Posted by: graemebird | May 21, 2007

Venus Post Part II: “Greenhouse Effects” Versus Actual Greenhouses.



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 ( 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.


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).


Something I did not know about Venus that strongly reinforces my new strata-and-planetary-heat-budget paradigm.

This from (

“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.”


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.



  1. In an ideal world, or rather perhaps ideal human, we would not even entertain hypotheses, so a strict disciple of Hume might comment. This, however, is unrealistic and possibly explains why so many Artificial Intelligence programs fail. That is, these entities are not working towards an idea. Rather, to put it simplistically, there is just data crunching in the hope that a solution will emerge. So perhaps the ideal of pure induction is just that, an ideal that is a cognitive impossibility.

    A good example of the curse of the lone paradigm is the current research into Alzheimers. Currently most authorities will state, “we don’t what causes … ” . This is not entirely true, we do know a great deal about the causes and prevention of Alzheimers. People are looking for a “prime cause”, the initial trigger for the condition, that LONE factor that sets it all rolling. Badly astray, there are many factors that may precipitate Alz. So the causes of Alz, and many other conditions for that matter, are multifactorial. There is no single explanation for why Alz arises.

    Another example is in psychiatry: schizophrenia has been caused by mothering, viruses, glutamate or dopamine dysfunction. Depression and the “chemical imbalance” nonsense. Historically psychiatry has focussed very much on single cause explanations. Psychiatrists are very conservative people.

    F Scott Fitzgerald once said that the mark of a strong mind is the capacity to simultaneously entertain two contradictory ideas. Unfortunately Graeme, even though this can be learnt, our education system mitigates against this because being wrong is so heavily penalised. In my view, if you’re not making mistakes you’re not trying hard enough, but that attitude only works when you are your own worst critic because we see the mistakes of others’ and often ignore our own.

    I’m not sure about entertaining multiple hypotheses but I know I change my mind a lot more than most people. With regard to climate change the mould has been set and cognitive entrapment ensues. Welcome to the limitations of human cognition.

  2. I think we are in trouble and should do something about it with great urgency.

    See my earlier thread on “Coal Pride Week”.

  3. Graeme

    where are you?
    You’ve been included in this poll on ‘best solo libertarian blogger’

  4. I cannot find my name in the voting line-up.

    Make sure he starts it from scratch.

  5. There were a bunch of repetitive abusive comments by somebody previously, but they have been deleted. GMB… are you getting in the way of debate? 😛

  6. They can always get through if they make a sound argument. Unlike at your site, where you are ruthless in stopping any criticism of fractional reserve. I see you let a couple of comments through. Even one that was mildly critical. Thats an improvement. Look Humphreys, you ought to censor only after the fact. Thats the honest way to go. Sure get rid of any fullblown attacks on yourself. But this idea of promoting the global warming fraud and the fractional reserve menace, by way of fullblown pre-meditated censorship is really not on. You know you cannot justify these causes without doing this. So why not just admit you are wrong? If you weren’t wrong you could win the argument without being evasive, and with only snipping outright abuse.

    Look what happens to people who become important to the fight against The Federal Reserve and fractional reserve.

    Mark Pittman. Assassinated at 52. You still reckon that pyramid schemes create new investment resources?

    You really want to get over such childish superstitions. Fractional reserve is a way for trillions of dollars of resources to be stolen and transferred to bankers and elites. It completely buggers resource allocation. Its a more serious problem then government overspending. Since its the cause of a lot of the excess government spending.

    And the powers that be are willing to strategically murder people that want to bring it to a close.

  7. No act is too low for those dirty Jew Bastards.

  8. Its assassins and fractional reserve beneficiaries we have to worry about Ron. Some of them will be Jews. But all must be stopped so their ethnicity is not of the greatest moment.

    Still if you can tell me who the Jews are and who had a Catholic early schooling this might help me sort out my prejudices.

  9. I think the world needs your input in this debate about whether Mises really supported 100% reserves

  10. Can you not see that this is a pointless argument? Mises never LIKED fractional reserve at any time. He never thought it had magical powers to create new capital goods.

