The Fraud of the AGHE Part 13: The Difference between Math and Physics

Materialism vs. Idealism

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.

Before we continue, a review of this and this post might be helpful.


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:


The standard energy balance formula and diagram.

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.


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:

flat earth in space

Climatology’s energy flow model of the Earth and Sun in space.

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”.


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:

zoomed out reality

A physically realistic starting point for the Earth-Sun energy interaction.

Now, let’s zoom in a little bit to see thee Earth up close:

zoomed in reality

Zoomed -in model of the Earth corresponding closely with reality.

Unlike the flat-Earth climatology model where the atmosphere is responsible for providing energy to the atmosphere, even though the atmosphere isn’t a source of energy (this is the self-reference logical fallacy of the atmospheric greenhouse effect), with a model that more closely resembles reality it is easier and more obvious to understand that what we call the “climate” is all the response effects to the solar input.  Since the atmosphere and land aren’t sources of energy, then the only thing that causes action or dynamic on the surface of the Earth and in the atmosphere is the direct and incoming energy from the Sun, as it comes in.  (Geothermal energy is usually discounted; however, geothermal energy does maintain the subsurface at above 00C for most of the planet, and only the extension of this model’s equations can account for that, because a warm soil base that is basically an infinite heat bath is a very important consideration.)  This diagrammatic model also includes a reference to latent heat (from H2O), since water covers the majority of the surface of the Earth and the soaking up or release of latent heat automatically has an effect on the temperature.

Putting the above model into a computer simulation that utilizes the actual, physically real, real-time solar input on a spherical and rotating Earth with day and night, and including the behaviour of latent heat in H2O, the model automatically produces temperatures which can melt ice into water, as seen in this numerically-integrated solution of the equations:

time dependent input

A simple, but realistic model, produces temperatures as high as +30C and averaging about +15C.

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.

with and without latent

Time-dependent realistic model demonstrating difference with and without latent heat.

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:

From: Briggs, Smithson, and Ball, Fundamentals of Physical Geography, 1989, Toronto: Copp Clarke and Pitman.

From: Briggs, Smithson, and Ball, Fundamentals of Physical Geography, 1989, Toronto: Copp Clarke and Pitman.

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.


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 physical driver 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.

This entry was posted in Fraud of the Greenhouse Effect and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to The Fraud of the AGHE Part 13: The Difference between Math and Physics

  1. This from a respected climatologist who wishes to remain anonymous:

    A few critical points:

    1. The analogy of the atmosphere with a greenhouse is erroneous. They don’t work in the same way at all, but it is a useful phrase because people associate greenhouse (or hothouse as some call them) with increased heat.

    2. Apart from anything else one is a closed system, unless artificially opened and the other always open.

    3. Glass blocks all the UV, while ozone only absorbs approximately 95%. This sounds close, but as you know some argue changes in ozone is the cause of warming.

    4. The three gases called greenhouse gases, water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane only serve to modify the temperature range that would occur with no atmosphere.

    5. Methane is such a small percentage of this modification that it is of little consequence, despite the game of climate sensitivity that they began back when they wanted to blame western cattle for warming.

    6. Water vapour is 95% by volume and again they used climate sensitivity claims to decrease its effect and increase the effect of carbon dioxide.

    7. Regardless, the climate sensitivity is a canard because in its effect on IR it almost totally overwhelms the effect of carbon dioxide. As you know they overlap.

    8. In all other weather and climate considerations water is considered as a modifier of temperature. The effect is to reduce high temperatures and increase low temperatures thus decreasing the range. As we have discussed previously, you can see this moderation in desert temperatures.

    9. Because of the overlap of the CO2 effect by the water vapour effect it means that water vapour explains 100% of the modification of temperature.

    10. As you know I have longed asked why in all records temperature increase precedes CO2 increase, not as assumed in the IPCC GHE. It appears that CO2 is a cooling agent and that may be due to it cancelling the modifying effect of water vapour when they overlap. As we know the IPCC consider this relationship as a positive feedback, which appears to double the error of considering CO2 as a “greenhouse gas” or warming agent.

  2. Truthseeker says:

    That is what I call putting up and not shutting up …

  3. johnmarshall says:

    Can’t argue with any of that Joe, thanks.

