Hi All,

Over recent weeks "things" have been rapidly developing, and several things have come together that

in the case of P/4 show something so important yet so completely missed by so many.

My recent exchanges at tAV and elsewhere have highlighted to me

how much "they" do not want themselves and more importantly you to see this.

One world famous main stream climate "skeptic" recently said -

" Derek What is P/4? And do try to imagine a world without politics. Would 'it' be better or worse? "

"Derek What is P/4?" Sheeeesh, goodness me, I still can barely believe that was said, but said it was.

Below is a diagrammatic explanation of P/4.

The above diagram hopefully illustrates that P is the power of a beam, in climatology this is the light from the sun.

If earth were a flat disc then P would be correct, but earth is a half light sphere, so this is not the case.

The below figure hopefully illustrates the real situation for earth.

In earth's case, with one sun as a source of P, then -

If P is calculated "as is" then the receiving "shape" is a perpendicular to the source of P disc, or a "spot".

If P is divided by 2, then the receiving "shape" is a hemisphere, and the figure calculated is a hemisphere average.

If P is divided by 4, then at a moment in time, this is impossible. It is unphysical.

This is proven beyond reasonable doubt by the fact that night follows day.

In earth's case the only time scale P/4 can work over is 24 hours, or multiples of 24 hours,

as that is the time it takes for the planet to fully revolve.

The planet must fully revolve otherwise P/4 is not the case,

as the surface area has been reduced (by a partial rotation),

so this must mean 1 or, full multiples of 24 hours only when "using" P/4 in earth's case.

However, P can be used, as Joe Postma has shown, to calculate the temperature a spot (imagine a square meter) on earth's surface could be a maximum of, for the received solar input.

ie, solar power input, corrected for surface's inclination to the power source, and further losses due to reflection / scattering / absorption by the atmosphere.

This would leave a W/m2 power received at the earth's surface.

Using the standard formula, which is explained in more detail on this thread, of,

(P / 5.6704) ^0.25*100=K

Where,

P = Power of beam in W/m2.

K = Degrees Kelvin temperature for receiving black body surface (per square meter).

^ = raise to the power of

* = Multiply

then, by subtracting 273.15 from the answer the above equation gives the surface's temperature in degrees Celsius for a received P of "X" Watts per meter squared (W/m2) can be calculated.

In almost all circumstances the actual surface temperature will be lower than this maximum possible figure for the received at the earth's surface solar (mostly Short wave) W/m2 P input.

Why? How can that be?

We are constantly told by the greenhouse effect failed hypothesis, and the resulting "as computer modeled" man made global warming alarmism that,

we are warmer than we should be, 33 degrees Celsius warmer, for the received solar input, NOT COLDER, which we actually are.

The answer is simple thermodynamics, as Joe Postma (linked to above) has been recently explaining.

The earth's heated surface cools by losses of 1) sensible heat by conduction to, and convection of, the atmosphere immediately above it.

Convection of sensible heat in this manner is a powerful and gravity powered process as Alan Siddons has explained in his Learning by Candlelight paper,

which can be found attached to post 4 on this thread.

But that is not the full, or even THE major part of the "story".

The earth's surface is also cooled (and most powerfully) by

the 2) latent heat removed by water vapourisation.

ie, Yes you loose heat by conduction and convection, and wind helps too,

but get wet and soon you feel a whole lot colder, especially in a wind.

(71% of earth's surface is water)

Some heat will also be absorbed by the earth's surface, and that will be released in due course (mostly the next night, when the air is colder) warming the earth's atmosphere.

Radiation losses pail into almost insignificance by comparison to the above two cooling processes, and

surface heat retention, and varying later release.

What is left to be explained by radiative losses? Not a right lot.

Radiating Infra Red thermal radiation (IR) is not a good way to cool is it.

But tell that to the "radiation obsessed" climate science and main stream "climate skeptics" at present....

You'd be right, and they'd be wrong - no sweat.

Comparing the surface temperatures that P and P/4 produce for a given W/m2 input shows something so obvious,

it is a wonder we have all missed it, but we have.

Hans Schreuder has recently been kind enough to let me paraphrase him on exactly this point, and it is also what Joe Postma has been explaining.

" How else, other than P/4, for the solar input received,

do you get the earth’s surface temperature low enough to REQUIRE a GH “effect” ?????

Answer – You can not. "

This is the "reason" for the use of P/4 in the incorrectly named and failed Greenhouse (GH) hypothesis, and

resulting Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), as represented by K&T type plots.

