Real Climate Physics vs. Fake Political Physics

In this video I answer a question from a previous upload where a commentator asks about the origin and meaning of the oft-quoted “-18C solar input” which I frequently refer to.  In answering the question I give a mini science lesson comparing rational and good physics to the fake physics of political climate science.

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

39 Responses to Real Climate Physics vs. Fake Political Physics

  1. CD Marshall says:

    Excellent video Joe. You deserve a mini vacation.

  2. Pablo says:

    Best yet.
    Thank you.

  3. historyscoper says:

    It’s a pure coincidence that the area of a disc is 1/4 the area of a sphere with the same radius. Try taking 4 discs and cutting-pasting them to make a sphere. Good luck! Bzzz! Time up! You lose.

    That’s going to require one great origami trick:

    How dumb to think that dividing the Sun’s power by 4 and applying it permanently to 1/4 the Earth’s surface area will give the surface temperature, just because of the mathematical coincidence involving the freaky number pi, actually 4pi*r*h with h=pi. Why not divide the Sun’s power by 1 million and apply it permanently to 1 millionth the Earth’s surface area? The Earth is not flat and it’s not stationary, and the Sun’s power is obtained by huge numbers of nuclear explosions and is real, not a dummy number. Real physics demands that the Sun’s full power be applied to the full hemisphere of the Earth for 24 hours as it rotates, integrating the dynamic heating and cooling on the grid points of the surface to get global surface temperatures over time, then averaging those over time to get avg. surface temperatures throughout the grid, then finally averaging them to get a single number for the whole surface. If all you want is a lump sum payment for your annuity, don’t call Spaced-Out Roy Spencer call JG Wentworth 🙂

  4. Pablo says:

    It does remind me of a statement by (I think it was) Roy Spencer that said “without greenhouse gases the atmosphere would be isothermal”.
    Presumably he is talking about water vapour and its role in reducing the atmospheric lapse rate of 9.8ºC/km to that of 6.5ºC/km meaning that for every km of increase in altitude there is an increase in potential temperature of 3.3ºC.
    That without water vapour, any adiabatic movement of air downwards within the gravitational field results in no change of temperature at the surface. i.e. a constant temperature with height.
    So assuming a 10km tropopause, that is 33ºC of warming by water vapour. If the total 10km column could be physically mixed back to the gravitational lapse rate it would warm the surface by 16.5ºC and cool the tropopause by the same amount pivoting around the average temperature at 5km altitude.

    But at the expense of the 33ºC cooling of the surface by evaporation.

    Have I got this right?
    And is this another source of the mythical 33ºC warming.

  5. Joseph E Postma says:

    All of that is simply the attempt to replace the adiabatic lapse rate due to convection and gravity, with their fake greenhouse effect. I should make that more clear in my videos in the future: they’re trying to replace the physics of the adiabatic lapse rate, which originates from the effects of convection in a gravitational field, with their new but fake greenhouse effect. So yes, Roy is trying to say that the lapse rate is due to GHG’s. A complete and utter lie.

    The lapse rate is derived without any reference whatsoever to “radiative forcing”, i.e., to how gasses radiate. The lapse rate depends on only two things: the strength of the gravitational field, and, the net specific thermal capacity of the air. It has no reference whatsoever to the radiative properties of the air.

    In fact, this itself is another debunk of their greenhouse effect, because if their greenhouse effect did exist it indeed should modify the lapse rate from what is derived with only a purely physical approach. But the lapse rate is precisely what is derived from only the physical-approach derivation, thus indicating that there is no modification to the lapse rate whatsoever due to radiative effects, which then directly proves by empirical measurement that their greenhouse effect doesn’t exist as something which doesn’t exist has no influence.

    So in fact, the lapse rate *could not be what it is if the climate greenhouse effect existed*. That’s a fact confirmed by theory and experiment! Exactly opposite to Roy’s claim.

    Note also how Roy thinks that the atmosphere should be isothermal. Just think about that. Something could only be isothermal if it was static, and in thermal equilibrium, and there was no heat flow. This goes to what I discussed in the video: they have to ignore the daily heating cycle because to acknowledge it means that the Sun can provide temperature above -18C, and can generate convection, and hence the lapse rate. The atmosphere could never be isothermal because the Earth is spherical, and rotating, and solar heat is being input, and thus the atmosphere could never be in thermal equilibrium in the first place in order to ever become isothermal.

