation equation around the heated source without wrongly "cancelling" terms? Ironically, this is the very first equation needed to understand Spencer's experiment. And Jane can't even get the first equation right. Prof. Cox is right: this isn't even degree-level physics.
Jane, if you tried just once to write down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the source without wrongly "cancelling" terms, you'd realize all this Slayer nonsense is wrong.
... maybe Jane/Lonny could just ask Prof. Cox if the required electrical heating power depends on the cooler vacuum chamber wall temperature? I bet Jane/Lonny Eachus $100 that Prof. Cox answers "yes" to the previous question. Is Jane/Lonny Eachus chicken?
... If you want to ask him about what amounts to a pretty straightforward textbook radiation problem, go right ahead. But I already know the answer -- which, in fact, I got from textbooks on the subject -- so I don't have to bet. You go ahead, if you want to.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-]
In other words: bok bok bok BOKKKKK. That's what I thought. Jane/Lonny Eachus is chicken.
If Jane/Lonny Eachus were a real skeptic, he'd at least consider the possibility that Jane's "radiant power output" equation doesn't describe "electrical heating power". Jane's textbooks don't say to use a "radiant power output" equation to describe "electrical heating power".
That's why Jane is too chicken to ask Prof. Cox if electrical heating power depends on the cooler vacuum chamber wall temperature. Because Jane's afraid that Prof. Cox will say yes. If not, why did Prof. Cox say all these things?
Remember, Jane's noted that CO2 warming models rely on the concept of "back radiation". So if Jane and the Slayers are right about Spencer's experiment, then why does Prof. Cox agree that increasing CO2 warms Earth's surface?
And Prof. Cox isn't alone, not by any stretch of the imagination. For instance, Grant Petty is a professor of atmospheric science and wrote A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation. He wrote a letter:
"To all Slayers:
In each of your cases, I predict that one of two things is going to happen down the road: (1) the gaps and contradictions in your own collective understanding of physical and climate science will become so evident that you can no longer ignore them, and you just might even feel a little shame at your roles in aggressively promoting misinformation and distrust of experts among those who aren’t equipped to tell science from pseuodoscience; or (2) you will close your eyes to that evidence forever and continue to be the conspiracy theorists who believe that you’re modern-day Galileos fighting the evil scientific establishment, and everything you see and hear will be forced to fit into that paranoid world-view no matter how divorced from reality it is.