Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
P/4 - Why it is THE issue that destroys GH and AGW.
#61
Derek,

Quote: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.

is similar to:

RTE,

Quote: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)

"an average over the surface of the earth AT A POINT IN TIME"

seems to match with the below pretty well:

"AT A POINT IN TIME P/4 is averaging two completely different halves"

What is the problem?




It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#62
The averaging of physics that are in reality 12 hours apart.

Re RTF reply - Yet again he is on about climate models. How many times do I have to repeat why I am not mentioning climate models?
But, for the record, and yet again,
"
(06-15-2011, 02:07 AM)Derek Wrote: Please read this thread - it explains why and where I am up to in regards of what the climate models actually do.
Which as I state, at present, try as I might, I do not know for certain either way.
The same link is in the piece, did you read it?

For certain however, GH "theory" as presently taught does depend upon P/4, as do the K&T type plots, so P/4 is a live, and centrally relevant issue,
whether the climate models do use it or not.
As I said at tAV,
" So goes researching an issue, not from a static view point. "


The rest of his reply is simply trying to confuse the general applicability of P/4.

To state again, P/4 is the necessary prerequisite for the failed GH effect failed hypothesis as presently taught, and therefore AGW.
This was clearly demonstrated in the following plots.

[Image: Slide23.jpg]

[Image: Slide24.jpg]

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.
Reply
#63
You say "TWO completely different halves"

He says "an average over the surface"

Both covers the same area.

What is the significant difference?
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#64
The physics are 12 hours apart.

ie,
(06-16-2011, 04:45 AM)Derek Wrote: It is like taking all the colours used in a master piece painting, mixing them together to make one colour (which will be brownish),
then painting that on a canvas.
You then say you can tell us everything about the painter and original painting from the brownish rectangle you had just created.
(No, it would not matter if your rectangle was landscape or portrait)
I would not believe a word you said about the artist or how you thought the original masterpiece was painted.

The overall colour of the rectangle so created (ie 239W/m2, or -18C) would be of very limited use.
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.
Reply
#65
Then you are looking at it as a 12 hour day and 12 night.While RTF does not?

The 12 hours of incoming solar radiation,12 hours of night versus a simple 24 hour averaging?

You make a blending of the two 12 hours to get an average?

The difference appears to be that you see as a pair of 12 hours to make an average.While RTF sees a 24 averaging.

12 hours of incoming radiation seems to describe a p/2 setting?

[Image: PDIVIDEDBY4PLOT.jpg]

It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#66
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.
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.
Reply
#67
(06-30-2011, 05:08 AM)Derek Wrote: 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.


What I need here is a spit-take "smiley", but I don't seem to have one on my palette ....

RTF
Reply
#68
(06-30-2011, 05:22 PM)Richard T. Fowler Wrote:
(06-30-2011, 05:08 AM)Derek Wrote: 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.


What I need here is a spit-take "smiley", but I don't seem to have one on my palette ....

RTF

I have a few smilies. Ok a few hundred smilies. What is a spit-take smilie.

“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”.J Robert Oppenheimer.
Reply
#69
Quote:What is a spit-take smilie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spit_take

<<A spit-take is a comedic technique in which someone spits a beverage out of their mouth when they react to a statement. In this context, the word "take" is used in the sense of taking in information.>>


Reply
#70
(06-30-2011, 05:42 PM)Richard T. Fowler Wrote:
Quote:What is a spit-take smilie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spit_take

<<A spit-take is a comedic technique in which someone spits a beverage out of their mouth when they react to a statement. In this context, the word "take" is used in the sense of taking in information.>>

[Image: barfy.gif] [Image: chunks.gif] [Image: Crazy_1387.gif]

Will any of those do?

“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”.J Robert Oppenheimer.
Reply
#71
Uh-oh. Those are not spit takes. Tommy, he did that, not me!

I'd have been more inclined to go with the ROFL "smiley" if I didn't have a spit-take.

Not that I haven't been PHYSICALLY ILL at times during this thread. I have. Hence my occasional extended absenses. (I'm not kidding, I am serious.)

RTF
Reply
#72
I think it necessary and beneficial to repeat my post 66, with some additions.
You may notice that the additions are not in "reply" to the intervening posts, from then to now,
as I can not see how they are relevant.

Post 66 -
Yes, SST,
P (undiluted power of the solar input, - ie, a disc, or flat perpendicular receiving surface) and P/2 (solar input divided by 2 - ie, a hemisphere average) 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 (power of solar input divided by 4 - ie, a globe) 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).....
Later addition - Why at point 5 does the earth's surface not radiate 478W/m2, and
the process "return" or loop to point 2?
Because that would be a simple and failed, by it's own logic, run away hypothesis.
The conclusion would seem to be that, where appropriate, the as presently taught GH effect hypothesis ignores it's own logic to get the "right" answer.

The failed GH effect hypothesis is 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.

Joe Postma, from an astronomer's view point, described in his first paper what the basis of his approach is, and why he realised what he described.
I will try to explain this in my words.

In astronomy stars are represented using a simple 2 parallel plane model.
This approach I have previously mentioned at the start of the "shape" issue piece, and
recently I have again raised the issue at the present end of the follow up questions thread here.
As this seems to have been missed, or not understood by most of the responses, and authors of those responses on this thread,
I would suggest that they go back and think this over again.
In this regard, and to provide some obviously much needed assistance,
I will repeat here the pertinent excerpt from the "shape" issue piece.

" However there is a basic difference between stars and planets,
that is commonly missed or ignored, (and frequently dismissed),
where does the energy at the objects surface “come from”. ???
A star (ie, our sun) produces the energy “in house” all over it’s surface, reasonably evenly.
A planet however mostly receives it’s surface energy (“surface” please see Joe Postma pdf)
from an external source, usually, and in the case of earth, from only one star (ie, our sun).
Does where the energy at the planet’s or stars surface come from make a difference to
how we should “view”, or rather attempt to “calculate” our planet’s climate system, or our sun’s surface temperature. ?
Yes, a massive difference.
In short,
Using a “disc world” figure in the star’s case is (probably) perfectly OK, but
in the planet’s case it is definitely, and completely wrong
(this will be shown and proven in this piece using very simple mathematics).
The massive difference causes, and leads to, huge misconceptions, and misdirections that are
the death of the present pseudo “climate science” that is commonly referred to as AGW,
or, the “theory” of “man made global warming”.

Which is utterly dependent upon the GH effect failed hypothesis.


NB –AGW / Man made Global warming IS NOT A THEORY,

neither is the now failed GH effect hypothesis,
they are both unproven,
and failed by their own logic, hypothesis. "


I think it is obvious that a 2 parallel plane model approach to earth's climate is the wrong starting point.
Day and night, that are 12 hours apart in physics and of the thermodynamics is the reason why,
they are completely different halves of the whole globe.
Such an approach, using P/4 as the starting point, which mangles day and night "together" is patently incorrect, and
ignores and dismisses most of the physics, and thermodynamics of reality.

Joe Postma with his understanding of how astronomy models stars (ie, two parallel planes) saw this.
That is what he realised. That is the basis of his approach.

Earth is a planet that receives P from one source,
the sun is a star that emits P all over it's surface.
You can not use the same approach for them both,
the earth has two different halves, day and night, and it rotates, the sun is the same all over, all of the time.
BUT the failed GH effect hypothesis treats earth as the "same all over, all of the time",
by using the starting point of P/4, which is why it fails.
To state the blitheringly obvious, Earth has day and night, and it rotates,
this invalidates P/4, as used in GH and AGW in earth's case, because, earth is not the same all over, all of the time.

Many people have asked of K&T in particular "Where is night?".
That is partly correct, the question should more correctly be in GH and K&T
"Where are the two completely different halves of day and night?."
The answer is that they are both absent, what is represented in
(Please note - all three following "models" are 2 parallel plane "models")
the failed Greenhouse effect hypothesis
[Image: Slide22.jpg]

and Kiehl &Trenberth type global energy budgets,
[Image: radiation_budget_kiehl_trenberth_20.jpg]

as well as this NASA version of the same type of global energy budget,
[Image: global_energy_budget_components.png]

is an unphysical, imaginary one quarter of actual solar power received (P/4) illuminated "overall average" that
has ignored and dismissed almost all of the physics and thermodynamics of reality.

The failed GH effect hypothesis is not "just" a poor model approach to the study of earth's global climate system,
it is an insane approach.
It is an approach divorced from the physics.
It is an approach divorced from the thermodynamics.
It is an approach divorced from time, and therefore,
it is an utterly divorced from reality model approach.

The so far unproven, and failed by it's own logic greenhouse effect hypothesis is patently divorced from reality in any meaningful way,
therefore, and beyond any reasonable doubt,
it is simply imaginary.

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.
Reply
#73
Derek,
you are just repeating your statements and invoking Joe Postmas's name (I don't ever recall him going on about P/4) without explaining anything in terms of science.

You ask "where is night" in the K/T world, the answer is obvious- night IS taken care of by the P/4 which creates the average over 24 hours, of the area of a sphere projected onto a disc of the same radius, averaged over 24 hours. The P/4 accounts for the radiation averaged over 24 hours on the whole of the earths surface. P/4 is correct and physical, P/2 would only be correct if the Earth did not rotate about it's axis.

It is simple geometry! And there is no problem with having W/M2 over 24 hours. In science we use such complex units without any problem at all. The K/T diagram is merely an illustration of the earths system.

The flaw in K/T lies not in simple geometry and units, but in the "back radiation", which although is real, cannot heat the surface of the earth because the earth is ALREADY emitting this radiation, because it is already hotter itself than the atmosphere. That is the flaw with KT, back radiation is there but they count the watts twice, not some quibble about geometry and units. This is to do with Quantum excitation levels of matter and the laws of thermodynamics.

Endlessly repeating your same statements with words such as "poppycock" (which David Bellamy famously used in 2007) does not make them any more true. You need to explain why P/4 is a problem. Continual repetition of the same statement does not make it true, that is akin to the tactics of the alarmists who keep repeating the MMGW mantra in the hope that if they keep repeating it, then it will be accepted as truth.
Reply
#74
(07-02-2011, 07:18 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: It is simple geometry! And there is no problem with having W/m2 over 24 hours.

Well, apart from the missing physics and thermodynamics....
You forget P/4 has to work over a moment in time as well.

BTW - Joe Postma does go on about P/4, it is a 2 parallel plane model, which for earth necessitates P/4.

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.
Reply
#75
Derek, I agree with you 100% that the physics and thermodynamics of the KT diagrams are all wrong! However, I'm still not following your P/4 argument. If you do have a point, then it could be that you have not explained it sufficiently.

Yes, I agree, the earth necessitates P/4. But think of this- a climate model with P/4, without warming from back radiation and with the acceptance that the -18C is merely an average of the surface and atmosphere radiative temperature (as Joe Postma says) then there is no need for a mythical greenhouse effect and yet P/4 is still valid to simulate the earths climate.

As for the time factor- do you have a link as to how these models are calculated and created?? Are they 24 hour averages?? It could be that they are designed to have a day as the minimum granularity of the model and yet not be designed to calculate anything for a moment in time.

It may be that these models are set up to calculate the total heat input and output to the Earth over each 24 hour period. Hence P/4.
Reply
#76
(07-02-2011, 10:31 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: But think of this- a climate model with P/4, without warming from back radiation and with the acceptance that the -18C is merely an average of the surface and atmosphere radiative temperature (as Joe Postma says) then there is no need for a mythical greenhouse effect and yet P/4 is still valid to simulate the earths climate.

NO, and NO, again.
-18C is an overall ensemble average of very, very limited use, but in GH it is the initial (supposed) surface temperature BECAUSE OF P/4..
K&T initial (supposed) surface temperature BECAUSE OF P/4 is even lower...
This is so a GH effect including back radiation is required.
BTW - In regards of "back radiation" measured at the ground, where was it radiated from????
Specifically, I mean at what altitude did it originate from, did it all originate from the same altitude, and how do you know this?

(07-02-2011, 10:31 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: As for the time factor- do you have a link as to how these models are calculated and created?? Are they 24 hour averages?? It could be that they are designed to have a day as the minimum granularity of the model and yet not be designed to calculate anything for a moment in time.

Your on about computer climate models AGAIN, I am not.
As I have repeatedly said.
How I make you understand that I have not a clue,
it must be clear enough by now, I have given my reasons often enough now, I have linked to the thread - post 31 showing why often enough as well.
Read Dr. Richard S Courtney's comment to me on that thread, that he specifically gave me permission to use on the thread,
- no one actually knows - the climate modelers have never released the pertinent codes.
THAT is why I do not talk about computer climate models in this thread.

(07-02-2011, 10:31 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: It may be that these models are set up to calculate the total heat input and output to the Earth over each 24 hour period. Hence P/4.

Oh for goodness sake, your on about computer models AGAIN, I AM NOT..
RSC's quote I mentioned sort of covers your point here, but the answer is the same,
- no one actually knows what the computer climate models do - because the modelers have never released the pertinent codes.

CR Please reread the thread, and linked to threads, you do not seem to have understood as of yet what I am actually talking about.
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.
Reply
#77
This is a long thread and I am going to reply without reading the whole thing so you can complain about that if you will. Angel


From the Sun's perspective the Earth is a 2-D object that is a circle. The area of that circle is pie* r^2 = 3.14159 * (6378.1 km)^2

Area from Sun = 1.278e+8 km2


The surface area of the Earth is simply 4*pie*r^2.

SA of Earth = 5.112e+8 km2


The Earth gets constant energy that is 1/4th of the solar constant because 1/2 of the Earth is always facing the Sun. That the Earth rotates does not matter because half the Earth is always facing the sun.

The P/4 is simply because that is the ratio between the SA of a sphere and the area of a circle. That energy is averaged over the surface of the Earth and does not actually mean that many places are getting that energy.

Some more directly facing the Sun get much more energy and the edges get much less. At sunrise or sunset all locations are at the edge and get small amount of energy which is why the temperature is ALWAYS dropping at sunrise and sunset.

Trenberth is wrong for other reasons that have nothing to do with the incoming solar radiation. That 341 W/m<sup>2</sup> is correct and should be taken at face value.
Reply
#78
Well if you're not on about computer models, of which the KT diagrams are a simplified representation, then WHAT exactly are you on about???

Item 1 this diagram: [Image: PDIVIDEDBY4PLOT.jpg]

at the bottom you clearly mention "climate models", this means "climate computer models!" So it is Derek, that is talking about computer models, yet now he claims he is not????? Oh and the above diagram makes complete sense to me i averaging sunlight over the globe over 24 hours. You have just shown that P/4 is the correct way to do this and yet you say it is "unphysical". Why is it unphysical???

And -18C is the averaged radiative temp between atmosphere and surface.... the alleged greenhouse effect is invoked to explain the average 15C temperature at the surface. However, this is not the case as at the the surface air pressure would give a higher temp, plus the slowness of convection, evaporation etc of kinetic heat accounts for the 15C average surface, and hence the alleged 33C diference between what the earths temperature actually is and what the radiative temp should be.

Derek, with all due respect, i think it is you who has confused yourself and have mis-understood climate science and that is how you have come to some odd conclusions. Either that, or I have missed something. I have read all your posts, but they do not make sense. Real scientific theory can always be broken down into simple explanations that make sense. You seem to be hiding your confusion (perhaps to yourself) with complex posts that dart about from unrelated subject to subject- politics to the atmosphere, to units to geometry all in one post and not making any kind of coherent discussion!

Please explain your idea more clearly! I want to understand what you are talking about.
(07-02-2011, 01:09 PM)Inconvenient_Skeptic Wrote: This is a long thread and I am going to reply without reading the whole thing so you can complain about that if you will. Angel


From the Sun's perspective the Earth is a 2-D object that is a circle. The area of that circle is pie* r^2 = 3.14159 * (6378.1 km)^2

Area from Sun = 1.278e+8 km2


The surface area of the Earth is simply 4*pie*r^2.

SA of Earth = 5.112e+8 km2


The Earth gets constant energy that is 1/4th of the solar constant because 1/2 of the Earth is always facing the Sun. That the Earth rotates does not matter because half the Earth is always facing the sun.

The P/4 is simply because that is the ratio between the SA of a sphere and the area of a circle. That energy is averaged over the surface of the Earth and does not actually mean that many places are getting that energy.

Some more directly facing the Sun get much more energy and the edges get much less. At sunrise or sunset all locations are at the edge and get small amount of energy which is why the temperature is ALWAYS dropping at sunrise and sunset.

Trenberth is wrong for other reasons that have nothing to do with the incoming solar radiation. That 341 W/m<sup>2</sup> is correct and should be taken at face value.

John, thank you! I agree 100% with your post. That is exactly my understanding of P/4. I don't know why Derek can't see this!

Trenberth is wrong because of his treatment of 'back radiation" as extra energy, it is not! It is energy that is already in the system. It is the result of the heat from the surface and atmosphere and not the cause of it!

Reply
#79
BTW, I really am going to drop out of this thread unless Derek comes up with a better explanation of his idea that I can follow. At the moment it simply does not make sense to me.
Reply
#80
I don´t think that Derek is trying to cheat us, of course, and although I have not followed the entire thread, neither read the Postma´s paper, I can recognise when someone´s guts crash with information. I don´t know if Derek is right or wrong, and I would also appreciate an effort from him to clear and specify “the issue”.

But you pointed out a lot of interesting things, beginning with the infectious alarmist tactics of repeating the same thing all of the time till exhaustion. Derek must be on the trail to something. I don´t think the discussion relies on the accuracy of models or Earth´s anisotropy. Not when climate “scientists” refuse to release their codes. In a world where you can access information like this and with so advanced math technics you cannot think it´s all about a P/4 factor.

I recall the day my climate teacher entered the classroom and sketched the damned K-T diagram. He spent a full hour drawing it on the blackboard without sharing a word and left us without saying goodbye; he neither said good morning. Nothing relevant to some minds busy with plant metabolism. Leaving aside some psychological disorder, that´s what´s being taught about “climate change” in a leading spanish agricultural college, and I´m afraid that´s the way the stupid K-T diagram, entered other branches of knowledge.

Maybe, just maybe, there´s a conceptual problem approaching the entire thing from the perspective of a W/m^2 balance. It is very difficult for me to “accept” such a stupid concept as an Earth´s average temperature and continue to construct a whole universe around it. There must be a limit for idealizing reality and building models. That of the Earth´s average temperature is where my animal guts crash.

So, what I really wanted to point out is that reading Derek is quite interesting because he shows where the inconsistencies are. If only I had more time... Tongue
Ni cien conejos hacen un caballo, ni cien conjeturas una evidencia (F. Dostoyevski)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)