  4. Ben Wouters says:

    Glad to see you begin mentioning geothermal heat as a factor in our climate.
    Solar alone can never explain the temperatures on Earth. Just look at the moon, same amount of solar radiation, but average surface temperature a mere 197K. (which already includes a geothermal “base” temperature of ~25K)
    The reason for our higher temperatures are geothermal heat and the oceans, working as a storage buffer.
    Geothermal flux (~100mW/m^2) alone is enough to warm the oceans 1K every ~5000 years.
    We also have magma erupting near plate edges (~17 km^3/year presently?), vents, underwater volcanoes etc.
    All this warming is countered by cooling at high latitudes, resulting in an average cooling rate of 1K every ~5 million years for the DEEP oceans.
    Without large magma eruptions like the Ontong Java one we would be a very cold planet by now.
    In earlier history much larger eruptions must have taken place, like the one around 300 million years ago, causing a much larger temperature rise than the OJ one.

    All variations in eg. solar radiation, cloud cover (Svensmark) etc. work on top of the warming of the oceans upper ~200 m. by the sun. The oceans surface temperature is the result of the temperature of the DEEP oceans, plus what the sun can add to the surface.

    The atmosphere has a thermal capacity equal to that of ~3 METER of water, so is of minor relevance. It does reduce the heat loss to space, compared to a planet without atmosphere but the same surface temperature. (240 W/m^2 versus 400 W/m^2)

    The cooling effect of CO2 seems comparable to that of water vapour (clouds) during daytime.
    Solar radiation is ~50% IR, so CO2 intercepts solar and partly re-radiates to space, causing less warming by the sun than would have been the case without CO2. Don’t think that 400 ppm will make a large impact though 😉

    see my two posts on Principia Scientific:

  5. Interesting stuff Ben. At the very least, I would like to see a 2-D PDE which includes the infinite heat bath below in a column of soil + atmosphere, and see what happens to the surface temperature with and without the bath included. The effect can not be zero.

  6. Pingback: The Fraud of the AGHE Part 13: The Difference between Math and Physics | Skeptics Chillin'

  7. Ben Wouters says:

    The continents are hardly relevant imo. Heat flux is ~65 mW/m^2, and this is nothing compared to incoming solar. The surface temperature will probably be the average seasonal temperature. Going down the temp. increases ~25K / km. Basalt floods on continents (like the Siberian and Deccan traps) won’t do much for the temperature on longer timescales. Their heat is whisked of to space almost immediately.
    The oceans are the place to look. They cover >70% of the earth, and the properties of fluid H2O combined with the sun warming them from ABOVE make them a very good storage place for the heat of basalt floods like the 100.000.000 km^3 of the Ontong Java plateau, which created EXTRA warming on top of the always existing warming by geothermal flux etc.
    No wonder we had forests on Antarctica after OJ had done it’s warming 😉
    (peak temperature ~82 million years ago)

  8. John in France says:

    BW :
    Why are you talking in terms of volume (km^3) rather than area (km^2) when referring to the OJ plateau? Volume of water above plateau? Must be hard to estimate due to topography, I imagine.

  9. Ben Wouters says:

    @John in France

    I’m talking about the volume because all this magma used to be below the isolating crust, and after erupting it was part of or above the crust. 100m km^3 magma in ~1.400 m km^3 ocean water must have a serious warming effect. Rough estimate using temperature of magma 1000K above average ocean temperature (could be more since these plumes are convective processes) and heat capacity of water 4x that of magma gives 1000/14/4 = ~17,9K potential warming from this basalt flood alone for ALL ocean water.
    When this eruption ended we do see deep ocean temperatures some 17K above present temperatures.

  10. Check out this summary coming from an online Christian forum where I linked to it (of all places):

    “Math = explains everything in the universe. True things and false perceptions alike.

    Math = absolute truth if it is processed in the mind using correct physical parameters. When you fudge your physics, you can always find a mathematical support of that fudged physics.

    The physical premise behind global warming is using incorrect logic (they infer an atmospheric greenhouse where one does not exist in reality) hence even though the math works, that doesn’t make it proven science.

    Clear as mud?”

    I told the person that most PhD’s in science today would not be able to understand that summary, let alone my article.

  11. Sleepalot says:

    Dear Joe, I’m a fan, and just an ordinary guy, but imho that was a whole pile of bollocks. If you want to estimate the temperature of the Earth, don’t start with metaphysics – it just looks like bafflegab: it makes you look like a con man.

    Aiui, there are three basic theories of existence;
    solipsism – nothing exists, (Idealism is just another word for solipsism.)
    monism – one kind of existence – the material,
    dualism – to kinds of exitence – the material and the divine.

    The purpose of dualism is to make space for “God” – ie. it’s special pleading: I’ll ignore it here.
    Solipsim – is intellectually bankrupt: you can’t be proven wrong, but also you can’t know anything.
    I contend that I can convert a solipsist to a materialist with nothing more than a pointed stick: it’s the “crucial experiment”. Ok, so it’s not
    a proof, but it’s a sound pragmatic foundation for physics: that which appears to exist exists – it’s axiomatic.

    Mind and mathematics do not exist in the way that you and I exist – that would be reifying. Mathematics is not “absolute truth”, it’s just a model – an attempt to describe reality – and it’s founded on axioms, too.

    As soon as you step away from materialism, you get into an existential crisis: give up those foundational axioms, and you’re left with nothing, and you’ll have to invent a god; it’s been done already, and it explains nothing. Just my 2c.

  12. Nathan says:

    The big point about the distance being off seems to be based upon your interpretation of the inverse square law, which is false. You’re stating that the flux is divided by a factor of four BEFORE the application of the inverse square law, which is a mistake. We don’t divide the flux by four until AFTER we double the distance. There is a bit of a mat double dip there, or more correctly, cart before horse then putting another cart in for good measure. Now in terms of curved surfaces interacting with curved wavefronts, that does introduce complexity for the measurement of the flux, which is why at the poles it is still colder at every time of year. The rest of the arguments are interesting too but I’d like your take on the math whoopsy…

  13. Will reply to the above 2 tomorrow…

  14. @Sleepalot

    In fact, existence manifests as a combination of all 3 of your basic theories. Now, at this point in time, what we have is Scientific Materialism, and it is as intellectually bankrupt as exclusive solipsism…in fact it is a brand of solipsism. The other thing we have, but which VERY few people are actually educated on the fundamentals about, is Mathematical Idealism. If you haven’t studied mathematical idealism in detail, then please read the “God Series” books from this fellow Mike Hockney, starting with The God Factory and reading the whole series in order of publication. Without the knowledge contained in these books, and they’re all about philosophy, you may never encounter the truth. And there is a final truth, which incidentally is something that materialism denies.
    Few points: The concept of “God” is only ridiculous when conjured as something you need to worship or give recognition to, or, thought of as a creator of the universe. There are other more rational conceptions which go in other directions, as you will see.
    Mathematics is based on 0 = 0. This is the same thing as 1+1=1+1, which we write as 1+1=2. These aren’t contingent axioms, but are a-priori analytic statements of default truth. It is the only case where tautology is logically valid, which makes mathematics rather unique, and, especially so since it also describes everything around us. There is a fundamental truth lying deep within this curiosity.

    If you like, I will buy you the first 4 of the set of 11 books, and gift them to your email address. They are Kindle-format only, but you can get the Kindle app either for your phone or PC/laptop, if you don’t have a reader (I use my phone – S3). Let me know.

  15. @Nathan

    It is simply taking what the model represents, and displaying it at a larger scale with its attendant physical quantities. We have a surface area of the entire Earth, which is a flat plane. This flat plane has 240 W/m^2 falling onto it. A flat plane with 240 W/m^2 falling onto it (after 30% albedo) has to be a distance from the Sun of 300 Million km. It is simply inferring the distance from the Sun.

  16. Ben Wouters says:

    @Joseph E Postma

    In my text “Moon’s Hidden Message” is this link:
    It describes the way the Effective Temperature (Te) for planets is calculated.
    The big mistake I see is spreading incoming solar over the whole planet iso only halve the planet as in reality. Due to the 4th power In SB this gives a way to high number for the Te.
    Te for the moon is calculated as 270K, real average temperature ~197K!!!

  17. Sleepalot says:

    [jpedit: Idiot. Morons are not invited to follow this blog.]

  18. John in France says:

    Yes, I suppose you could say I’m a materialist. I go along with Sleepalot when he says that : “Mathematics is not ‘absolute truth’, it’s just a model – an attempt to describe reality – and it’s founded on axioms, too.” I would add that maths and models work through, or rather indulge in extrapolation and that the more they extrapolate the further they get from observable reality, which is one explanation why computer climate models show so little prediction skill and why from time to time we should go back to the beginning and question our premisses and accepted physical laws.
    To draw a “quasi-mathematical” parallel, I have done a certain amount of work on practical geometry, or what I prefer to call ruler-and-compass drawing. If you want to connect two points by a series of sectors to form a compound curve and only start from one point, the tiniest compass error will be enormously magnified at the third extrapolative curve and you’ve pretty well no chance of ever reaching your destination point. I understand that Mediaeval masons used to say that the compass “lies”, which is why for plotting out structures they preferred to rely on their own special square you can sometimes see in sculptures and drawings. I have long felt that extrapolative mathematics can accumulate “lies” or rather; errors in a similar way if we don’t continually watch out.