    This was before the computer age. Mises thought that if every last shred of government support were taken away from fractional reserve it would either die out, or would be used with some discretion, in a non-harmful way.

    This is a purist argument when you have bloody bloody bloody buildings BUILDINGS full of regulations and bankers stealing off us hand over fist.

    In the end his point of view is probably now wrong. For starters we aren’t going to get this purist market, untarnished by any of the three layers of government. Secondly…. Under capitalist conditions, for practical purposes, fractional reserve is always fraud…..

    …. Thirdly …. any pyramiding, whether it be bank-cash pyramiding, or broker-share-pyramiding, is a direct full frontal attack on pricing; On the distribution of price information throughout the entirety of the structure of production.

    So as economists we ought to on this occasion, put aside these purist faux-libertarian hats and just stick up for economic science.

    What is very clear is that Mises hated fractional reserve. But that he on this occasion, deferred to the general libertarian principle of “when in doubt, let it work itself out.”

    We ought to not be in doubt anymore. Not after all this time of being stolen off.

    In the end it doesn’t matter what Mises thought.

    What matters is that we have to win against the bankers and all they ally with. That means no fractional reserve. A total prohibition for all time.

    Now I can see a productive exception to that. If you had a regulated and lincensed scenario for local money-providers. You could have a standard 66.6 recurring, reserve asset ratio, for money providers only. Not for bankers. Not for the rest of us. Only for money providers and only as a way of paying them for the service of keeping the localised coinage up to the highest levels of quality.

    You would have one third in the coins themselves (which would be deonominated at three times the value of their actual weight….)

    One third would be at the local money providers place of business and in bullion form.

    And only one third would be lent out to pay for this service.

    Other than this we are putting everything in jeopardy by not going after a blanker ban. Doesn’t matter what Mises said.

    Posted by: Graeme Bird | May 17, 2010 at 09:47 PM

    “If the arguments for and against state regulation of the bank-of-issue system and of the whole system of fiduciary media are examined without the etatistic prejudice in favor of rules and prohibitions, they can lead to no other conclusion than that of one of the last defenders of banking freedom [cite to Horn]:

    ‘There is only one danger that is peculiar to the issue of notes; that of its being released from the common-law obligation under which everybody who enters into a commitment is strictly required to fulfill it at all times and in all places. This danger is infinitely greater and more threatening under a system of monopoly.'”

    Here we have Mises essentially cheer-leading for the power of total pure liberty to sort things out. Bear in mind this is before the computer age. But within a few short sentences Horwitz has used Mises to justify a free-for-all, for bank-cash-pyramiding.

    Look. Do we have to set up a MACROMANCERS-ANONYMOUS for some of you guys?

    Do you people still believe that bank-cash-pyramiding creates new wealth?

    See this is MACROMANCY.

    Thats what it is.

    So you’ve got to back to school on the structure of production, and find out for yourselves that this total assault on the price mechanism, that bank-cash-pyramiding represents, can create no new wealth.

    There is no point mixing this economic fact up with what Mises, did or did not say or what he meant or did not mean and so forth. There is no point trying to pull the leftist reversal, where you are claiming to be more libertarian than the others.

    What you need rather is a twelve-step program to cure yourselves of macromancy. Don’t be mixing the issue up with these other matters. The reason why the debates continue is the closet macromancy.

    Get it seen to for goodness sakes. It appears that macromancy is a harder habit to quit then smack.

    Posted by: Graeme Bird | May 17, 2010 at 10:07 PM

  11. Says it all really.

  12. Philomena, it may be true that what with some inbuilt advantages to the bigshots, not least of them being the case that when new money is leant or used to buy shares, the bigshots are often first in line…….

    …. But really we want to concentrate on the bankers. Thats where the dysfunction starts. These hydrocarbon outfits, well they bring us all energy from all over the globe, and it may be that they are pampered, and it may be that they screw it up once in awhile. But really its an excellent trade that they continue with …. whereas there is no justification for bank-cash-pyramiding, and there is not going to be any justification for bank-cash pyramiding …. not now or ever.

  13. There seems to be a bit of a “macho” bidding war going on over at Catallaxy. Where folks are vying for who is the most macho, on the basis of what brand of Coffee one drinks.