    Aren’t their minds trapped in the strangest of places?! They live in a total scientific simulacrum. They are the prisoners in Plato’s cave, making predictions and measurements of the shadows…of things which have nothing to do with reality.

    The lower slope of the lapse rate when water vapour is present lowers the surface temperature where that occurs. If the anchor stays roughly constant at the average atmosphere (~5km), then a smaller slope leads to lower surface temperature developed beneath the anchor. This is why deserts can get so much hotter because for them the atmospheric lapse rate is about 10 K/km, rather than the smaller 6.5 K/km for humid air.

  6. Pablo says:

    Thanks for the clarification.
    Although convection is the mechanism by which sensible heat is transferred from the surface to air, surely the dry-lapse rate would still exist in motionless dry air due to pressure difference with altitude?
    And could there not be a radiative component in humid air that contributes to the shrinkage of the lapse rate by radiating energy from warmer air to cooler air above.

  7. CD Marshall says:

    Joseph I asked about the closed system before. I got another who used it:
    “But I do know something about the temperature of a closed system being related to energy going in and energy flowing out. If the two are equal there is no change in temperature.
    But the avg. global temp of Earth is increasing.
    So what is driving that increase?
    Increased energy coming in?
    Decreased energy flowing out?
    Some combination of the two?”

    Does that give yo better context in what they are trying to claim?

  8. Joseph E Postma says:

    “the dry-lapse rate would still exist in motionless dry air due to pressure difference with altitude?”

    It does seem that this would be the case, yes.

    “And could there not be a radiative component in humid air that contributes to the shrinkage of the lapse rate by radiating energy from warmer air to cooler air above.”

    It due to the release of the latent heat in water vapor. It is all thermodynamic heat transfer effects and modes together.

  9. Joseph E Postma says:

    “But the avg. global temp of Earth is increasing.”

    Only in a statistically meaningless way, indistinguishable from noise and what has happened before.

    “So what is driving that increase?
    Increased energy coming in?
    Decreased energy flowing out?”

    Changes in a chaotic system that are on the scale of the system’s natural variations, which current changes are, require no explanation, and have no explanation.

    But if anything is causing real changes, it is sunspot activity & cosmic rays, etc.

  10. CD Marshall says:

    You remember that arrogant brit guy I was telling you about, PotHoler? This is what I just got from one of his minions. Great stuff in regards to algorithms and bot men: Does this even sound like a human being? Who (what) talks like this?

    “And you have not reciprocated to any of mine. Your evidence is not proof it’s subjective speculation. None of that is proof. I asked for absolute proof of global warming not speculation.”

    Your denialism, and willful ignorance of science, is noted.

    “denialist –

    A person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence.”

    “Arguments about the complex, multifactorial aetiology of CHD and cancer have long been used by the tobacco industry to dispute the epidemiological and other evidence. This approach to the evidence has also been documented in other industries, and the use of double standards in demands for evidence is a characteristic of many other fields. For example, car manufacturers fought the mandatory introduction of airbags and seatbelts in the 1960s as ineffective, and the alcohol industry and motoring organisations did the same with the introduction of the breathalyser to tackle drink driving in the 1960s. *Demands for perfect evidence, while misrepresenting the existing evidence, can also be observed in climate change denialism.”

    “Advancing the science of climate change


    From a philosophical perspective, science never proves anything—in the manner that mathematics or other formal logical systems prove things—because science is fundamentally based on observations. Any scientific theory is thus, in principle, subject to being refined or overturned by new observations. In practical terms, however, scientific uncertainties are not all the same. Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities [pages 21 – 22].


    Most of the warming over the last several decades can be attributed to human activities that release carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere [chapter 2, page 28].”

    “NASA confirms sea levels have been dropping:”

    You endpoint bias, and reliance on non-peer-reviewed denialsit blogs, is noted.

    “Unusually cold winters, a slowing in upward global temperatures, or an increase in Arctic sea ice extent are often falsely cast as here-and-now disconfirmation of the scientific consensus on climate change. Such conclusions are examples of “end point bias,” the well documented psychological tendency to interpret a recent short-term fluctuation as a reversal of a long-term trend. End point bias poses a challenge to those trying to communicate cross-decade climate warming trends. In this study, we demonstrate that exposure to misleading scientific information on that evokes end point bias can affect the beliefs of liberals and moderates as well as conservatives.”

