Posted by: graemebird | August 14, 2008

Response To A Vastly Improved Version Of The Same Old Paradigm

From Dr Marohasy’s blog:

The above article is a far more sophisticated take on the situation and in comparison with the alarmist nonsense its like walking from the cold floor onto the carpet.

Still its a static equilibrium model. And like the alarmist models it contains an extraordinary amount of aggregation and heroic simplifying assumptions to come up with its mathematical conclusions. So the model has been taken from a ludicrous stick-figure to a passable cartoon. Which is no criticism. And we need this sort of input and calculations so that we can see in which direction reality will differ from the models.

So how is reality different?

1. He’s working from the point of view of no influence from solar variability. But we know that the solar output will turn down.

2. Its an atmosphere-centric rather than an ocean centric model,

3. The implicit assumption is that without our influence the climate would kick on as before whereas in reality it would cool. This would not be his actual belief because he is clearly an intelligent fellow and not a lunatic. But this assumption is implicit in what he says above.

4. The level of aggregation leads me to believe that like alarmist models the water vapour is being averaged out globally for purposes of his calculations. But in the mid-Western areas of large continents, and in the sub-zero celsius zones, water vapour will not increase in anything like the way these averaging assumptions assume.

 

WHEN WE AVERAGE OUT WATER VAPOUR GLOBALLY WE LEAVE A GREAT DEAL OF TOPSIDE TO HOW MUCH MORE WATER VAPOUR THE AIR CAN HOLD.

 

Hence when we apply this alleged “forcing” our calculations lead to a massive overestimate in how much water vapour will be produced. For example there will be no more water vapour produced over -60 degrees Antarctic ice as a result of extra CO2. None whatsoever. Nor will there be a great deal more coming out of the Sahara or Nevada deserts. This is not to poo-poo his calculations. Indeed they are useful. Because having them we know that the net effect will at least be LESS THAN what he’s saying. So we can be pretty sure that 1.5 degrees for a doubling is an huge overestimate.

Which is not to say I’m buying into this static equilibrium way of looking at things in the first place. But aside me rejecting the ruling paradigm outright still we can say that the 1.5 degrees estimate is too high (more is the pity). Unless he can bring in some gear about extra air pressure having some sort of warming effect (which is likely in my book) than we can be very sure that we won’t be blessed by anything so blissful as this level of warming to counter the next little-ice-age that is at our doorstep.

5. He isn’t including the negative feedback of oceanic ice (more commonly thought of in error as a positive feedback).

6. There is nothing there about the negative feedback associated with the ocean conveyer. It is thought that the poles would be disproportionately warmed as far as air temperature is concerned. But this would reduce the driving factor behind the gulf stream and hence ocean heat differentials would become greater leading to more radiation into space via Stefan Boltzmanns law.

7. There is nothing here about accumulating and decumulating joules in the oceans (and the planet itself) over time. But yet this is the very essence of climate.

IN SUMMARY

 In summary what we read above is a greatly improved and enhanced “watts-per-square-metre” model. I maintain that to make the calculations from this sort of model realistic we would be talking about a flat planet, twice as far from the sun, where the water vapour is averaged out. The surface is uniform. Its noon all the time. And the oceans and earth neither accumulated or lost joules. Its a better estimate but its still a static-equilibrium estimate. Its still a flat earth paradigm. A better version of the flat earth paradigm but the flat earth paradigm nonetheless.

But from these estimates we see that such feeble warming as we may get, in mitigation of the new little-ice-age……………………………

…………… CANNOT-NOT………………

…………….. be a good thing.

I can see that this fellow is groping at a strata-and-heat budget model. But he hasn’t quite left the flat earth model behind. Still one can be confident that the IPCC’s LOWER-BOUND-estimate is actually a vast over-estimate of any reasonable UPPER-BOUND-estimate.

 And it is in this way that his facts and calculations are extremely useful.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Yea, Dr. Barry Brook has a basic science degree from Macquarie university and he’s posing as a professor of “climate change”. Macquarie is the claytons uni. That’s where you go when you can’t get in anywhere else isn’t it? I bet his uni enter score would have borded on 60/100.

    His sidekick, Bradshaw, is a zoologist which is a couple of grades above animal husbandry that most farmers would know about at the age of 10. These two clowns are posing as climate scientists.

    Climate science is a pretty complex field incorporating high level math and physics. What would these two ignoramuses even understand about the subject? It’s a laugh a minute over there with Brook proposing we’re going to have mass extinctions. The only mass we should be talking about is what’s missing inside his cranium. Macquarie.!.. for god’s sake. Macquarie uni!

    These two clowns throw their CV around as though they’re from MIT.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: