BROUGHT TO THE FRONT FROM MAY 2007. BACK-RADIATION MAY HAVE SOME EFFECT. BUT NOBODY KNOWS WHAT IT IS. THOSE WHO THINK THEY KNOW CAN BE SHOWN TO BE MAKING A WILD OVER-ESTIMATE. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT, PROPERLY CONSIDERED, MAY BE MINIMAL. OR ALTERNATIVELY IT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT GETS DISPROPORTIONATELY MORE IMPORTANT AS AIR PRESSURE GROWS.
By now you’ll have noticed that I’m trying to generate alternative paradigms to the spectroscopy-only armchair-extrapolation that the alarmist-climate-scientists favour.. And that indeed is somewhat a bipartisan model in their field.
Now whether my own paradigm is perfectly right or turns out to be substantially wrong is really neither here nor there.
Since my main subject isn’t energy-economics or monetary-economics or defeating-terrorism or yet even climate-science.
My main subject is epistemology/methodology. And in my epistemology we don’t wish to be caught out living under the curse of the lone paradigm.
So its a matter of first principles that we try and get some other paradigms happening.
Its in the middle of summer and you pick your twin-toddlers up from the kindergarten. You wind up the windows so that the little tykes cannot escape or bring attention to themselves and pop in for some serious gambling in order to help pay your bills.
Now there is no windows inside the bar where the gambling machines are so you lose track of time. The car heats up but why does it?
We could apply the greenhouse theory to the situation. The full-spectrum electro-magnetic-radiation pierces through the window and heats up the upholstery. But the upholstery in turn only gives off long-wave-radiation which the window blocks from leaving the car.
Or we could apply the Strata-And-Heat-Budget paradigm to it.
The full spectrum gets through the window-strata, into the car and is mostly absorbed by the upholstery. The upholstery heats up the air. Typically, as heat rises some part of that air will rise in accordance with convection. So the joules would “want to” keep rising.
But when the hot eddy of air hits the Strata (the windsheild or the roof of the car) then the general rule that heat rises is reversed. And the fact of warmer-than-average-air being-forced-downward allows for the CARsonian heat budget to climb.
By the time you get back from the pub you have to give the twins a tall-cold-one each so stressed out are they.
Notice that we are not saying that either paradigm is wholly wrong or wholly right.
What we are saying instead is that we want to have more than one paradigm in order to be able to figure what is more-important and what is less-important for any given problem.
If we are wedged to one paradigm only we will likely turn into mindless bigots like the fellows at realclimate.
Think for a little-while about a small whisp or eddy of hot air hitting your windshield at an angle. We might imagine that if the eddies are all biased to hit that windshield in one direction, because of the design of the car… then a tiny force will be generated on that windshield in that direction.
But our strata in this case is strong. And nothing comes of this tiny force. So the new hot air coming-in-behind that hot air hitting your window, drives that hot air downwards and thus the inside of the car is accumulating joules.
We had earlier the example of the Kettletian heat budget.
When you switch the kettle on the joules come in through the mains and into the element. The resistance makes the element get hot and it heats the water.
Now the water starts to move upward. But for it to do so some water must begin to move downward.
But as the first lot of heated water moves upwards it pushes other water and then the force of gravity kicks in and creates a downward push of some of the water. The water at the top that is pushed downwards is warmer (at some part of this process) then the average of the water in the kettle in its entirety.
And it is for this reason that we can get a substantial kettletian heat budget.
Its pretty clear that in this case the greenhouse spectroscopy-only paradigm is not relevant at all. Yet the strata-and-heat-budget paradigm works for me just fine. It works in the parked car example just fine also but the greenhouse-gas business may have some input:
The twins are only making things worse for themselves with their grizzling and crying. And later with their high-energy screaming. All that extra CO2 the two are producing is affecting the light characteristics in the car. The poor little buggers ought to have been reading realclimate.org (fuckthedata.com) instead of singing “I’m a little teapot…” and wasting time playing with their building blocks.