    “Unlike mainstream climate scientists, who publish primarily in peer reviewed journals, these critics typically employ a range of non-peer-reviewed outlets, ranging from blogs to the books we are examining. […]

    The general lack of peer review allows authors or editors of denial books to make inaccurate assertions that misrepresent the current state of climate science. Like the vast range of other non-peer-reviewed material produced by the denial community, book authors can make whatever claims they wish, no matter how scientifically unfounded.”

  11. Joseph E Postma says:

    And THAT’S the racket, right there.

    We go to “outside” avenues because the racket protects the inside.

    See my previous vid on peer-review!

    Submission: “The Earth isn’t flat.”
    Peer review: “Provide evidence it makes a difference. Since we assume it doesn’t make a difference, we’ll just reject your paper right away without giving you a chance to answer any of our question…which we don’t have anyway…because we don’t like your paper.”

  12. Pablo says:

    To be fair…

    When Roy Spencer talks about isothermic temperature in the absence of water vapour I presume (hope) he is meaning the dry lapse rate of 9.8ºC/km where there is no increase in potential temperature with height due to the absence of a reduction in the dry/gravitational lapse rate in the presence of water vapour.
    Physical/turbulent mixing of the air column will restore any deviation from the gravitational lapse rate..
    He is simply mistaking a redistribution of solar energy via latent heat of water vapour for a warming of the system.

  13. Zoe Phin says:

    I can’t find a single night vs. day spectrum of Earth from space, only an average composite. Not a single one …

    Have satellites ever visited the dark side of Earth? lol. Surely there must be one night time spectrum. But I can’t find it. Someone please help. Thx -Zoe

  14. MP says:

    Did my usual spreading of the video link on multiple platforms, news site comment sections, other climate realist blogs, etc.

    What is interesting is that it gets more upvotes or comments on those other places vs the view count growth on youtube.

    The youtube view count seems fake/supressed.

  15. CD Marshall says:

    So I was looking at a site about solar panels and it provided a link to properly understand how to use them more effectively with understanding how the Sun works…

  16. CD Marshall says:

    YT certainly throttles what they don’t like. I am amazed they even allow opposition channels to global warming. At the moment I think they may like the controversy becasue it really hits up the views and comment circulation.

  17. Pablo says:

    From Rex Fleming’s paper at researchgate.

    There is no correlation of CO2 with temperature in any his-torical data set that was reviewed. The climate-change cool-ing over the 1940–1975 time period of the Modern Warming period was shown to be influenced by a combination of solar factors.The cause of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age climate changes was the solar magnetic field and cosmic ray connection. When the solar magnetic field is strong, it acts as a barrier to cosmic rays entering the Earth’s atmos-phere, clouds decrease and the Earth warms. Conversely when the solar magnetic field is weak, there is no barrier to cosmic rays—they greatly increase large areas of low-level clouds, increasing the Earth’s albedo and the planet cools. The factors that affect these climate changes were reviewed in “Solar magnetic field/cosmic ray factors affecting climate change” section.The calculations of “H2O and CO2 in the radiation pack-age” section revealed that there is no net impact of CO2 on the net heating of the atmosphere. The received heat is sim-ply redistributed within the atmospheric column. This result is consistent and explains the lack of CO2 correlations with observations in the past.The current Modern Warming will continue until the solar magnetic field decreases in strength. If one adds the 350-year cycle from the McCracken result to the center of the Maunder Minimum which was centered in 1680, one would have a Grand Minimum centered in the year 2030.Size constraints limited this review to a proper finish in providing more details about the climate theory of Sven-smark, in particular, about the details of cloud formation and the precise timing of the ice ages. However, the reader can profit by reading (Svensmark and Calder 2007).CO2 is a valuable asset: providing the input to the plant world for the food all creatures require, and providing fresh oxygen for every breath inhaled by animals and mankind.

