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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, I've actually emphasized that:

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

Rasmus Benestad and Ray Pierrehumbert agree:

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

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

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

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

I've explained that to a first approximation, convection establishes the lapse rate (the rate at which temperature drops with altitude in the troposphere). That establishes the slope. Adding greenhouse gases increases the effective radiating level, which increases the "y-intercept" of the temperature vs. altitude line. Both are necessary to determine the surface temperature (along with the Sun's brightness and the Earth's albedo, etc.)

If you think the process is simple and obvious, that just means you don't understand it. If you believe it without understanding it, you're acting on faith, not reason, regardless of your choice in high priests. Don't do that - either study the subject, or admit it's not important to you.

By "study the subject" do you mean reading crackpot websites, or getting physics training from an accredited university, leading to a physics PhD and a career studying Earth science? I ask because I've wasted years "talking" with anonymous internet ninjas who lack the physics training to even recognize that they lack physics training. Since you know my name and my physics training, what's yours? Knowing your physics training will help me calibrate my explanations to your educational background.

You still haven't cited any scientific literature to support your opinion that CO2 emissions aren't a concern. When atmospheric CO2 is doubled, what equilibrium temperature rise results? Please cite peer-reviewed papers with equilibrium CO2 climate sensitivities that you actually accept. Otherwise it's not clear what sensitivity study prompted you to claim "it would not be a concern."

Also, please cite peer-reviewed papers showing that CO2 emissions don't result in ocean acidification. That's also necessary before claiming "it would not be a concern."

You're only making yourself look foolish here, by oversimplifying the issue so much that you're actually wrong.

Oversimplifying the issue would be claiming there's "nothing to worry about" while over a dozen national science academies say with one voice that "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable."

Put in the simplest terms: if CO2 in Venus's atmosphere acted like it does in Earth's atmosphere, Venus would be quite a bit cooler. If the direct blackbody effect of CO2 being warmed by IR, and in term warming the Earth via IR, was the primary warming concern in Earth's atmosphere it would not be a concern.

What scientific literature supports your opinion that CO2 emissions aren't a concern? When atmospheric CO2 is doubled, what equilibrium temperature rise results? Please cite peer-reviewed papers with equilibrium CO2 climate sensitivities that you actually accept. Otherwise it's not clear what sensitivity study prompted you to claim "it would not be a concern."

Also, please cite peer-reviewed papers showing that CO2 emissions don't result in ocean acidification. That's also necessary before claiming "it would not be a concern."

These High School Physics explanations of why CO2 causes warming of the Earth's surface are wrong, because the simple effect supports the "nothing to worry about" argument. The truth is more complex, vastly harder to model, and the results are not so obvious as you seem to think.

High school physics explanations? I've explained: greenhouse gases re-emit some of the upwelling long-wave IR, and it bounces around the troposphere until it gets to a height known as the "effective radiating level". Above this height (roughly 7km), there aren’t enough greenhouse gases to keep "most" of the IR from escaping to space altogether. This effective radiating level controls the outflow of heat from the Earth. Stefan-Boltzmann tells us that power radiated is proportional to temperature^4, and temperature decreases with height in the troposphere. Adding greenhouse gases raises the height of this effective radiating level, where it is cooler, which therefore decreases the outflow of heat from the Earth. This is the greenhouse effect, and it isn’t saturated because the effective radiating level can just keep getting higher (e.g. Venus).

I've also repeatedly noted complex factors like pressure broadening, which makes the greenhouse effect different on Venus, Earth and Mars.

I've also told the Sky Dragon Slayers that anyone who wants a more in-depth explanation should watch this video. Note that my explanations are similar to those from Rasmus Benestad and Ray Pierrehumbert:

"Despite the fact that Venus has vastly more CO2 in its atmosphere than Earth, the same basic principles govern the operation of the greenhouse effect for both planets: the fact that air cools by expansion as it rises means that the upper parts of the atmosphere are colder than the surface, while the opacity of greenhouse gases to infrared means that infrared radiation can only escape from the upper portions of the atmosphere. Since the rate of radiation goes down with temperature, the net effect allows the planet to lose energy at a rate much lower than it would if the radiation from the surface escaped directly to space. Although most of the warm surface temperature of Venus is accounted for by its CO2 greenhouse effect, there are suggestions that it is warmer than it should be on the basis of CO2 alone. There are various theories that have been proposed for the source of the additional greenhouse effect, and sorting this out will be one of the major objectives of Venus Express."

But none of those complexities are necessary to debunk Jane's Sky Dragon Slayer insistence that CO2 doesn't warm the surface. That's because Jane and the Slayers aren't quibbling about the specific properties of CO2; they're flat-out denying conservation of energy. In fact, they make the same mistaken claim about vacuum chamber temperatures in a simple thought experiment. I solved that thought experiment, then told Jane:

Maybe it would help if we checked my calculations step by step. Start with conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium: power in = power out.

The plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. The cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:

electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)

(Eq. 1 looks better in LaTeX, but hopefully this version is legible.)

Yes/No: can we agree that Eq. 1 is based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law and correctly describes conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium?

I repeatedly asked Jane this simple question, regarding the very first equation necessary to solve this undergraduate thermodynamics problem. Months later, Jane finally answered... with an incorrect Sky Dragon Slayer equation:

My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Jane's "T" is my "T_h" (temperature of the heated source) but Jane doesn't even have a term with "T_c" (temperature of the chamber walls). As you can tell, Jane's Sky Dragon Slayer equation violates conservation of energy because Jane doesn't account for radiation flowing in through the boundary. That's why I'm asking Jane to explain why Venus is hotter than Mercury. Jane's Sky Dragon Slayer denial of basic physics like conservation of energy isn't dependent on the specific properties of CO2, because Jane and the Slayers even deny conservation of energy in a vacuum chamber.

Sadly, neither Jane nor any of the Slayers at WUWT would answer this question: would Venus have the same surface temperature if its atmosphere were pure nitrogen, which isn’t a greenhouse gas?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, what did I write to make you hate me so much that you've suggested I kill myself three times?

Maybe you're confusing me with somebody else? For instance:

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.

What did I write to make you accuse me of being a paid oil troll?

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

Once again, I explained that the equations I'm using account for an infinite series of reflections. But as MIT explained, this infinite sum converges to a finite temperature. If Jane thinks he's found a mistake in MIT's derivation, please let everyone know exactly where.

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

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

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

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

... My solution was already demonstrated to be true, and your solution was already demonstrated to be false. I have no obligation -- or reason -- to engage in your game of "No, but you HAVE TO do it this way...". Especially when "mainstream physicists" and textbooks on the subject say I don't. No, I don't have to do it according to your own ill-conceived notions. I already did it, my way... that is to say, the "mainstream physics" way. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-27]

No, Jane's repeatedly demonstrated that he's incapable of judging whether a solution violates conservation of energy, which is apparently an "ill-conceived notion". Furthermore, Jane's somehow convinced himself that his Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense is "mainstream physics" at the same time that he completely ignores Prof. Grant Petty, Prof. Brown, Dr. Joel Shore, the National Academies of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, and the European Physical Society, and many other scientific societies.

Since Jane doesn't seem to think those societies understand mainstream physics, maybe Jane will listen to Prof. Steve Carson who also tried to educate a Sky Dragon Slayer. Notice that his eqn 9 with negligibly similar areas is equivalent to my equation, not Jane's Sky Dragon Slayer equation. Again, that's because Jane's Sky Dragon Slayer equation violates conservation of energy: power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing.

Jane, don't you see how absurd it is for you to simultaneously insist that your Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense is "mainstream physics" while completely ignoring the fact that mainstream physicists are telling you the Sky Dragon Slayers are wrong? Doesn't that self-contradiction bother you even a little bit?

Riverat said Jane would need to actually witness the experiment to change his mind. After hundreds of pages of listening to Jane cuss and scream and endlessly insist that he's correct, I'm starting to agree with riverat. But I'm starting to doubt that Jane would even be convinced by an experiment performed right in front of him.

Jane, what would you do if you saw first-hand evidence that electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature? Would you admit that your Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense is wrong, and try to understand how to apply conservation of energy to a boundary around the heated source? Or would you just retreat to some other absurd evasion, and keep endlessly arguing that electrical heating power doesn't depend on the cooler chamber wall temperature?

