Posted by: graemebird | November 19, 2006

Marginal Analysis and Global Cooling/Warming

When I started discussing this idea on various blogs back in 2006 it was the first time this sort of analysis was brought to the subject. Although not the last. Finally after trying to almost physically beat this concept into the internet two years ago other people started taking it up. Perhaps independently, perhaps not. Who knows. My posts often tended to be wiped in any case. So its hard to know one way or another.

But in any case I brought this easy to understand stuff to the front to highlight what a useless cunt Josh from the fascist site Grodscorp is. What a bluff-artist and idiotic know-nothing he is. There really is no getting around the implications of the thought experiment we see below. And there are implications also when we find out that colder water is more viscous and what that will do for the ease of circulation.

Bear in mind that were I writing this today I would likely word it a lot differently. In that I assumed at the time apriori that the CO2 was actually warming things somewhat. Its actually a little bit embarrassing for me to be reading this presumptuousness. The main point you want to take is about the marginal analysis when we bring Stefan-Boltzmanns law into it.

I thought back then that the CO2 was warming the atmosphere a little bit in the first instance and that negative feedbacks were basically wiping it out. I thought that there was some CO2-warming and I thought that this was clearly the best dumb luck the human race had ever encountered. While this is an attractive notion none of us have any right to be confident about such an idea, since the evidence just is not there.

Market-tested scientific genius George Chilingar has a follow-up study out now showing why he thinks CO2 is actually a force for cooling. Whether the effect he is talking about is a gross or net cooling effect (ie whether it overides any possible other effects) is what ought to be open to debate. But either way any effects of CO2, warming or cooling have to be slight. If we could go back in time to scientists of lets say the 1940’s and show them the data I would suggest that more than half of them might interpret the data as meaning CO2 was probably a negative feedback on balance, just from the way the CO2 and the air temperature correlate with eachother. Certainly almost none of them would think that the data showed a positive feedback relationship.

Its neither here nor there but I would tend to hope that there was a slight netwarming effect, even though there is no evidence for this, since it would mean there was absolutely no excuse to limit CO2 output in any way. That CO2 might cool a bit could give people an excuse that they don’t have now. What I say here is true and reasonable and what you usually here is idiotic and wrong.

A word about Far North melting. We see that the air temperature peaked in 1998. The solar cycle peak (I THINK) from memory was sometime in 2001, the imbedded oceanic energy peak seems to have been in September 2003….. And yet the arctic ice got to a record minimum cover and thickness around about September 2007. GLOBAL WARMING? Industrial-CO2?

Nothing stands more to reason than the idea that after accumulating a great deal of joules the ocean would continue to help melt the arctic sea ice up North even as the climate more generally was cooling. What on earth could be strange about that? Suppose you are running hot water into a cold bath. And you have ice floating up the cold end. And you are working the hot water into the cold with your hand. Suppose you then turn off the hot tap. And you continue moving hot water down to the cold end. Is the ice going to keep melting after the hot tap is turned off? Of course it fucking is. I wish people would not be so stupid about this.

But on the other hand the closest thing we have to the idiotic alarmist model here on earth is the months-long daytime in the arctic summer. So if the CO2 was going to have some effect maybe that would be the place for it.

Below is the thought experiment from 2006. No climate scientist is serious if they are not taking this analysis into account. I’m not mucking about. This way of marginalist thinking ought to be at the very base of their models and the way they regard various effects on the climate. And also the way they interpret the paleo data with regards to climate. Its the real key to the whole deal.



Lets look at the myriad ways in which taking a marginal approach seems to suggest that the extra joules from the industrial CO2 will tend to, in the long run, only heat things by a fairly small amount.

Imagine if you have two areas of 100 square kilometers each.

And they have a temperature of 20 degrees Celsius. And we are here not assuming any greenhouse gasses.

Lets say they both radiate 100 units of energy per hour out into space in the first hour directly after sunset.

So the total amount of energy they will radiate out is 200 units.

But supposing you’ve figured out precisely what this 200 units would be in Joules.

Then the fellow setting you this task comes along and says…. “No no. We need to do it again. See what we did the first time is average the temperature over both areas. We have to disaggregate this and try again….

….Since in reality the first area is in DEATH VALLEY and is 60 degrees celsius… And the second area is in this valley in the Antarctic and it is minus twenty degrees Celsius…….