  18. CD Marshall says:

    The alarmists are trying desperately to disprove casualty between cosmic rays and climate/clouds for some reason. Especially trying to discredit Svensmark.
    Just recently a neurotic little troll commented on this:

    “The CLOUD experiment at CERN was specifically set up to test Svensmark’s hypothesis on the role of GCRs on climate. Their conclusion:

    “A considerable fraction of nucleation involves ions, but the relatively weak dependence on ion concentrations indicates that for the processes studied, variations in cosmic ray intensity do not appreciably affect climate through nucleation in the present-day atmosphere.”

  19. Philip Mulholland says:

    10:35 “So, the idea, the basic idea there is that the only energy that the Earth has to emit is the energy that it receives from the Sun. And of course we assume that geothermal energy is a negligible contribution, because that’s been measured as such.”
    Shh! Don’t tell that to Zoe.

  20. Tom, not that Tom says:

    Superb, Joe. So helpful also that you didn’t blow your lid given the degree of cretinism of GHE sheep whom you’re trying to re-educate. Send this to @RealDonaldTrump, requesting his best (not bought off) physicists get in to this for his 2nd-Term exposure of this fraud. You’ll need a Twitter account for that, as I keep nagging. Trump’s predecessor got a Nobel Prize For Inherited Pigmentation. When all this is done & dusted, you are going to be near the very top of the pile.

  21. OK Tom I set up Twatter:

    I sent a couple of tweets out to @realDonalTrump…hope he watches the videos.

  22. CD Marshall says:

    “Trump’s predecessor got a Nobel Prize For Inherited Pigmentation.”

    Now that’s Gold.

  23. Oh, now it’s on — JP on Twitter.

    Have you seen some of the $#!+ that Michael Mann flushes into his Twitter account? Such class! — for an MS in physics.

  24. Kevin Doyle says:

    Excellent explanation!
    I prefer to use the Captain Kangaroo ‘ping-pong ball analogy’. The atmosphere is composed of ping-pong balls. More near the surface and fewer as you rise in altitude. The ping-pong balls closer to earth are warmer, the ones higher up are cooler, and the ones really high are super cold. They all constantly ‘radiate’. The average of their respective radiation is -18 C.
    This is what satellites and Angels see from above.

  25. Rosco says:

    Pablo quoted “It does remind me of a statement by (I think it was) Roy Spencer that said “without greenhouse gases the atmosphere would be isothermal”.

    He seriously believes that BS ??

    Here is the NASA “Facts” about the outer planets, most of which have almost no so called “greenhouse gases” nor any solar radiation to speak of :-
    Jupiter’s atmosphere:
    Solar irradiance 50.26 W/m2
    H2 89.8%, He 10.2%
    “Core” temperature > 25,000°C
    Upper atmosphere temperature minus 161.5°C
    Isothermal ??? Greenhouse Effect ???

    Saturn’s atmosphere:
    Solar irradiance 14.82 W/m2
    H2 96.3%, He 3.25%
    “Core” temperature > 11,000°C
    Upper atmosphere temperature minus 189°C
    Isothermal ??? Greenhouse Effect ???

    Uranus’ atmosphere:
    Solar irradiance 3.69 W/m2
    H2 82.5%, He 15.2% Methane 2.3%
    “Core” temperature > 4,737°C
    Upper atmosphere temperature minus 220°C
    Isothermal ??? Greenhouse Effect ???

    Neptune’s atmosphere:
    Solar irradiance: 1.508 W/m2
    H2 80.0%, He 19% Methane 1.5%
    “Core” temperature > 25,000°C
    Upper atmosphere temperature minus 218°C
    Isothermal ??? Greenhouse Effect ???

    It is simple to spot a climate scientist speaking gibberish !

  26. Rosco says:

    Sorry – shouldn’t cut and paste in haste
    Neptune – “Core” temperature > 7,000°C

  27. tom0mason says:

    Another excellent video Joe. As an aside I have this to say …
    All too often conversations on the subject of climate fails because there is a failure to appreciate the essential differences between its science and mathematics.

    The discipline of Mathematics is a self-contained subject of itself. Mathematics as a subject is absolutely accurate, has its own rational logic, methods, and laws. Mathematics describes the various shapes of any given truth. Mathematics depends upon itself, it not about the physical universe about us.