So will Jane stop incorrectly claiming that the globe isn't warming, or will Jane stop citing Llovel et al. 2014, which depends on the globe warming? Or will he simply chug along without acknowledging this contradiction?

Will Jane ever support his accusation about GRACE with a link to whichever WUWT article he thinks supports his accusation? Or will he simply keep making that accusation with no evidence whatsoever?

Your math was fundamentally in error, in that you counted some radiated power twice... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]

Completely backwards, as usual. In reality, Jane didn't notice that his electrical heating power halved when the enclosing shell was added, because Jane counted radiative power twice.

... 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. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]

Good grief, not this nonsense again. I never described a positive feedback loop that occured only once, then stopped. In fact, several months ago I explained that the equations I'm using account for an infinite series of reflections. But as MIT explained, this infinite sum converges to a finite temperature.

Jane's never adequately explained why Venus is hotter than Mercury. Is Venus hotter than Mercury because of CO2, gray Oreos, or basketball player gloves?

... 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. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]

I've had to deal with innumerable assaults by rude people who don't understand the physics, and then accuse me of being rude and insulting without evidence. Somehow, I've managed to avoid accusing them of being "complete and utter idiots" who are brain dead and hate themselves and everything else and go far beyond Nazism and want to murder people.

I cite Mr. Postma because he understands the physics of the problem better than you do. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]

Actually, Jane's claiming that Mr. Postma understands the physics of the problem better than me, Prof. Brown, Dr. Joel Shore, the National Academies of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, and the European Physical Society, etc.

That's quite an extraordinary claim, so it should be accompanied with extraordinary evidence. Or even just basic evidence like the very first simple equation necessary to solve the problem. Once again:

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. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-21]

As I've repeatedly pointed out, you've never written down the very first energy conservation equation without wrongly "cancelling" terms. You've only provided this incorrect Sky Dragon Slayer equation:

My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

No. Once again, that's absurd, Jane.

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. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-21]

A Dunning-Kruger victim would only consider the possibility that professional physicists are incompetent or dishonest. A real skeptic would at least consider the possibility that professional physicists understand physics better than they do, and that the physicists are trying to point out a genuine fundamental flaw in the skeptic's argument.

Here's how to use the principle of 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

Jane got the very first equation wrong, because Jane refuses to write down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the source without wrongly "cancelling" terms. If he tried to do this just once, he'd realize that electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature.

This is all clearly too difficult for Jane, despite the fact that this is the very first equation necessary to solve this problem. Because Jane is so far out of his depth, I suggested that Jane ask a physicist he respects this simple question:

@ProfBrianCox, an electrically heated plate is in a vacuum chamber with cooler walls.
Does heating power depend on the wall temperature?

If Jane were a real skeptic, he'd at least ask a physicist he respects this simple question. But Jane refuses. Why?

It's pretty clear that Jane refuses to ask this simple question because he's just scared Prof. Cox (or any other mainstream physicist) will say "yes", which would mean that Jane's entire calculation is wrong, from the very first equation.

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. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]

No, you stated this:

... 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 Q. Public, 2014-11-24]

Jane, that's not research you'd have to do before claiming that the globe is warming. You'd only have to do that research before attributing the warming to a particular cause. The only research you have to do before claiming that the globe is warming is to read the last sentence in the Llovel et al. 2014 abstract, and ask yourself if the bottom edge of their confidence interval is positive. Is it?

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. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]

Once again, the Llovel et al. 2014 conclusion regarding abyssal ocean temperatures depends on the globe warming. I've already explained why. If you didn't understand the equations I wrote down, just ask for help. Once you understand those equations, you'll finally see why you can't cite Llovel et al. 2014 regarding abyssal ocean temperatures while also claiming that the globe isn't warming.

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. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]

Sadly, that's exactly the response I expected.

I've written about many issues with GRACE, and released my source code. Here’s a quick link to browse the “control panel” of my code, followed by the top level of the program itself. All the functions used in that file are declared here and defined in full here.

So Jane will have to be more specific. I've written about many issues with GRACE, but none that qualify as "rather huge problems".

Past experience suggests that asking Jane to provide a link to support his accusation is pointless, because Jane will just do this again. But if I were to guess which WUWT link Jane had in mind to support his accusation, Jane would just accuse me of putting words in his mouth.