If they had of used their time more productively they would know to sit patiently and not make things worse for themselves while their father takes care of business.
On the earth when the warm water downwells or moves away from the equator or mixes with colder water all these things are a way of building the heat budget.
If warm air is forced downwards by clouds or by and inability to keep rising into the stratosphere than these characteristics give rise to an ability to increase the atmospheric heat budget independent of what greenhouse gasses may be present.
Yet at realclimate they look at the fact that the planet is about 33 degrees warmer than it ought to be from averaging the solar wattage over the surface area of the globe……
…… and they conclude that the ENTIRE AMOUNT is due to these trace greenhouse gasses…..
This is a stupid inference to make. But having made this inductive inference it is only natural for them to vastly overestimate the effect of a small change in CO2. But they overestimate these things in error. And the data does not back up their overestimation.
Now we were looking for factors OTHER THAN SPECTROSCOPY that could explain the high temperatures on Venus. Which is not to say that the greenhouse characteristics are unimportant. Only that they have been wildly overestimated.
We note the great strength of the multiple layers of thick clouds of sulphuric acid. We note that the planet itself is so molten that 300 million years ago it appears to have changed its surface ENTIRELY. Hence the potential for magma to rise to the crust and to be forced back down again thus powerfully recycling heat energy being generated from the core.
REVERSING-OF-THE-GENERAL-RULE OF HEAT RISING IS ALWAYS ADDING TO THE HEAT BUDGET.
We note the high air pressure at surface level. And this of course would increase the amount of joules that the atmosphere can accumulate… Just as having higher air pressure could increase the amount of joules that we could squeeze into our kettle.
The high air pressure would strengthen the barriers that are our various strata. Making it the case that powerful hot winds can be forced downwards by the strength of the strata above…. thus reversing the general rule that heat rises… thus powerfully adding to the planetary heat budget.
We’ve seen all that but since we have started making enquiries into the facts “on-the-ground” in Venus has there been anything we did not know before which tends to reinforce our new paradigm??????? (without discounting the importance of spectroscopy in its entirety).
YES THERE IS!!!!!!
Something I did not know about Venus that strongly reinforces my new strata-and-planetary-heat-budget paradigm.
This from realclimate.org (fuckthedata.com).
“Another interesting difference between Venus and Earth is that Venus has a very slow rotation rate, taking 243 Earth days to complete one rotation. This is actually somewhat longer than its year. Despite the low rotation rate of the surface, the upper atmosphere is whizzing along at a rate of about one rotation every four Earth days.”
THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE IS WHIZZING ALONG AT A RATE OF ONE ROTATATION EVERY FOUR EARTH DAYS.
You see its just the exact same picture that we get in the strata-and-heat-budget model.
It will be the case that……….. on each multiple strata-level…….. that the hot air is rising but is being forced down and away from the sun again.
But instead of our car windowshield example the force exerted DOES HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE UPPER STRATA…. forcing it to mover faster than the rotation of Venus itself.
Since the realclimate guys have but one paradigm on the fly they cannot see this obvious implication.
Read the article yourself. They are clueless. And they reckon that the greenhouse characteristics of CO2 must be so powerful…. since they would have it that the Albedo of the clouds overmatches the difference between the radiation that we receive and that Venus receives… And they reckon, in their stupidity that this would mean that Venus ought to be -42 degrees Celcius….
… So in their one-paradigm world pretty-much only the colour-of-CO2 stops Venus from being a frozen planet.
These are very stupid people.
See for yourself.
Like Hannibal from the A-Team I just love it when a plan comes together.
And this shows another factor in my epistemology. And that is when you are looking into a subject you ought to work the inductive inferences into the ground in preference for racing after more information. You don’t need to be fully knowledgeable all in one hit.
Go with what you already know first and work all the angles before moving on to find more detail. That way each stage of learning more about the subject is testing the inductive inferences and small models that you already have on the go.