    Joe, as you’ve no doubt gathered by now, I don’t share your faith in mathematics ; I see things in a very mechanical way. I just don’t know if I’ll ever encounter even a snippet of “the truth” and as a materialist I don’t lose any sleep about that. I just keep on going.

  19. Read and become Illumined 😉

  20. John in France says:

    Vedi Napoli e poi mori (I don’t do smilies)

  21. I’ll buy the books for you…its just philosophy and math…it is neat stuff. It’s mostly historical philosophy…the new stuff is the discussion on math, etc. Let me know if you want them.

  22. John in France says:

    That’s very kind of you, Joe. I never look a gift horse in the mouth – and I’ve got a kindle.

  23. Max™ says:

    Had to add for John above, magma eruptions are given as volume because it is not an arbitrarily thin layer of material. A basalt trap eruption might cover a given number of km^2, but the depth to which it is covered is not trivially ignored, hence units of km^3 are correct.

  24. Ben Wouters says:

    Max, are you a geologist? I have some questions concerning these magma eruptions, especially older ones.

  25. John in France says:

    – And how do you estimate the depth/thickness of the layer? Especially as you don’t know what the topography of the sea floor was like before the eruption.
    Daft question, I know.

  26. Max™ says:

    Me? No, just have a several decades old fascination with the sciences, part of loving dinosaurs involved learning how we were able to determine what we know about them.

    You can generally examine the thickness of rocks with sonar/ultrasound methods due to the different manner in which sound propagates through varied material layers.

    Similarly you can conclude that if a magma chamber is of a given volume, yet it is only filled to a certain level, then the remainder must have comprised the material around the vent.

  27. Frank says:

    Dear Mr. Postma,
    Great stuff. Could you provide a download link to the source code of your simulator? I’d love to play around with it — for instance check the difference between poles and equator, or see what factor might cause a more realistic diurnal temperature graph (i.e. steep climb, slow descent). Thanks.

  28. So now they’re really just coming out to redefine how a greenhouse works at all. In just a few years, greenhouses will not function any more from trapping hot air, but from trapping radiation. The manufacture of the simulacrum will be complete and unbreakable at that point.

    Remember, this is the guy who didn’t understand what a time-dependent differential equation is, doesn’t understand this blog post, doesn’t understand that for a circuit P = I^2 R, and he has a PhD in science.

    I already wrote all about how, if a greenhouse worked the way he is proposing, then you should be able to generate HIGHER than the solar radiative input temperature; I then checked for this occurring in the real world, using the atmosphere’s very own vaunted greenhouse effect, and lo and behold only found that the temperature which could be generated was the temperature of the INPUT POWER.

    Who’da thunk it right? That temperature would be a function of INPUT POWER?!

  29. I posted this on his blog under a pseudonym – if I used my name he would delete it immediately and run away as fast as he could…:

    I think the energy budget/temperature analysis would be quite simple.

    At the most basic, a greenhouse works by trapping hot air, as you said. The air inside gets heated from solar heating of the surfaces inside the greenhouse.

    So now, if there is additional heating coming from the internal IR, the IR from the roof or whatever, then your premise is that this should cause more heating. More heating meaning higher temperature than the solar input.

    So, if the solar input/absorption internally is known, you can calculate the expected maximum temperature. If you add in IR from the roof or wherever, then a temperature higher than that should be expected. The math is quite simple really. Of course, emissivity is a different issue than IR amplification.

  30. Of course, the “internal IR” is a RESULT of the heating which already occurred, and can not be an additional source for itself all over again. These idiots failed thermodynamics and are really hurting people.

    Also, the internal IR is from the SAME temperature as the INTERNAL TEMPERATURE, because that’s where it comes from. Equal temperatures don’t heat each other up either.

  31. John in France – books are on their way! 🙂

  32. This has always been a problem for them, that a real greenhouse doesn’t actually function like the greenhouse effect…so now they’re re-writing physics and history, and Spencer is the front man.

