P/4 - Why it is THE issue that destroys GH and AGW.
06-28-2011, 11:24 PM
RE: P/4 - Why it is THE issue that destroys GH and AGW.
(06-27-2011 07:17 PM)Richard T. Fowler Wrote: we clearly all agree on the meaning of P/4 (i.e., that it can mean mean either an average over time, OR an average over the surface of the earth AT A POINT IN TIME)
AT A POINT IN TIME P/4 is averaging two completely different halves (that are 12 hours apart "in the physics of the situation").
One half of earth is day, the other is night.
This makes the "calculation" of P/4 of very limited use and applicability. That is THE main point.
This is also a false representation to seemingly keep the idea of a W/m2 going, when
in fact by the very definition of a W/m2 (a timeless power figure) such a "calculation" does not produce an answer in units of W/m2.
Over 24 hours, taking the globe as a whole, yes, P/4 is a (unphysical in reality for a spinning globe with one source of P) "average" (power of) energy input,
it is also,
at a moment in time, just a meaningless "average", that is more obviously divorced from the definition of a W/m2, and the physics of the situation.
The halves being "averaged" are 12 hours apart in regard of the input being "averaged".
What else happens in those 12 hours P/4 ignores / dismisses?
Maths MUST BE appropriately applied to the physics of a given situation, not determine the physics (and "time") of a given situation as inappropriately using P/4 does.
"Agreeing" with the supposed general applicability of P/4, without realising P/4 has very limited use/s, is "agreeing" to be divorced from reality.
Using P/4 inappropriately, is "agreeing" to view a false reality.
P/4 AT A POINT IN TIME is a necessary prerequisite, it is the "starting point" for the failed GH hypothesis and "greenhouse land physics",
which is not a "squabble",
it is absolutely central.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken.
The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)