From Jennifer Marohasy’s blog:
Lets face it. The fundamental model for greenhouse is dead from the neck up. I’m endlessly surprised that both sides of the argument simply adopt the ruling paradigm when its really just quite laughable.
The specific order in which the calculations roll out make no sense. And the implied assumptions of the model are quite literally flat earth assumptions.
Anyone knows that the best place to put central heating is in the basement. And all Kettle-makers that ever lived designed their kettles with the element near the bottom of the kettle. But the ruling paradigm is so divorced from reality that it is indifferent as to where in the troposphere or the oceans the change in joules is introduced.
Relying on watts per square metre rather than the up-down penetration of joules ethnically cleanses the time factor out of everyones perspective.
There is just no way to amend or save this paradigm. It has to be scrapped outright. Guys like McIntyre and others have done a great job in auditing the use of data and statistics. But no-ones done a conceptual audit on the ruling paradigm itself.
The tenor of the debate is pretty disgraceful really. Since it represents a hall of parallel mirrors where each side is picking each-other up on mistakes. Whereas the climate rationalists pick up the alarmists on substantive mistakes and the alarmists tend to nitpick the fact is that any serious progress has to be made via the systematic testing of the assumptions of the paradigm itself.
I myself don’t go for any watts-per-square-metre JIVE. It seems obvious to me that the whole thing ought to be done of the basis of heat budgets and strata. And that the focus ought to be on joules in and out on different timescales and different strata.
But in the end a still superior paradigm might come out of a general rethink.
On both sides of the argument, since the subject crosses many specialties, anyone having taken a public position is loathe to ask questions. Climate rationalists are too willing to take certain assumptions as bi-partisan, perhaps for fear of the international goon-show that will come at them if they show themselves not up to speed on some small matter or other.
Economists deal with many small models. Most of them pretty dubious. But my generation of graduates at least knew that most of these models were pretty bogus and never confused them with reality as the Australian non-Austrian economists appear to. So it was very easy for me to spot the fundamental silliness of what this climate paradigm was all about.