I created a proof that the internal component of a target system can exceed the source temperature. This is using a more formal proof format, specifically targeting optical concentration systems (lens or lens & mirror systems). I'd love for someone (anyone!), to point out the assumption, logic step, or conclusion that has a logic or scientific error in this proof. This is version 0.1, a rough draft without all the equations and no diagrams, but I think it's clear enough what the concept is.

@ladyspat1 @JamesAbbott2013 @craigthomler @PiMan4Prez @sjsimmons @priscian @DaleGribble_666 @jimdtweet @LexWaters7 @WayneAllanH @PushFourLeft @BobPartridge16 @Devonian1342 @jgorman2424 @ammocrypta @BubbasRanch @ChrisBBacon3 @Kenneth72712993 @patfrank830 @dafalgoutDennis @TypicalDeviant @Michael_D_Crow @isaacscradle @jgatta06 @JJ9621073059835 @WHPAAD @CDCollins5269 @phlannelphysics @TrixX306 @BenKoby1911 @Mark_A_Lunn @ClimateRetorts @RobertWager1 @FreeSpeech4U_Me @hannon_renee @RixAutomatedMat @GeorgeJeff9804 @roger_clague @kevpluck @GillesnFio @Joe_Public2018 @ClimatePoet @EthonRaptor @dantrimont @Quentin__France @PoeBrianL @ilovekiirth @IBergwiesel @jpgcrowley @NoelTurner194 Mr. Abbott will likely ban you soon, but... Stomata proxies show how much ice cores attenuate, smooth out, and depress CO2 numbers.

RT @Lonniesstockade: @BehizyTweets I can help..... 1) Now imagine a DOD laboratory, submits a $20m funding request (via their Program Offic…

@MarkA84371 @GOP_is_Gutless @RepRaskin That one man is Trump, not Elon. Elon just makes recommendations, regardless of how much the hyperventilating opposition says otherwise.

@MichaelSteele Do you realize that every person in the administration of every president is "unelected"? But, the president, who was elected, hired them, and is their boss. Elon just doing what the elected president has told him to do.

I agree, since science could care less what your credentials are, it's the argument and evidence behind the assumptions and constraints that matter. But you miss his point. You are claiming it's false partly because it's from a blog, while you link your blogs as evidence. The juxtaposition you make assumes your blogs are valid and others are not.

@sjsimmons @jgorman2424 @patfrank830 @ladyspat1 @PiMan4Prez @priscian @DaleGribble_666 @jimdtweet @LexWaters7 @WayneAllanH @PushFourLeft @JamesAbbott2013 @BobPartridge16 @Devonian1342 @ammocrypta @BubbasRanch @ChrisBBacon3 @Kenneth72712993 @dafalgoutDennis @craigthomler @TypicalDeviant @Michael_D_Crow @isaacscradle @jgatta06 @JJ9621073059835 @WHPAAD @CDCollins5269 @phlannelphysics @TrixX306 @BenKoby1911 @Mark_A_Lunn @ClimateRetorts @RobertWager1 @FreeSpeech4U_Me @hannon_renee @RixAutomatedMat @GeorgeJeff9804 @roger_clague @kevpluck @GillesnFio @Joe_Public2018 @ClimatePoet @EthonRaptor @dantrimont @Quentin__France @PoeBrianL @ilovekiirth @IBergwiesel @jpgcrowley @NoelTurner194 That something is debunked is a claim. Do you have evidence of your claim?

3/ Note, I'm not necessarily agreeing with their analysis, but I think your blog response is not giving it a fair shot. Extending it indefinitely to the right is an extrapolation, which likely doesn't hold as the climate system is a chaotic, complex, system with non-linear dependencies and components. The odds of any equation fitting from 0 to 10k ppm of CO2 are near zero, log or quadratic. So the best we can really do is linearize around varies setpoints that we have good data for, or curve fit within a range. Of course, all this is ignoring the fact that neither method is anything other than a curve fit and assumes very simple relationships within the climate system, based on a very simple model where a bunch of factors are likely being lumped into the "CO2 forcing factor" anyway. And then no matter how complex you make the model after that, you can't validate it, and they tend to run quite a bit hot...

2/ "For high CO2 cases (2000 ppm...) the new calculations are typically 10% higher than the old fits" Calculations. Based on models. With lots of assumptions. The major assumption being that CO2 is the major forcing function because when you look at a simplified model using global averages, it gives you a correlation. It always comes back to that. We have never measured the global temperature in the presence of a 2000 CO2 global average. What proxies we have are dubious and non-global, at best.

Are you sure incremental increases in CO2 from our current setup have a substantial and immediate effect on temperature? At least in the back of your mind, you should have at least some doubt about every part of that statement. Well, if you are a good scientist.

@jimdtweet @jgorman2424 @patfrank830 @sjsimmons @ladyspat1 @PiMan4Prez @priscian @DaleGribble_666 @LexWaters7 @WayneAllanH @PushFourLeft @JamesAbbott2013 @BobPartridge16 @Devonian1342 @ammocrypta @BubbasRanch @ChrisBBacon3 @Kenneth72712993 @dafalgoutDennis @craigthomler @TypicalDeviant @Michael_D_Crow @isaacscradle @jgatta06 @JJ9621073059835 @WHPAAD @CDCollins5269 @phlannelphysics @TrixX306 @BenKoby1911 @Mark_A_Lunn @ClimateRetorts @RobertWager1 @FreeSpeech4U_Me @hannon_renee @RixAutomatedMat @GeorgeJeff9804 @roger_clague @kevpluck @GillesnFio @Joe_Public2018 @ClimatePoet @EthonRaptor @dantrimont @Quentin__France @PoeBrianL @ilovekiirth @IBergwiesel @jpgcrowley @NoelTurner194 Error is not the same as uncertainty. You may have heard this before.

@jimdtweet @jgorman2424 @patfrank830 @sjsimmons @ladyspat1 @PiMan4Prez @priscian @DaleGribble_666 @LexWaters7 @WayneAllanH @PushFourLeft @JamesAbbott2013 @BobPartridge16 @Devonian1342 @ammocrypta @BubbasRanch @ChrisBBacon3 @Kenneth72712993 @dafalgoutDennis @craigthomler @TypicalDeviant @Michael_D_Crow @isaacscradle @jgatta06 @JJ9621073059835 @WHPAAD @CDCollins5269 @phlannelphysics @TrixX306 @BenKoby1911 @Mark_A_Lunn @ClimateRetorts @RobertWager1 @FreeSpeech4U_Me @hannon_renee @RixAutomatedMat @GeorgeJeff9804 @roger_clague @kevpluck @GillesnFio @Joe_Public2018 @ClimatePoet @EthonRaptor @dantrimont @Quentin__France @PoeBrianL @ilovekiirth @IBergwiesel @jpgcrowley @NoelTurner194 You clearly no nothing about gage R&R studies or how to root cause field issues using lean/six sigma methodology. A comp sci desk jockey?

"In it's place, they sought to replace it with the results of a curve fitting exercise for no good reason except to generate an equation that would conform with a climate myth that was conclusively refuted in the 1950s." - Scott's blog Suggesting replacing one curve fitting exercise with another is bad science? Lol.

@endlibtyranny @MarcNixon24 This assumes that human emissions of CO2 actually are a primary driver of real warming. This is a theoretical leap of faith that has some science behind it, but is not able to be validated.

RT @MarcNixon24: BREAKING: America’s new Secretary of Energy just exposed the entire climate scam “Media & politicians NEVER bothered to a…

@jimdtweet @jgorman2424 @patfrank830 @sjsimmons @ladyspat1 @PiMan4Prez @priscian @DaleGribble_666 @LexWaters7 @WayneAllanH @PushFourLeft @JamesAbbott2013 @BobPartridge16 @Devonian1342 @ammocrypta @BubbasRanch @ChrisBBacon3 @Kenneth72712993 @dafalgoutDennis @craigthomler @TypicalDeviant @Michael_D_Crow @isaacscradle @jgatta06 @JJ9621073059835 @WHPAAD @CDCollins5269 @phlannelphysics @TrixX306 @BenKoby1911 @Mark_A_Lunn @ClimateRetorts @RobertWager1 @FreeSpeech4U_Me @hannon_renee @RixAutomatedMat @GeorgeJeff9804 @roger_clague @kevpluck @GillesnFio @Joe_Public2018 @ClimatePoet @EthonRaptor @dantrimont @Quentin__France @PoeBrianL @ilovekiirth @IBergwiesel @jpgcrowley @NoelTurner194 Truly interested, or just defleciton? Regardless of what the optimal design is, the point is that not all temperature stations have the same uncertainty distributions.

What in your brain is miswired that keeps you from understanding that clouds are BOTH intermediate feedbacks and drivers? Not primary drivers, sure, but clearly they directly drive multiple responses that we understand well. As they have a set of complex interactions and forcing functions driving them, that we don't fully understand, it's the best we have for the moment.

@sjsimmons @patfrank830 @jimdtweet @ladyspat1 @PiMan4Prez @priscian @DaleGribble_666 @LexWaters7 @WayneAllanH @PushFourLeft @JamesAbbott2013 @BobPartridge16 @Devonian1342 @jgorman2424 @ammocrypta @BubbasRanch @ChrisBBacon3 @Kenneth72712993 @dafalgoutDennis @craigthomler @TypicalDeviant @Michael_D_Crow @isaacscradle @jgatta06 @JJ9621073059835 @WHPAAD @CDCollins5269 @phlannelphysics @TrixX306 @BenKoby1911 @Mark_A_Lunn @ClimateRetorts @RobertWager1 @FreeSpeech4U_Me @hannon_renee @RixAutomatedMat @GeorgeJeff9804 @roger_clague @kevpluck @GillesnFio @Joe_Public2018 @ClimatePoet @EthonRaptor @dantrimont @Quentin__France @PoeBrianL @ilovekiirth @IBergwiesel @jpgcrowley @NoelTurner194 It's a QM thing. You wouldn't understand. 😆

Completely agreed. Anyone myopically focusing on a single forcing function is scientifically illiterate on how complex systems work. All IR-active components can slow outgoing LWIR by emitting IR both up and down. Significant items include GHGs, clouds, and aerosols (and isn't dust part of aerosols?).

@sjsimmons @TrixX306 @jgorman2424 @BubbasRanch @PushFourLeft @jimdtweet @ChrisBBacon3 @ammocrypta @Kenneth72712993 @patfrank830 @dafalgoutDennis @craigthomler @Devonian1342 @TypicalDeviant @Michael_D_Crow @isaacscradle @jgatta06 @JJ9621073059835 @WHPAAD @priscian @LexWaters7 @CDCollins5269 @BobPartridge16 @phlannelphysics @BenKoby1911 @Mark_A_Lunn @JamesAbbott2013 @ClimateRetorts @WayneAllanH @RobertWager1 @FreeSpeech4U_Me @hannon_renee @RixAutomatedMat @DaleGribble_666 @GeorgeJeff9804 @roger_clague @kevpluck @GillesnFio @Joe_Public2018 @ClimatePoet @EthonRaptor @dantrimont @Quentin__France @PoeBrianL @ilovekiirth @IBergwiesel @jpgcrowley @NoelTurner194 @TheDickKnightV2 You have demonstrated zero understanding of what an opinion is, in this thread, so far.

"You're making a factual claim without any basis and without a shred of evidence. It's fabricated." You are making several fundamental logic errors here, some of which I already pointed out. Ignoring what I said and just doubling down on your position doesn't address my counterpoints at all. This appears to be your primary response mode. Rather than reading my response for understanding and either addressing my points or asking questions to clarify them, you seem to believe I didn't understand your original post well enough. Every time. I'm sure you'll consider this a "complete fabrication with no evidence" as well. Lol!