    But get this. The Catallaxian somehow know their station in life when it comes to the Macho stakes. Because the bidding war appears to be all about brands of exclusively INSTANT coffee.

    “Come off it. Nescafe is for wussy Eastern Suburbs Dinner Party types.

    Now International Roast, that’s a real bloke’s coffee.”

    So says Birdlab. Mr tough-guy South-East Asia two-oh-one-oh.

    Instant coffee is the tough stuff hey? Like if a Catallaxian drinks instant coffee, no sugar, no milk, one ought to be able to ice skate on the tough-guy, and leave no marks right?

    What is wrong with the filter stuff fellas? I mean I would drink the instant stuff over the filter coffee at maybe 30-40 to 1. But never without regrets, once one is reminded of the filter coffee.

    The filter-coffee not macho then? Even though its real coffee whereas the instant coffee can never be real coffee.

    Well thats a new one on me. The filters must be reminding these blokes of sheilas sanitary napkins and getting them all confused.

  14. Instant is to filter as Jew is to Christian.

  15. what do you think of Mark Hill’s ideas, Graeme?

  16. If the dsyfunction starts as you say with the banks, then they should be nationalised so they can be controlled by the state.

    • But thats not solving the problem. The problem is fractional reserve. Thats where the abuse is. Now some people look at that abuse and rather than say “Lets get rid of the abuse” they say “Let us be the one gaining from that abuse”.

      The government can nationalise the money creation function and that ought to be good enough. In fact they must nationalise the money creation function for the time being. We cannot afford to be giving away all these riches to bankers right now. Giving the stringent budgetary and taxation restrictions that the government ought to be limited to, and given that it may take an estimated 40 years to wean of old-age welfare.

  17. “what do you think of Mark Hill’s ideas, Graeme?”

    When Mark says “mutualise” he means steal. Its bad enough that we’ve got to pay the upkeep of these people every day, now Mark wants us to steal real estate for them.

    Marks got no idea of fairness or property rights. He doesn’t own the hospital. He has no right to steal it and give it to already privelidged doctors under some complex set of stealing rules.

    Now supposing that these doctors, already benefiting from subsidies and a rigged labour market, decide to do the rational thing and quickly make a tidy profit, by disposing of the hospital as a real estate transaction, and pocketing the capital gains?

    What is to stop them? Answer: A whole lot of stupid restraint-of-trade regulations that mean that this mutualisation can never be a proper way to privatise resources, but is rather something that is there to rub salt in the wounds.

    Supposing you say you want to give me a hospital? Why not me? Why these people who are already subsidised and already benefiting from a rigged labour market?

    Mark will have no coherent answer to that. Mark is an idiot and its an idiotic idea. Its not as if we don’t know what to do here. Why not just adopt good policy?

  18. Graeme

    Richard Glover seems to be singularly ill-informed but then if the above remark is typical he’s most likely an habitual practitioner of emotionally-driven hyperbole, childish argumentation and cult-like worship of the Free Market and thus marks himself as an unreliable commenter. Which is why no-one listens to him or his ilk and why he and they have no option but to huddle sheeple-like in smelly male sweat-drenched echo-chamber blogs like Cataleprosy that clever people and chic citizens, above all women, shun like the plague.

    Of course, as you no doubt know, being by far the best-informed and educated self-described right-wing economist of my acquaintance, vast arrays of people of all political persuasions from US Republican senators (e.g. Lindsey Graham), Ronald Reagan’s Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, and the seriously sexy for an older man Nouriel Roubini, professor of economics at New York University’s Stern School of Business and chairman of Roubini Global Economics, have ALL entertained or advocated the nationalisation of banks why in just the last 12 months, I believe.

  19. “When Mark says “mutualise” he means steal.”

    LOL. Classic! I do so love people like you Mr Bird who can cut to the chase and incorporate, cogitate, regurgitate, encapsulate and adjudicate on an idea, any idea, in one short deadly phrase, or in this case, word. “Steal”.

    Touché, Mr Brilliant Bird.

    Mark Hill – from memory – was the verbose but dismally inarticulate dill I demolished many times on Cataleprosy, especially in a very long drawn out debate over women’s right to choose abortion where he argued that a woman’s life is worth less than the potential life she bears.