Now you might not know right off the bat what the answer is. But will it be more then 200 units that get radiated out into space?

Would that be your best guess?

More or less then 200 units?

Given that it works to the fourth power of Kelvin I suggest that it surely would be more then 200 units this time.

Lets see.

If 20C degrees leads to 100 units in area A then the lesser radiation should be something like……

((253/293) to the fourth power)) multiplied by 100 units.

which works out at less then 56 units.

But what about the other area? That was the Antarctic. How about Death Valley?

Death Valley ought to give off something like:

((333/293) to the fourth power)) times 100 units.

This comes to 167 units

167+56 units equals 223 units.

One thing that comes across as really dubious is the idea that the higher end (the low probability end) heating will or yet even COULD be accompanied by widespread droughts.

Because dry air would allow for the radiation out into space of all these excess joules.

Like today I read in the paper they were talking about 7 degrees celsius increase.

And there was a picture of Tamworth in 2004 and a make-believe one at 2040.

And the 2040 Tamworth is just desert.

But this 7 degrees JIVE (if they are talking world wide averages) could only really be possible (one would think) if there was widespread tropical conditions. Since those areas that had little cloud cover and low moisture in the air would be like holes that all the extra Joules could use to escape into space.

The thing about 55 million years ago when it was 10 degrees on average warmer. Well it was just tropical everywhere. And the Antarctic land-mass wasn’t over the Poles or at least hadn’t so comprehensively surrounded it..

The reason why I say this is that a black body in space radiates out these Joules into space to the fourth power when referenced on the Kelvin Scale.

Now of course the CO2 will block some of that. But only a little bit. The whole catastrophic heating JIVE relies on the CO2 leading to a knock-on effect with the water vapour. And the additional water vapour is what is alleged to send things spinning out of control.

But so long as there is all this dry air around HOW CAN THIS BE. I mean the dry air may warm a tiny bit in response to CO2. That seems possible. But if the whole planet starts heating up substantially, if there is still dry air around that will act a bit like leaks in the balloon.

In fact I would argue that we surely cannot have anything to worry about until the Antarctic gets close to 0 degrees celsius in the winter.

Because the deal is that cold hair simply cannot hold the water vapour.

Well probably never. But here is a suggested cutoff anyway. This is even assuming that CO2 has much of an effect. Which is doubtful:

From memory I think that it gets to about -70 degrees Celsius in the Antarctic Winter.

Which is about 200 Kelvin I think.

Now to my way of thinking these guys aren’t thinking like Austrian economists. They aren’t thinking marginally.

They make their average temperature calculations as if the whole world had an averaged air moisture readiing. And then only sorting out the regional impact after that. Its as if their calculations are on the basis of averaged water vapour, averaged sunlight and then the CO2 coming over on the top of that.

Supposing we had this idea that we weren’t going to spend a cent of stolen money unless the Antarctic winter temperature got to -20 degrees C in the winter. That is unless it increased from -70 to -20 at where-ever it is now.

I think we would be entirely safe waiting that long..

Because the difference would be between Kelvin 200 and Kelvin 250 or so.

250/200 to the fourth power would be 2.44

So whatever the Joules lost into space that was happening before it would be at least twice as much after. That is 2.44 less whatever the CO2 blocks out.

And anywhere that was still arid. The arid places add extra Joules to the climate system (with extra CO2) then otherwise would have been one might suppose.

But what I’m saying is that after the entire globe has warmed up it woud be the arid places that would be funnelling a lot of this heat into space in the night-time.

Its a difficult thing to talk about because we are only talking about the DELTA of everything. The in-comparison-to-what-would-have-been-at-different-CO2-levels……. of everything.

Anyhow we see by what I said above that it seems very unlikely that any of the very warm periods that the planet has gone through could have happened if land mass was over one of the poles. Or if there were these vast deserts and arid conditions.

Because the Poles or those areas near have several months of endless day and several months of endless night.

And so if there is a massive land-mass over one of the poles it beggars belief to think that the temperature isn’t going to fall close-to or below zero as the months of darkness continue.

So that therefore there will be no moisture in the air. Since the air cannot hold water vapour at low temperatures.

So the heat would tend to just radiate into space.

Of course a great deal more heat would radiate into space at the moment in places like the Sahara desert where its hot as well as dry.

But its this deal about the energy slipping out of the dry areas to the FOURTH POWER of the temperature Kelvin…..

