Fraud of the Greenhouse Effect: Materialism versus Idealism

Written by Joseph E : Postma

The only games in town that have a chance at fundamentally explaining all aspects of existence are Scientific Materialism vs. Mathematical Idealism.

Scientific Materialism fails as a possible answer before it even gets out of the starting gate, because it can’t explain how subjective mental experience arises, or what the mind actually is.  At best, Scientific Materialism says that mind is an epiphenomenon of matter, an emergent state of complexity that gives rise to the impression of mind.  This is actually a blind statement of faith, because how such a process actually leads to the impression of mind is not and specifically can not be explained – it is simply assumed.  It is simply called “emergent”, as if such a label explains something.  Moreover, Scientific Materialism fails because it can not explain the numbers zero, infinity, or i, even though it uses them in all of its equations; Scientific Materialism is therefore incomplete, since it can not fundamentally explain all aspects of itself.  Scientific Materialism can discover the laws of physics, but it can’t actually explain where the laws come from, why matter obeys them, where the laws are stored, and why they are always mathematical in the first place.  Finally, it can not explain why the Big Bang occurred, or what it was. Besides, quantum mechanics has already proven that there’s no such thing as material anyway.

Mathematical Idealism, on the other hand, already subsumes Scientific Materialism because it is based on the very things where materialism breaks down: zero, infinity, and the number i.  Moreover, this basis does explain the nature of reality, where physical laws are stored, why matter obeys them, why the laws are always mathematical, what mind is and how it arises, and how subjectivity can be experienced in an objective universe.  It also explains what the Big Bang was and why it occurred.  Hmm, perhaps this would be a good basis for a rational religion?

But this does not mean that human usage of mathematics on paper is infallible.  In fact, mathematics is so powerful that it can describe almost anything, even concepts which have no basis in reality.  The mathematics which corresponds fundamentally to reality is called “Ontological Mathematics”, because ontological means “the basis or essence of existence”.  We are about to see that there is an important difference between mathematics, and physics, and that this difference depends on the comprehension inherent in Mind.  Discovering Ontological Mathematics is the true activity of science and physics, although science does not currently understand this.  We are trying to fix that.

 

Mathematics

Let’s look at a simple mathematical model of the Earth and its energy balances, as advocated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and essentially all alarmists and sceptics of the entire climate debate.  This is a model taught to physics students at almost any university in the world:

Standard Model Greenhouse Gas Budget

This model apparently conserves energy, surface area, and temperature, and uses physics equations like the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.  If modern science is defined as the pursuit of models of reality which appear sufficient, then this is indeed a successful scientific model.  And there are mathematical formula which can be created to describe the “physics” in this model.

Physics

However, if we “zoom out” on the above model, so that we can see both the Sun and the Earth and the energy exchanges at once, then this is what is automatically and directly produced:

Climatologys False Paradigm

Even though the model appeared to conserve all physical quantities, with a slight change of reference frame some very important problems are discovered, and several reconsiderations should automatically be generated.

Because the solar energy is distributed over a plane of the entire surface area of the Earth, the solar flux is mathematically reduced by a factor of four, and so if this energy were truly falling onto a plane in space, this would require a Sun two-times the distance from the Earth so that the inverse-square law could account for it (i.e. one over two-squared is 1/4).  This is a violation of reality since the Earth is not two-times the distance from the Sun as it is.

Further, if the solar flux is averaged out over the entire surface at once, then the sunshine only has the heating strength of -180C, and so it can’t melt ice, evaporate water, create clouds, or do much of anything at all.  In the zoomed-in model from the University of Washington, this problem is taken care of by simply creating a mathematical equation that lets the cooler atmosphere provide just as much heating power to the warmer surface as the Sun does, essentially implying that the climate drives itself – the climate is thus responsible for driving the climate, rather than sole sufficient energy input from elsewhere (i.e. the Sun).  This is a basic logical fallacy of self-reference and another violation of reality, since it is obvious that only the Sun provides energy to drive the climate.  This logical fallacy of self-reference can be called the “Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect”.

Mind

Climatology produces a model which is apparently satisfactory to science.  A slight change of reference frame indicates some fundamental error inside the model because not all physical quantities or physical expectations are satisfied.

This isn’t very complicated: the Earth is not flat.

Nor is it static.  The equations which describe the flat-Earth model would always be time-independent equations, essentially static equations, because there is no terrestrial rotation and there is no variation in flux over the planet’s surface.  Such time-independent equations are those produced as we have seen by PhD’s such as Roy Spencer, and many other apparently trained scientists, who yet did not have the mind to consider larger reference frames and who were unable to distinguish between static vs. time-dependent physics and mathematics.  With no time-dependence or flux gradients in such models, we could essentially say that there is no life, in the sense that there is nothing dynamic, in this model of the Earth.  It is essentially a dead Earth.

But where do we discover that the model of climatology is wrong?  Where is this discovery made?  Exclusively, the error is discovered with the mind.  The mind thought of a different way of looking at the same model, that is, a different reference frame but of the same model, and then discovered, using the necessary mathematical indications, that something was wrong.  Of course, the Earth is not flat, and thus, the Sun is not twice as far away, and thus, sunshine is not freezing cold, and thus, the idea that the atmosphere heats up the atmosphere some more is wrong.

All of this, of course, has a parallel to the history of the Ptolemaic, Brahe’s, and Copernican models of the solar system which were all mathematically equivalent, and in which only Kepler’s mental shift of reference frame to physics away from mathematics truly placed the Sun at the center of the solar system.

Some scientists and laymen will still attempt to claim that the flat Earth model is an “approximation” to reality that nevertheless still tells us some useful information.  This mentally misses the point: the flat Earth models tells us exactly nothing about reality, and represents nothing about reality, because it is not a valid approximation to reality.  A flat Earth is divorced from reality entirely, and nothing about it and particularly no inferences or consequences from it, have anything to do with reality; in particular, the logical self-reference fallacy of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect which is a result of the unreality of the flat Earth, has no reality.  It is impossible that anything which comes out of the flat-Earth model corresponds to reality; that such a model uses a partial but incomplete set of physical quantities, while violating other physical quantities, doesn’t make the model partially correct, but makes it completely incorrect.  The math and physics of the atmospheric greenhouse effect which comes out of such models is completely incorrect – it is certainly not useful!

This can’t be stressed enough:  The Earth is not flat.  The Earth is not two-times further from the Sun than scientific instruments tell us.  Sunshine is not freezing cold.  I am being totally serious, and I am willing to put my scientific career and credentials on this: The Earth is not flat, but is a rotating sphere.  It is 150 Million kilometers from the Sun, not 300 Million.

I will renounce everything I have ever written on this blog and give my masters degree in astrophysics back to my university if I am wrong about this.

It can’t be stressed enough that the difference between a flat Earth and a spherical Earth is important – it means something, it is real.  We’re talking about two completely different phase-spaces, two completely different geometric boundary conditions.  We’re talking about different degrees of dimensionality.  A flat plane can not represent anything about the dimensionality of a sphere; if it can’t represent the dimensionality, then it can’t represent the correct physics, or the correct math.

These are two entirely different regimes or phase-spaces of physics.  For example, imagine if the only H2O molecule ensembles you ever encountered, ever, were below 0 degrees Celsius.  You lived on a world which was ice, and you never discovered fire, and your body temperature was below 00C, and you never experienced a temperature higher than 00C.  Your understanding of the H2O molecule would be that it was permanently a solid, ice.  You would have never discovered that H2O can behave any differently than a solid.  This is the world described by the solar power of the flat-Earth model.

However, if you ever did figure out a way to raise the temperature of ice to higher than 00C, you would discover a completely new phase state of matter: liquid.  The physics of liquid is completely different and completely unique compared to solid.  You can’t describe the physics of liquid with the physics of solids.  You have totally new qualitative and quantitative physics, a totally unique regime of reality, and totally different math.

This new liquid regime can not be created, established, or discovered by the power of sunlight in the flat Earth model.

However, it can and is created, established, and discovered by the sole power of sunshine in a spherical model.  The spherical model can go even further and create water vapor, yet another new phase-state of matter which has even more energy.

