P/4 - Why it is THE issue that destroys GH and AGW.

[Derek]

Yes, SST,
P and P/2 are OK, they are both timeless figures as such, that do not mangle the physics of day and night together.
P/2 does average (and mangle) the physics of day though, so has to be used with some care.

But, P/4 is generally not OK. It mangles the physics of day and night, and specifically at a point in time, ie, the starting point for GH et al,
it mangles and averages the physics of day and night together, that are in reality 12 hours apart.
The failed GH hypothesis has no physically real starting point (point 1), ie P/4.
The middle bit (points 2 to 4) do not make sense compared to the starting point, AND DO NOT USE THE SAME LOGIC,
ie increased surface area = reduced intensity.
AND,
The end (point5) says that earth's average all over surface temperature is 30C.
In fact, the hypothesis as presently taught is a 48 degrees celsius "GH" warming effect (- 18C to + 30C).....
UTTER POPPYCOCK, based on the initial, necessary, unphysical, and imaginary prerequisite that P/4 is,
when applied generally, and at a point in time, to earth's actual and real physics.