So rather than put words in Jane's mouth, I've politely asked Jane to please link to evidence of these rather huge problems with GRACE's accuracy. Sadly, this won't avoid unpleasantness either. Doesn't Jane see that he's created a catch-22 where he gets to cuss and scream at people regardless of whether they ask Jane for a link to support his accusations, or whether they put words in his mouth by assuming what link Jane means?

That seems like a great way to justify cussing and screaming at people, but not such a great way to learn physics. So I'll politely ask again. Jane, please link to evidence of these rather huge problems with GRACE's accuracy.

... 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. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]

Mr. Postma's derogatory phrases are why I've often been puzzled that Jane cites Sky Dragon Slayer Mr. Postma approvingly and repeatedly. Here are some more derogatory phrases from Mr. Postma:

"... climate alarmists are instead trying to negate the human mind ... They don’t want to believe in anything good because their true goal is that they want to murder humans, as we will see below; that is what drives them. ... They negate the mind, they negate evolution, they hate what evolution produces, they hate all living things in fact because all living things radically modify the environment, even the lowliest bacterium. They must hate their own existence. They are a pestilence unto themselves, and they hate themselves for it, along with everyone else. ... Greenie environmentalists are negators of the mind. In other words, they’re idiots, complete and utter idiots. They know nothing of the way the actual real world works and has worked and what it has done in the past, and what it currently takes to keep them alive. I know lots of them and I live around them and they’re brain dead. All you have to do is talk to them to see that they’re brain dead. They don’t have high quality thoughts, and they don’t engage in high quality mentation. ... Have you ever encountered such evil at the basis of such a large fad? This goes far beyond Nazism. ..."

It's not surprising that Mr. Postma refuses to listen to mainstream physicists, because he believes they're "complete and utter idiots" who are brain dead and hate themselves and everything else and they go far beyond Nazism and want to murder people. Mr. Postma recently showed how pointless it is to try to educate Sky Dragon Slayers.

Is Jane more reasonable than Mr. Postma, who's Godwined himself many times over? Let's find out:

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. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-21]

As I've repeatedly pointed out, you've never written down the very first energy conservation equation without wrongly "cancelling" terms. You've only provided this incorrect Sky Dragon Slayer equation:

My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

No. Once again, that's absurd, Jane.

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. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-21]

A Dunning-Kruger victim would only consider the possibility that professional physicists are incompetent or dishonest. A real skeptic would at least consider the possibility that professional physicists understand physics better than they do, and that the physicists are trying to point out a genuine fundamental flaw in the skeptic's argument.

Here's how to use the principle of 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

Jane got the very first equation wrong, because Jane refuses to write down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the source without wrongly "cancelling" terms. If he tried to do this just once, he'd realize that electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature.

This is all clearly too difficult for Jane, despite the fact that this is the very first equation necessary to solve this problem. Because Jane is so far out of his depth, I suggested that Jane ask a physicist he respects this simple question:

@ProfBrianCox, an electrically heated plate is in a vacuum chamber with cooler walls.
Does heating power depend on the wall temperature?

If Jane were a real skeptic, he'd at least ask a physicist he respects this simple question. But Jane refuses. Why?

It's pretty clear that Jane refuses to ask this simple question because he's just scared Prof. Cox (or any other mainstream physicist) will say "yes", which would mean that Jane's entire calculation is wrong, from the very first equation.

... are you unaware of the issues that have been raised about GRACE? That seems unlikely. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-24]

What issues, raised by whom, in what scientific journal? Link?

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. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-24]

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.

@ProfBrianCox Having said all that, this particular evidence has been based on data from the GRACE satellite, which in the past has turned out to be something of a DISgrace... but they say they have the problems worked out now. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-20]

Assuming the rather huge problems with GRACE's accuracy have been fixed. It is claimed they were. Perhaps they have been. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-24]

At the risk of provoking this response, could you please link to evidence of these rather huge problems with GRACE's accuracy which in the past has turned out to be something of a DISgrace?

... 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"??? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-24]

Only if you suggested that some blog summary of sea surface temperatures contradicted the Llovel et al. 2014 claim of significant warming down to 2000m.

... 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? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-22]

... 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. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-23]

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. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-24]

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.

... 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? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-24]

I'm claiming that Llovel et al. 2014 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."

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?