    Science is about physical universe about us and the discovery of its truths. Science (aka mechanics) cannot be absolutely rationally reasoned because it (science) is based upon actual measurements which can never be made with absolute accuracy. Science does not depend on itself, for as well as depending on some mathematics, it is dependent on mechanics, material properties (electro-magnetic, chemical and/or biological, etc., physical properties), upon physical measurements (with errors), and the chaos evident at the atomic to cosmic levels. What this science system describes is the scientific reality that contains everything about the known universe so far. However what is less appreciated is that this science system is incomplete and has many errors. Thankfully, due to its continual review system, it is self correcting … eventually.

    In both science and mathematics descriptions of truth can only be translated, and never generated. Science and mathematics work together, and it’s truly great science when what is mathematically computed, or predicted to be, tallies with what is discovered. However all that is predicted from mathematics may not be physically possible, thus not seen in this universe.

  28. Joseph E Postma says:

    That’s a really great comment tom0mason.

    Queuing on this:

    “However all that is predicted from mathematics may not be physically possible, thus not seen in this universe.”

    There is a new branch of mathematical physics that we are developing called “Ontological Mathematics.” We realized that existence, philosophically, must be made of something. Deeper than asking “what is wood made of”, or “what is a proton made of”, we realized that we can ask “What is existence made of?” For every material object and we keep following down the rabbit hole “what is it made of”, going from, say, plant cells, to molecules, to atoms, to quarks, to…to what? It is all some form of energy in some configuration. Material physics doesn’t answer what energy is made of, and admits it doesn’t really know what it is, but it is useful to use in math equations.
    That gets to the question of what existence is made of. Existence isn’t going to made of something we can touch or smell. We know that existence must be rational or else it wouldn’t exist. We do know that there is an abstract thing we call energy and we use mathematics to understand and manipulate it.
    The answer is that existence is made of mathematics. Your comment here is prescient:

    “The discipline of Mathematics is a self-contained subject of itself. Mathematics as a subject is absolutely accurate, has its own rational logic, methods, and laws. Mathematics describes the various shapes of any given truth. Mathematics depends upon itself, it not about the physical universe about us.”

    Doesn’t that actually describe the universe? How can this thing, mathematics, which you describe so well here, seemingly self-contained and separate, have ANYTHING to do with existence or describing existence if existence is not synonymous with it in the first place? Can existence ever do 1 + 1 = 3? If it could do that, then existence could do anything, and it wouldn’t ever need to follow 1 + 1 = 2 ever. If existence couldn’t and wouldn’t ever do something non-mathematical, then that makes existence synonymous with mathematics.

    The universe is “a self-contained subject of itself”, is “absolutely accurate” because it could and would never do anything other than following the rules of 1 + 1 = 2, and the universe “depends upon itself” and isn’t dependent upon anything outside of itself since there is nothing outside of itself. It is simply saying that existence must be logical, i.e. rational, else it could be anything at any time and would never need to exhibit correspondence with logic, ever; and as you describe, that is precisely what mathematics is, the perfect logic of how things exchange, 1 + 1 = 1 + 1 = 2.

    Existence and mathematics are philosophically synonymous. In philosophical terms that makes existence and mathematics the identical substance. The substance of existence is mathematics.

    The question then is to discover what self-contained form or “ontological” mathematics which it is that makes up existence in totality. The language that existence uses to communicate with itself. The code to the matrix. In physics we study the pixels on the screen and see how we can manipulate and predict those pixels on very a limited basis. Like the prisoners in Plato’s Cave doing that with the shadows on the wall and developing their science based on the study of those shadows.

    With Ontological Mathematics we have the code to the matrix which creates the pixels on the screen in the first place; we become those who can see, study, and create the light which casts the shadows in Plato’s cave.

  29. Joseph E Postma says:

    What power do you imagine that gives us over existence, over the shadows we physically interact with, over the pixels we stare at?

  30. CD Marshall says:

    I mentioned to someone being able to master the energy of the stars is a worthy goal but what if we could someday master the power that created the stars…

  31. Joseph E Postma says:

    Indeed 🙂

  32. tom0mason says:

    @ Joseph E Postma 2019/09/11 at 9:00 AM

    Indeed you’ve made some good points. Ultimately our view of the universe should be all mathematical, however currently we have insufficient knowledge to define (mathematically describe) so much of physical reality absolutely — we’re limited by our collective imaginations, as well as only having our inexact methods and tools to measure physical properties.
    “Can existence ever do 1 + 1 = 3? If it could do that, then existence could do anything, and it wouldn’t ever need to follow 1 + 1 = 2 ever. ”
    In mathematics 1 + 1 = 2 absolutely, however in science (like the resulting answer from measuring material object’s physical properties,) it tends to get 1ish + 1ish = 2 (+/- x%). Or maybe everyone should follow the UN-IPCC’s method and define some confidence levels for an approximation from a ‘scientific’ consensus?

    Maybe some day we will know and understand these things — like say understanding why there are chaotic factors in so much of the physical universe, and science can correctly (mathematically) describe how and why.
    Some day we’ll have all the math for what water is — the how, what, and why it has all those peculiar watery attributes. Enough knowledge to thoroughly explain, mathematically, all of it’s strange anomalies (see ) as a single molecule and as aggregation of molecules. Then we should properly understand how clouds, precipitation, oceans, melting ice, etc., really operate. 🙂
    Maybe one day we’ll also completely understand what e-m energy is (particle/wave or?), and not just deal with it’s properties. By then Schrödinger’s cat might be set free or maybe just laid to rest next to CO2’s ‘backradiation’.
    As far as I see it we have science with mathematics — like a couple that are together but not yet married.

  33. tom0mason says:

    Will this Ontological Mathematics discover why life beats itself against entropy, only to ultimately fail?
    Why do plants, and some microbes, process such meager (energy poor) resources of CO2, water, and some other minerals, energized them with a relatively small amounts of heat and light, with the result that over time, they construct higher energy chemicals (sugars, oils, starches, and many other polymer type materials) forming them into larger physical cellular structures? That is not to say that the total of all the energy in does not equal energy out, I just wonder why nature goes through all the difficulty.
    Will Ontological Mathematics answer that ultimate questions of how and why there is life?

    As an aside —
    Does not any increase in life (starting from the plants) necessarily mean that more solar energy is stored away in plant and animal bodies? If, as would seem reasonable to me, the planet has warmed since the end of the LIA, therefore the total sum of all life (and therefore stored solar energy) has increased on the surface of the planet.
    Plants only perform photosynthesis above certain temperatures, therefore a level of warmth (along with light) is part of the process of turning CO2, water, etc., into those newly formed sugars, starches, etc.. Plants are actively translating heat and light energy into chemical bonds.

  34. CD Marshall says:

    “The Universe is the largest test lab a scientist could ever hope for.” Someone should have coined a version of that phrase by now?

    I love brilliant gifted minds achieving what they are here to do: Further our knowledge of the Universe and all it’s subtleties. If all this trashed money on climate had been used for space exploration/colonization we could have a real answer to population. The Universe was made for mankind to fill it, why else would it be empty?

    The two biggest barriers is the ability to travel to other stars and radiation. Start Trek did at least acknowledge those 2 hurdles. I’ve heard they are playing around with some versions of magnetic shielding but haven’t achieved anywhere near what we need for long term exploration protection from radiation.

    The means to get there is a staggering second problem. What I see are 4 options:
    1.Create a means to get us there faster.
    2.Find a way to make suspended animation real (no even close to that).
    3. Accept that generations of humans will live and die on a space craft before they ever arrive at their destination.
    4. Create a fully functional synthetic AI that can do the groundwork for us.

    Any other ideas?

  35. Joseph E Postma says:

    CD…with the power that Ontological Mathematics gives us…what we will be able to engineer will only be limited by our imagination. I imagine it will start with gravitic propulsion. We will go through phases of development. Eventually it will end with transforming us all into Gods or something. End then we will reset and start over.

  36. Joseph E Postma says:

    tom0mason – At the beginning of the universe, materialist science considers that there was no life. But then at some point, there was life. That indicates that life is spontaneous. It indicates that life must have been present from the beginning because there’s no reason for dead material to suddenly spontaneously develop. You describe the negentropic processes of life. And if life must have been present at the beginning, then it couldn’t have been material life since the beginning of the universe was only hydrogen and helium. Hence that life was mental. Mind is thus a-priori, and matter is contingent.

  37. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    With reference to the black body curve, am I correct in believing that if the curve is for 15C then the total area under the curve is 390 Watts and the area of the CO2 section shows the Watts blocked by CO2?

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 )

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s