    We are witnessing in real-time the creation of a simulacra. In the comments, Roy actually says that he doesn’t know what really causes the air to heat up inside a greenhouse! Therefore, it must be back-IR or an imbalance in IR, never mind the solar input because, after all, it is only -18C, right?

    Amazing lying frauds.

  33. squid2112 says:

    I read Roy Boys Sci-Fi post last night and was left speechless. How did that guy ever get a “Dr” in front of his name? Truly astounding…

  34. yah exactly.

  35. Greg House says:

    I expect an article on WUWT soon about how Roy brilliantly proved the “greenhouse effect” by drawing a picture and assuming impossible numbers.

  36. Oh good lord…yes I may write an article here for Roy too. PSI has an excellent, wonderful article for Roy coming later this week, from Carl Brehmer. It destroys Roy and the GHE yet again.

  37. Pingback: The Fraud of the AGHE Part 15: Current Summary | Climate of Sophistry

  38. GBart says:

    [Let’s deconstruct this comment it as we go through it to show how stupid it is.]

    “Scientific Materialism fails as a possible answer before it even gets out of the starting gate”
    This article fails before it even gets out of the starting gate. An answer? To what? Science is a tool for accurately describing and predicting detectable physical phenomena. Science is not itself an explanation or framework. Of course it can’t describe anything that doesn’t manifest physically. And you don’t use a hammer on screws.

    [So, you’ve just agreed that scientific materialism can’t actually explain fundamental reality. You ask “An answer to what?”. That was stated in the sentence directly before the section you quote: “The only games in town that have a chance at fundamentally explaining all aspects of existence are Scientific Materialism vs. Mathematical Idealism.” That’s what we want an answer to – all aspects of reality: who, what, where, when, why, and how. I stated that scientific materialism can’t answer all of that. You agreed. Hence the intro to this article is a success and the failure is actually with your limited cognitive ability to understand what you’re reading and whether your own thoughts agree with what you’re reading.]

    “because it can’t explain how subjective mental experience arises”
    Read Consciousness Explained. The “hard problem” is an intuition pump. There is no “hard problem”. Also, just because science has not yet rendered an explanation doesn’t mean there can’t be one. This is a mere argument from ignorance.

    [The book “Consciousness Explained” has been renamed “Consciousness Explained Away”, because all he tries to do, as a materialist, is pretend that subjectivity doesn’t actually exist; he does this in order to explain away the mind, since materialists can’t figure out what the mind actually is. But the idea that subjectivity doesn’t exist violates Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem, and hence, the book is wrong. It is a materialist attempt to pretend they don’t truly have a mind, which is so funny – they like to define themselves as zombies. They think that matter is the origin of mind…lol…idiots. Scientific materialism can not render an explanation of mind, as you agreed with above already…more confusion on your part. Mathematical idealism does already render an explanation for mind.]

    Let me put it this way:
    Person S: Do you know how a car engine works?
    Person M: Not really.
    Person S: Then it’s magic!
    Person M: No, it’s a physical device.
    Person S: Can you render a full explanation of how motion arises from the physical processes in the engine?
    Person M: No.
    Person S: Then you’re just assuming it’s physical, therefore it’s really magic!

    [Who said this is the scenario? The scenario is that scientific materialism can not explain the mind without simply explaining it away. Mathematical idealism, which is superior to scientific materialism since science is but a subset of that idealism, does explain mind without explaining it away. We know exactly why and how mind exists via pure deductive and mathematical logic, and we know why mind produces the illusion matter. Matter is the illusion, mind is the true reality. Science is a tool of mathematical idealism, subservient to it, a smaller logical subset.]

    “Moreover, Scientific Materialism fails ”
    Lmao. The fact that I’m using a computer says different. Terrible.

    [“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.” – was the rest of that sentence. But of course because you’re philosophically uninformed and probably slightly autistic (given away by your putting the computer on a pedestal), it suits you to be blind. As if that a computer exists means that materialism has explained the mind and existence…do you have any idea how stupid that is… As you said at the beginning, “science can’t describe anything which doesn’t manifest physically”. Hence science can’t explain mind. Mathematical idealism however, can. And it just so happens that science is a subset of mathematics. QED.]

  39. Pingback: The Fraud of the AGHE Part 18: Conserving Wattage does not Conserve Physics – Rant Free Version | Climate of Sophistry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s