P/4 is the way that the GH failed hypothesis, and AGW get earth's surface temperature for the received solar input low enough to require a GH effect.

No P/4 = no GH effect, and no AGW as presently touted.

I strongly suspect that P/4 is also used in climate computer models, but try as I might,

unfortunately I have not been able to show this (undeniably) for the climate models as of yet.

There are two more problems of P/4 which I will explain in the next post.

For the mean time I will leave you with a simple 4 points list of the problems of P/4.

Dividing solar power received by 4, in earth's case,

1) is unphysical.

2) has enabled the GH failed hypothesis, and AGW to get the earth's surface temperature low enough to require a GH effect,

when there is no proof such is the case.

3) establishes the principle of increased surface area = reduced intensity received and capable of being emitted.

Yet, this principle is not applied throughout the GH hypothesis as taught at present.

4) introduces a time element of 24 hours, or multiples thereof, into the quoted W/m2 figures of the GH hypothesis, and K&T type plots.

A W/m2 is strictly defined as a timeless power figure, so such calculated figures are not W/m2, because they must contain a time element.

Such calculations and averaging divorces the maths from the physics, and therefore reality.

This makes any "answers" derived physically meaningless.

Before continuing with explaining points 3 and 4 it is necessary to "back track" a little and explain what is the failed GH hypothesis.

Alan Siddons has recently compiled a series of diagrammatic explanations of what

several of the most respected Universities in America presently teach as the Greenhouse Effect "theory".

Below are the examples Alan compiled of what is presently taught and where from.

Although not a University in himself, Gavin Schmidt is a leading "consensus" climate science figure,

and is largely responsible for the NASA version of the K&T type plot.

Professor Richard Lindzen is a leading main stream "climate sceptic",

this plot is included to show that main stream "climate skeptics" accept the basic GH hypothesis.

Such "climate skeptics" would include Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. Roy Spencer, Joanna Nova, David Evans, and lord Monckton,

As well as, Jeff Id, Richard T Fowler, Science of Doom, etc, etc, etc, etc.....

To name just a few....

Are they really "climate skeptics" or are they merely "AGW figure quibblers"???

Well, they certainly do not question the basic principles of the failed GH hypothesis, and it's (theoretically speaking) "bastard" offspring AGW.

As will be explained in due course AGW has no (theoretical) father.

Continued in Post 2.

Over recent weeks "things" have been rapidly developing, and several things have come together that

in the case of P/4 show something so important yet so completely missed by so many.

My recent exchanges at tAV and elsewhere have highlighted to me

how much "they" do not want themselves and more importantly you to see this.

One world famous main stream climate "skeptic" recently said -

" Derek What is P/4? And do try to imagine a world without politics. Would 'it' be better or worse? "

"Derek What is P/4?" Sheeeesh, goodness me, I still can barely believe that was said, but said it was.

Below is a diagrammatic explanation of P/4.

The above diagram hopefully illustrates that P is the power of a beam, in climatology this is the light from the sun.

If earth were a flat disc then P would be correct, but earth is a half light sphere, so this is not the case.

The below figure hopefully illustrates the real situation for earth.

In earth's case, with one sun as a source of P, then -

If P is calculated "as is" then the receiving "shape" is a perpendicular to the source of P disc, or a "spot".

If P is divided by 2, then the receiving "shape" is a hemisphere, and the figure calculated is a hemisphere average.

If P is divided by 4, then at a moment in time, this is impossible. It is unphysical.

This is proven beyond reasonable doubt by the fact that night follows day.

In earth's case the only time scale P/4 can work over is 24 hours, or multiples of 24 hours,

as that is the time it takes for the planet to fully revolve.

The planet must fully revolve otherwise P/4 is not the case,

as the surface area has been reduced (by a partial rotation),

so this must mean 1 or, full multiples of 24 hours only when "using" P/4 in earth's case.

However, P can be used, as Joe Postma has shown, to calculate the temperature a spot (imagine a square meter) on earth's surface could be a maximum of, for the received solar input.

ie, solar power input, corrected for surface's inclination to the power source, and further losses due to reflection / scattering / absorption by the atmosphere.

This would leave a W/m2 power received at the earth's surface.

Using the standard formula, which is explained in more detail on this thread, of,

(P / 5.6704) ^0.25*100=K

Where,

P = Power of beam in W/m2.

K = Degrees Kelvin temperature for receiving black body surface (per square meter).

^ = raise to the power of

* = Multiply

then, by subtracting 273.15 from the answer the above equation gives the surface's temperature in degrees Celsius for a received P of "X" Watts per meter squared (W/m2) can be calculated.

In almost all circumstances the actual surface temperature will be lower than this maximum possible figure for the received at the earth's surface solar (mostly Short wave) W/m2 P input.

Why? How can that be?

We are constantly told by the greenhouse effect failed hypothesis, and the resulting "as computer modeled" man made global warming alarmism that,

we are warmer than we should be, 33 degrees Celsius warmer, for the received solar input, NOT COLDER, which we actually are.

The answer is simple thermodynamics, as Joe Postma (linked to above) has been recently explaining.

The earth's heated surface cools by losses of 1) sensible heat by conduction to, and convection of, the atmosphere immediately above it.

Convection of sensible heat in this manner is a powerful and gravity powered process as Alan Siddons has explained in his Learning by Candlelight paper,

which can be found attached to post 4 on this thread.

But that is not the full, or even THE major part of the "story".

The earth's surface is also cooled (and most powerfully) by

the 2) latent heat removed by water vapourisation.

ie, Yes you loose heat by conduction and convection, and wind helps too,

but get wet and soon you feel a whole lot colder, especially in a wind.

(71% of earth's surface is water)

Some heat will also be absorbed by the earth's surface, and that will be released in due course (mostly the next night, when the air is colder) warming the earth's atmosphere.

Radiation losses pail into almost insignificance by comparison to the above two cooling processes, and

surface heat retention, and varying later release.

What is left to be explained by radiative losses? Not a right lot.

Radiating Infra Red thermal radiation (IR) is not a good way to cool is it.

But tell that to the "radiation obsessed" climate science and main stream "climate skeptics" at present....

You'd be right, and they'd be wrong - no sweat.

Comparing the surface temperatures that P and P/4 produce for a given W/m2 input shows something so obvious,

it is a wonder we have all missed it, but we have.

Hans Schreuder has recently been kind enough to let me paraphrase him on exactly this point, and it is also what Joe Postma has been explaining.

" How else, other than P/4, for the solar input received,

do you get the earth’s surface temperature low enough to REQUIRE a GH “effect” ?????

Answer – You can not. "

This is the "reason" for the use of P/4 in the incorrectly named and failed Greenhouse (GH) hypothesis, and

resulting Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), as represented by K&T type plots.

P/4 is the way that the GH failed hypothesis, and AGW get earth's surface temperature for the received solar input low enough to require a GH effect.

No P/4 = no GH effect, and no AGW as presently touted.

I strongly suspect that P/4 is also used in climate computer models, but try as I might,

unfortunately I have not been able to show this (undeniably) for the climate models as of yet.

There are two more problems of P/4 which I will explain in the next post.

For the mean time I will leave you with a simple 4 points list of the problems of P/4.

Dividing solar power received by 4, in earth's case,

1) is unphysical.

2) has enabled the GH failed hypothesis, and AGW to get the earth's surface temperature low enough to require a GH effect,

when there is no proof such is the case.

3) establishes the principle of increased surface area = reduced intensity received and capable of being emitted.

Yet, this principle is not applied throughout the GH hypothesis as taught at present.

4) introduces a time element of 24 hours, or multiples thereof, into the quoted W/m2 figures of the GH hypothesis, and K&T type plots.

A W/m2 is strictly defined as a timeless power figure, so such calculated figures are not W/m2, because they must contain a time element.

Such calculations and averaging divorces the maths from the physics, and therefore reality.

This makes any "answers" derived physically meaningless.

Before continuing with explaining points 3 and 4 it is necessary to "back track" a little and explain what is the failed GH hypothesis.

Alan Siddons has recently compiled a series of diagrammatic explanations of what

several of the most respected Universities in America presently teach as the Greenhouse Effect "theory".

Below are the examples Alan compiled of what is presently taught and where from.

Although not a University in himself, Gavin Schmidt is a leading "consensus" climate science figure,

and is largely responsible for the NASA version of the K&T type plot.

Professor Richard Lindzen is a leading main stream "climate sceptic",

this plot is included to show that main stream "climate skeptics" accept the basic GH hypothesis.

Such "climate skeptics" would include Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. Roy Spencer, Joanna Nova, David Evans, and lord Monckton,

As well as, Jeff Id, Richard T Fowler, Science of Doom, etc, etc, etc, etc.....

To name just a few....

Are they really "climate skeptics" or are they merely "AGW figure quibblers"???

Well, they certainly do not question the basic principles of the failed GH hypothesis, and it's (theoretically speaking) "bastard" offspring AGW.

As will be explained in due course AGW has no (theoretical) father.

Continued in Post 2.