To put it more simply: can you cook a TV-Dinner at 32F0 for 8 hours, and expect to get the same result (cookage  😉  ) if you baked it at 425F0 for 1 hour?  Of course you can’t, hence the greenhouse effect is wrong.  Full stop, it is no more complex than that.

Mind + Physics + Math

So then why not create a reality-based spherical rotating model and see what comes out of it?  First, let’s start from the zoomed-out reference frame so that we can make sure we utilize the correct physical quantities at that scale:

A more realistic starting point

Now let’s zoom in a little to see the earth up close:

POSTMA 3D model

These results demonstrate a qualitatively unique phase-space or regime of physics that the flat-Earth model is incapable of producing.  It produces temperatures and physical responses with the input from the Sun alone that the flat-Earth model must use a logical fallacy to also partially achieve.  The math which can be created with the flat Earth model has no intersection with reality whatsoever, even though the equations might be algebraically consistent and even though a lesser mind might merely imagine them as such.

This model also shows that latent heat helps to hold a higher temperature overnight, and hence on average, than if latent heat weren’t present – the latent heat acts much like a battery but for heat storage.  In the figure below, we see that the temperature doesn’t drop as low overnight when latent heat is present in H2O, and we also see that if the solar input forcing is removed on the last day, that the energy from latent heat keeps the surface at 00C while if latent heat weren’t present, the temperature would have dropped to -730C; that is, latent heat kept the surface 730C warmer than otherwise!  It has been calculated that there is about 120 years’ worth of solar power input stored hidden in the latent heat of liquid water, and about 7 days’ worth of solar power input stored hidden in the latent heat of water vapor.

Time Depedent Thermal Model

To improve the model further, we can also include some observational data regarding the energy balances just at the Earth/outer-space boundary, which can be called a “boundary condition”, and such conditions are known as the “Zero Energy Balance” plot, as shown here:

Mean Latitudinal Distribution of Earths Radiation

What this data shows is that energy is not conserved on a local basis, but only on a global basis (assuming the integral of the energy differences sums to zero).  Locally, more energy comes in than leaves to about plus or minus 40 degrees in latitude, while the opposite is the case beyond that latitude.  Essentially, excess energy is being transported from the tropical & temperate region to the polar regions but without showing up as radiative thermal energy – such energy is somehow being hidden during its transport.  Of course, the only obvious physical mechanism candidate for being able to fulfill such a condition is the energy trapped in the latent heats of liquid and vaporous H2O.

It might be interesting to integrate the absolute-valued difference between the input and output energy curves from the above figure, i.e., the total absolute area between the two curves which would be the absolute value of the energy flux represented by that area.  Maybe it would be correspond to something interesting.  For example, in terms of radiation output, the only way for something to emit less radiation than its input temperature is if it has low emissivity.  This also means it can have a higher temperature than its input, in particular if energy is hidden away somewhere such as in latent heat.  Similarly, the only way for something to emit more energy than its input is if it is warmer than the input.  So, it might be possible that even though the total energy between the curves is zero, both the positive and negative portion of the differences indicate physical situations where the temperature can naturally be higher than expected.  The absolute-valued sum of the differences, or simply acknowledging the differences themselves, may indicate something about temperature decoupling relative to the scalar-valued average input.

The above paragraph is certainly speculative, but it does represent the type of thinking and postulating that a creative and good scientist should cultivate, and then be willing to be modify or abandon.  Pseudo-scientists are the ones who won’t abandon their speculative jaunts, such as the flat-Earth conjecture and its greenhouse effect models.

Then for example, a much more direct consideration for the atmosphere would be its emissivity.  The atmosphere is 99% composed of nitrogen and oxygen, and at terrestrial temperatures and pressures these gases are known to thermally radiate extremely poorly, meaning they have very low emissivity.  Quite directly, this means that the atmosphere has to hold a higher temperature than the equivalent temperature of the solar input, in order for the atmosphere to be in energetic balance with said input.  Note that the physics of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law says that the atmosphere has to, not just perhaps, be warmer.

We can also consider how temperature and energy distributes itself in a gas in a gravitational field.  This is a little more difficult to demonstrate with a diagram, so we have to go straight to the physical equation.  Basically, the energy in a parcel of gas at some altitude above the surface is given by U = mgh + mCpT, where m is the mass, g is the strength of gravity, h is the altitude, Cp is the thermal capacity, and T is the temperature.  By differentiating the equation and setting it to zero (to imply that there are no net energy flows in or out of the system [although energy can still be flowing, it is just equalized]), you find the result that temperature must decrease as a function of altitude.  This is very well known.  If the average temperature of a whole column of gas must correspond with the equivalent solar input temperature, but within the column itself its temperature is distributed from hot at the bottom to cool at the top, then the average must be found in the middle and so the bottom will naturally be warmer than the average. These facts explain why the surface of Venus is so hot even though its blackbody temperature is so cool at its cloud-tops, for example.

Summary

We see that there are lots of natural reasons why the bottom of the atmosphere will be warmer than the equivalent average solar input temperature.  We have the subsurface temperature maintained by geothermal energy; even though the heat flow rate through soil is small, the absolute heat energy content is still there and thus maintains the high temperature of the subsurface, and this then helps maintain the top-surface layer temperature.  The temperature beneath the ground is not absolute zero, but more like 100C.  We have the latent heat from water liquid and vapor which helps keep the surface and air warmer than it would be otherwise, due to its “heat battery” effect.  We have the natural lapse rate which indicates that the bottom of the atmosphere must be warmer than the average temperature.

But most importantly, the creation of the GHE is a plain logical fallacy of self-reference.  The GHE is created via a conjecture that the Earth might be flat.  This conjecture breaks down as a valid approximation if it is scientifically inspected for consistency with reality.  Not only is the idea of a flat Earth obviously wrong, trying to make this approximation work mathematically leads to violations of physical reality.

Now, it is certainly possible to create some math and perform some algebra and create a physics of that algebra based on a flat Earth model.  But this does not mean that it is correct.  To be a great scientist, you really need to appreciate the Ontological Mathematics, the physical reality, of the model you choose to support.

Ptolemy, Brahe, and Copernicus all had the exact same model of the motion of the planets.  Few people are aware of this, but their 3 models were mathematically equivalent – they could all be transformed from one to the other.  Copernicus didn’t really place the Sun itself at the center of the solar system, but only a mathematical point called the equant, which was just the center of Earth’s orbit.  That’s only near the Sun, not the Sun itself and certainly not the Sun as a causative force.  The 3 models were all simply based on geometry and all used math, and the math was all geometrically and algebraically consistent, and the math described a physics that scientists of the day used to understand the solar system.  And so, it was Kepler who intuited that the Sun was the actual physicaldriver of the solar system, that the motions of the planets were physically caused by the Sun, through what he conjectured must be a force like magnetism.  It was Kepler who actually placed the Sun at the physical center of the solar system, and, given the physics he postulated to have the Sun as an actual driving force, who discovered gravity.  This changed the mathematics, the physics, the theory, the entire mental/cognitive phase-space and boundary-conditions of astronomical thought, and it marked the creation of the field of astrophysics as an actual physical science.  None of the previous solar system models, not even Copernicus’, could do what Kepler’s physics could do.

The flat Earth energy model leaves almost everything that is known to be important about the climate, out of the climate.  Including the real Sun.  In place of what it leaves out, the flat-Earth model manufactures a self-heating mechanism with a logical fallacy of self-reference, where the climate is responsible for creating the climate, instead of the Sun being responsible for creating the climate.  This fallacy is called the “Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect”, which incidentally has nothing to do with the physical operating principles of a real glass greenhouse.  The Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect is entirely equivalent to Ptolemy’s epicycles – an invention created merely to make the appearances work.  That math and algebra and an inferred physics of those can be created to describe a flat Earth, does not mean in any way, shape, or form that such math is ontologically valid.  The math might appear consistent in terms of algebra and some logic, but such math is not Ontological.  The only physically correct, and hence ontological math, is that which places the Sun as the sole driver of the climate, in real time.  And when such a thing is done, the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect, as it is known, no longer makes an appearance.


Comments are closed.