    Horrifying, despicable and misogynist, but true.

    The man is a monster and is a moral and ethical compass-less, rudderless piece of driftwood bound for salty disintegration on an indifferent, unhearing sea.

    Nature’s revenge.

  20. Jason, Terje has pretty good instincts on this one.

    The idea is to deregulate/re-regulate such that the individual firm has responsibility for quality control. And so the quality control is not to be hammered in by qualification requirements, thus artificially setting up a supply constraint. Now in the medium term the re-regulation is probably not just some sort of libertarian ideology deal. But will be of course a move in that general direction.

    Quality control and “quality assurance” and that sort of gear is a study in and of itself, not just something to do with medical services.

    The next step is to make the provision of medical services a tax-exempt activity. The people working for the firm pay no income tax, and neither does the firm. If you did this prior to allowing unqualified people to do many things within such a firm you would get cost blowouts.

    Then you have a HECS scheme for the poor. You allow others to pay in advance via their Superannuation. And you have the tax and spending cuts necessary to make this possible.

    Now you rightly point out that this is not going to cover the really hard cases. Well no full-blown welfare covers the really hard cases. We need to get 90% of medical services being paid straight with fees. Without insurance. This is the only way to bring down costs each quarter.

    It goes without saying that you need mass-sackings and closing departments by the bakers dozen as the first step to any good policy.

    See you Catallaxians are all over the shop here. Marks wanting to steal real estate for the doctors. Judith Sloan is bizarrely saying that the idea is to to efficiently provide “more beds”. If you want to do that you just go to the bedding factory. But thats an anti-economic idea if translated into English.

  21. “Judith Sloan is bizarrely saying that the idea is to to efficiently provide “more beds”.

    Tell me it isn’t true. Some neo-liberal actually said that? Oh dear. How embarrassing for them.

    Nevertheless send them to stand in the corner wearing a bib saying: “Epic fail”.

  22. I may have been a bit harsh with her. I’ll get the direct quote sooner or later.

  23. Could I ask my alter ego to wipe the Thomas Sowell comment? Fundamentally I think that this is a site making fun of me. Look I don’t take myself that seriously and a lot of the jokes there are very funny. But what was said about Tom Sowell is so not my style, and yet it was something, that could be mistaken for the sort of thing, that I might say. I’d never say that sort of thing in a million years unless I was really trying to run down some leftist ethnic type. In reality its more like the sort of closet attitude of people on Catallaxy.

    So in summary: Whoever you are, you are a gifted comedian, keep up the good work, there is just one comment you need to remove, there’s a reasonable chap, “I don’t ask much and I don’t ask often”…….


    People may not understand just how much of a hero Tom Sowell was to me. When I discovered him in the Victorian National Library, I thought I was the only one who knew about him.

    After that I would go around assuring everyone that though sociology might have been founded by, and may be currently practiced by, lunatics, nonetheless its a legitimate field of study….

    … and on and on. People who knew me at that age copped all the lectures. Well in this case it was Tom Sowell I was thinking of.

  24. sorry graeme but it’s not me, i wish it was because he’s really good. Might be someone like Nabakov as I keep telling you,

    BTW I actually have an autographed copy of one of Sowell’s books

  25. Well even Nabokov has a good side right?

    I put up with a lot. I cop some on the chin from people like this and often its valid criticism.

    I don’t ask much, and I’ve not stepped in before. But whoever it is ought to see to it that this one gets wiped. It doesn’t mean I’m going to be dictating everything my critic says or be inhibiting his creative output.

    Look at all the comments I’ve read so far. They go from hilarious, excellent, so funny, good bad and indifferent.

    But Tom Sowell (pronounced “soul’) doesn’t need to put up with this feeble Tillman-as-Ron-Pauline-Hanson … gear. And I’m not about to be associated with that sort of stuff.

    Tom grew up with rednecks. I’m fine with you guys projecting me as quality redneck to someone I respect as much as him.

    But this idea of making me out to be a leftists bigots idea of what a redneck is about. No thats no good.

    Why not lay that same sort of comment on Penny Wong on my behalf?

    That I can accept.

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: