Raymond W. Arritt wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> I am not sure why the impact of the averaging procedure would per se
>> be negligible. I've put +50C and -50C into a spreadsheet and come to
>> an average of 12.87C. Now, I suppose that the world consists of one
>> half at -50C and one half at +50C and use goal seek to work out how
>> much the "equator" half has to drop to compensate a 3C increase in the
>> "polar" half, and that comes to a 1C drop, ie -47C and +49C also
>> average to 12.87C, yet a simple arithmetic average would give a rise
>> of 1C.
>
> Can you explain this in a little more detail? What methodology did you
> use that produced an average of 12.87 C from temperatures of +50 and -50?
It's the 4th root of the average of the 4th powers (with all calcs done
in Kelvin). You could think of it as the effective radiating temperature
of a body where half of the surface is at +50C and half at -50C. But
that doesn't explain why anyone should care!
James
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