This deal about all these Joules slipping out into space with such ease in the dry areas…..

Its this idea that makes catastrophic warming such a very dubious concept while the continent of Antarctica sits right over the Soth Pole like that.


We have three Malinkovitch orbital cycles, We have solar cycles of varying lengths.

Now to my mind there would be a critical question to ask oneself if one wished to figure out what the next few hundred years will bring us.


You see the climate modellers seem to be just adding all the Joules together and subtracting others and the Albido effect just thrown in. Which might be OK for a pretty static model.

But what I want to know about is the ice-front and conditions say 20 kilometers ahead and say 50 kilometers behind that ice-front.

Because ice moves like a river. And here we have at least 6 oscillations and we want to know how thats going to affect each of the ice fronts.

I say this as a lead-up to pointing out the idiocy of the alarmists when confronted with the fact that the planet tends towards being covered with ice.

They have come up with a new ploy.

They dismiss this basic fact by citing a speculative report. And in this report some fellows have found a prior Malinkovitch setup where the interglacial lasted a very long time. And it allegedly looks pretty similiar to the current orbital cycle.

So in their stupidity on that slim basis alone they have totally dismissed the idea that we are more prone to catastrophic cooling then anything else.

They dismiss it as if by citing one case alone things can be absolutely certain to run the exact same course as this different yet allegedly similiar Malinkovitch cycle.

But you see the rather random element involved here. You are counting on the oscillation to affect the local area (the local area around the ice-front) in such a way as to make the ice either move forward or back.

The nature of the oscillations is that the effect will not be uniform in all areas and particularly not when combined with currents and winds and other weather patterns.

We want to know whats happening around the wall of white death.

Now we cannot predict these things real well.

The take-home-story is however that THERE IS A BIAS TOWARDS CATASTROPHIC COOLING.

And now the good news?

CO2 should work better, if it works at all, to trap heat wherever the air is dry.

50 kilometers (lets say) back from the ice front where the force comes to push the ice forward the air will ALWAYS be dry. Because cold air cannot hold water vapour.

So the second take-home-story is that if there is much of an effect to CO2 it might constitute an insurance policy to runaway glaciation. It might mitigate the glaciation a little bit.

To be sure its a weak heating force. And one would not think it would be enough to save our asses from another mini-ice-age or a larger one.

But its always there PRECISELY where you need it. Its always there acting on the dry air just where the ice is.

As there is no real possibility of catastrophic heating while there remains large arid areas on this earth…

Then what we can say is that elevated levels of CO2 could be a bit of an insurance policy against nasty climate changes sneaking up on us.

Just the opposite of what these science-worker bums have been telling us.

I guess the point I’m making is if we think marginally and we take into account all these oscillations… (day and night, the seasons, three Malinkovitch oscillations, 2 or three Solar oscillations, different water vapour content of areas, different temperatures of areas)…

I guess what I’m saying is that taking a marginal analysis rather then an aggregated analysis will likely tell us that a good part of the extra Joules from the industrial CO2 are likely to be funnelled back out into space…

So long as we retain Antarctica where it is and there are still a few deserts around at least.

So its very hard to see how this catastrophic global warming can occur until the air over Antarctica in winter gets warm enough to hold some amount of water vapour.

Or until we have steamy jungle-like conditions over the former deserts of the earth.



  1. Graeme
    Here’s a thought. If you’re so convinced that you’re on to something here why don’t you write a piece on this for The Australian Skeptics? A lot of them are on your side on this but they would be able to provide some sensible peer review from actual working scientists.

  2. I don’t have the technnical background for that.

    All I can do is compare the logic of different scientists who disagree with eachother and point out things that both of them perhaps aren’t taking into account.

    But the thing is they may be taking this marginal approach into account. Whenever I try to question them it doesn’t take very long before they start blocking you out.

    Right now I’m having a bit of fun on Lamberts blog. I may be able to shake some pertinent argument out of them that I’ve not seen before.

    But its only a matter of time before Lambert gets wind of it and starts wiping all my entries.

    Check it out before it gets wiped. By the way this Rabbet fellow is some sort of climate scientist. So I’m hoping he’ll tell me something useful.:

  3. Who the hell if Josh?

  4. Err, “is” even.

  5. I don’t know. Just some stupid cunt who commented on the fascist site you attend regularly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: