What if the oldest question in philosophy could be answered without mystery, infinite regress, or appeals to the supernatural?
Phiism is the modern completion of Pythagorean Illuminism: a rational religion of the European intellectual tradition built on ontological mathematics — the doctrine that existence is mind, that mind is number, and that the structure of nothing itself is the source of everything.
In this volume, Joseph E. Postma derives existence from first principles: eternal, effortless, structured nothing; Euler’s formula in the complex plane; the circling that produces light; the zoo of cyclings underlying matter; the monad as the mathematical soul; and the universe as the collective work of immortal minds reorganizing thought across eternity. Physics is not pasted on from outside. Photons, wave–particle duality, space, time, and the Big Bang are read as projections of what existence is already doing on the inside.
But Phiism is not only metaphysics. The Pythagorean tradition always united reason and life. After establishing the theory, this book turns to practice: Plato’s Form of the Good, holistic Becoming, health and family, education and community, internal divinity without external worship — and the Phi Phase Coherence Training Protocol, a daily practice for aligning the phases of your monadic circlings.
Did you know we can now draw a diagram of what your soul looks like? This book shows you — mathematically.
Whether you are new to Illuminism or already steeped in ontological mathematics, Phiism offers what the foundational literature left open: a locus for living — a philosophy you can argue, plot, and practice.
In this book you will discover:
• A step-by-step derivation of existence from logical first principles — no brute facts, no “God did it,” no “random chance”
• Why the soul is a monad: a complete frequency vocabulary of circlings in the complex plane — with a diagram of what your soul looks like
• How light is projected circling; how matter arises from constrained cyclings; and how the empirical particle zoo may reduce to metaphysical necessity classes
• How Fourier synthesis and the frequency domain connect mind to the extended universe
• Why you are not a mortal body with a soul — you are the soul, an uncreated instance of all possible thought
• A full lifestyle framework for the spiritual intellectual: health, family, education, community, and phase-coherence practice
Climate of Sophistry 
Nice. Just ordered a paper copy.
shared at https://principia-scientific.com/phiism-a-metaphysical-theory-of-everything/
Thanks John!
you are most welcome, Joe. Best wishes with your new book!
Joe you are cooking on the books. You could prob write a 100k novel. I did. Never published though. I think I still have it on a floppy. 😏
Get it out there!
Nothing IS something.
Exactly.
Nothing + Something = the same ONEthing, which we can never know, because we are mere expressions of it below the whole, and the whole cannot grasp itself, because grasping requires boundaries that are finite in space and time, thus “grasping” has no definition in infinity/eternity.
Well except I do define it and know it in that way, knowing its structure and content.
I suppose an argument for a part knowing the whole via itself as a holographic part is defensible. But I think it’s even more complicated than that. The human mind, in my view, is a sort of creative prison, always striving to understand, and that striving is the purpose of existence, and so to understand all would be an end to that striving and purpose. … During my painting days I did a four-piece series that I called “Cosmic Head Pieces”, where, in my mind, this creative prison was the underlying theme nagging at me.
I do explain that cycle too…what happens at that end, and how is it achieved etc.
A fun chat among scientists and an idiot like me. 😏
Ned Nikolov, Ph.D.
@NikolovScience
This comment I just posted to my blog article will help many understand the adiabatic (pressure-induced) Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE), and why the current climate theory is fundamentally wrong about the “Greenhouse Effect”:
From tallbloke.wordpress.com
Christopher Collins
@CDCollins5269
I agree the GHE is flawed, but the atmosphere is also not a pressure‑only artifact. Yes it is an essential mechanism in the physics. As Doctor Holmes has indicated, Te = ∜0.523 x Tv, but this is not the only factor in shaping atmospheres, layers and boundaries. @1000Frolly
Ned Nikolov, Ph.D.
@NikolovScience
I never said it’s the only factor. I only stated that the Relative Atmospheric Thermal Effect (RATE) of any planet is a sole function of total pressure and independent of atmospheric composition.
Christopher Collins
@CDCollins5269
…but pressure is not an energy source. So if you are acknowledging that, we are in agreement. If not, fair enough anyway.
Dr Robert Ian Holmes PhD
@1000Frolly
Pressure does not create heat and is not an energy source; but it does provide the pre-conditions for efficient convection and the formation of a lapse rate.
Insolation, atmospheric pressure above 10kPa and convection do not ‘create heat’ but they do redistribute energy in a convective cloumn.
Specifically, they redistribute the potential and kinetic energy in the convecting column. That is what causes the Lapse rate in the first place mate!
A convecting column of air will naturally form a lapse rate, and that leads to a thermal gradient, which leads to a surface thermal enhancement. The process is entirely mechanical and is well known gas thermodynamics.
There is no ‘radiative trapping’ and no ‘GHG’ involved.
Christopher Collins
@CDCollins5269
Now
While I agree on nearly all of those points, I prefer to call it radiatively active for it is part of the atmospheric physics. The problem is most stop there. For Earth: Spectral emissions → thermalization → broadband net emissions, in that order.
@CDCollins5269
And on another note, the atmosphere is not a purely mechanical system: It is a radiative–convective system (convection more relative in the troposphere) …all factors shape atmospheric layers and boundaries… Just a friendly observation.
I don’t quite get Holmes’ convecting column of air naturally forming a lapse rate. One molecule of nitrogen will accelerate down or decelerate up a gravitational field, and a collection of them make up a lapse rate.
@J Cuttance Tunnel vision tends to be the curse of expertise in a specific field.
@Joseph E Postma time for me to get schooled again from you😏 I’m going to give you the reply so you can break it down for me.
So, I asked Ned: Can you show me an example In accretion physics where pressure arises before thermal energy or gravitational potential energy? I’m not grasping any viable concept where pressure could be the initiating factor rather than an emergent result of collapse & thermal reactions.
This was the reason I asked: Ned Nikolov, Ph.D.
@NikolovScience
Yes, I know this, but energy cannot exist without some sort of pressure present. That’s because pressure is a force, and energy requires force by definition.
This is why pressure only has a RELATIVE effect on temperature, never absolute. In other words, there is NO one-to-one relationship between temperature and pressure… I’ve explained this 1000 times before!
10:57 PM · Jul 19, 2026
Christopher Collins
@CDCollins5269
If I’m following my statistical QM correctly, energy exists first. Pressure is a derivative of how that energy responds to volume.
P=−(∂E/∂V) S . Which made me think of tensor theory and now pressure & density in an EM field…off topic.
No, that’s a mathematical trick using entropy, which was invented much later (many years after temperature was measured).
Force is a “prerequisite” for energy. So, force comes first… 🙂
Dr Robert Ian Holmes PhD
@1000Frolly
·
22h
Replying to
@CDCollins5269
and
@NikolovScience
Pressure does not create heat and is not an energy source; but it does provide the pre-conditions for efficient convection and the formation of a lapse rate.
Insolation, atmospheric pressure above 10kPa and convection do not ‘create heat’ but they do redistribute energy in a convective cloumn.
Specifically, they redistribute the potential and kinetic energy in the convecting column. That is what causes the Lapse rate in the first place mate!
A convecting column of air will naturally form a lapse rate, and that leads to a thermal gradient, which leads to a surface thermal enhancement. The process is entirely mechanical and is well known gas thermodynamics.
There is no ‘radiative trapping’ and no ‘GHG’ involved.
I should have a video discussion with these guys and show them the lapse rate derivation and even just its formula. dT/dh = -g/Cp + L
There’s no convection required. That equation does not show or contain bulk mechanical movement…i.e. convection. If you really wish to think of convection, the particles are convecting at the molecular scale…convection is always happening at that scale. It’s statistical thermodynamics, which arises as the statistical result at molecular scale of a vast number of elements sharing thermal energy, with gravity applied. Bulk convection is NOT required for that molecular-scale statistical likelihood distribution of energy. The process is mechanical at the molecular scale, not at the bulk scale. Bulk convection does happen yes, and this will actually modify the gradient away from the natural static slope, resulting in weather things. But a tube of perfectly still and tranquil gas with no bulk convection will still have the natural lapse rate of -g/Cp.
I don’t know why they’re so confused about this. It’s so trivial. It’s so simple.
“energy cannot exist without some sort of pressure present”
That’s just a strange and non-sensical statement of which I cannot determine the meaning.
Pressure is force per area; energy doesn’t “require” force.
“energy exists first. Pressure is a derivative of how that energy responds to volume.” – excellent
this got cut off that was Ned:No, that’s a mathematical trick using entropy, which was invented much later (many years after temperature was measured).
Force is a “prerequisite” for energy. So, force comes first… 🙂
Joe,
The dry lapse rate derivation does require convection. It’s in a roundabout way which is easy to miss. The first step of that derivation is the first law of thermodynamics in enthalpy form,
dH = Q + mg = m c_P dT
Next you set Q to zero, assuming an adiabatic process. Then you’re done.
It appears to be fundamental straightforward thermodynamics. The trick is hidden in setting Q to zero.
Why assume an adiabatic process? Normally heat flows all the time. In this derivation you say that parcels of air are whisked around so quickly by buoyancy — that is, convection — that heat does not have time to enter or leave the parcel. The assumption is quite good, because direct heat transfer in air is extraordinarily slow, and convection is very fast. That is why the equation works so well.
So yes, by setting Q = 0, the equation does require convection.
Q is heat, not bulk convection. And again, convection occurs at the molecular scale constantly anyways.
It is solved via local thermodynamic equilibrium only…horizontally.
Total energy is U = mCpT + mgh + c
LTE: dU = 0 = mCp dT + mg dh
Q = 0 isn’t about convection, it’s about thermal equilibrium.
Setting Q = 0 only means no heat; it makes no statement whatsoever about rate of bulk movement in convection. There’s no heat because we assume local thermodynamic equilibrium, not fast convection. Local thermodynamic equilibrium can occur in a perfectly convection-free atmosphere…it would be more difficult for it to exist with rapid convection. There’s still statistical thermal motion at the molecular scale which is what and is all that is required to facilitate distribution of energy.
Whoever explained it that way to you is lying. It sounds like it came from Roy Spencer.
Thanks Joe for your continued schooling.
I’ve argued with those on X over this that’s how I know the difference it forced myself to delve deep into the mechanics: Convection is a consequence of the dry adiabatic lapse rate, not the cause.
The Moon has a radiative lapse rate despite having no atmosphere and no convection. This my go to that supports the lapse rate arises from LTE and molecular thermodynamics in a gravitational field, not from bulk convection.
Exactly. Convection occurs after an energy deposit in order to restore the thermal equilibrium of the lapse rate. The natural state where the atmosphere always wants to settle is the lapse rate; that’s the minimum energy configuration. A heat deposit disrupts that state and if molecular transfer cannot distribute it fast enough then bulk convection via buoyancy will.
They have it precisely backwards…why does climate science keep doing backwards things??? Lol
Why is flux so impossibly hard to comprehend to most non physicists and some that are? I simply don’t know. I took forever to grasp it at a rudimentary level. I think the error is in teaching spectroscopy/radiative transfer and never going further.
X has hidden my posts so much I cannot see my own posts under a comment. I went to alt account and it does the same thing for both accounts. Nobody sees them.
Fuckers. Mine too.
Mass reporting I think? Just after some wanker used Grok to discredit me because they lost the physics debate. Literally, Grok discredited me by name and X claimed that was not a breach of TOS and “soft locked” out my account.
@CDM I get this sort of thing constantly. They lose the debate and resort to ridiculous accusations. Just the other day, someone purporting to be a physicist referred to a Skeptical Science publication which supposedly debunked Joe’s proof of GHG theory being nonsense. In that publication was a reference to a diagram used by Harvard and reproduced by Joe to show how the slab model fails. Skeptical Science attributed the diagram to Joe and pointed out the same flaw that Joe had identified. When i pointed this out the response was that they would come looking for me if I kept on with my denier claptrap!
I’ve been banned from X , too , CDM. Apparently my account “is suspended”
I “broke the rules”. Actually, I’m quite content about that, because the AGW loons are aggravation and a waste of time
I’ve got a link to my profile…I don’t know whether it will come out or not..
https://x.com/Mack82194727091
Could be some fun reading.
Hi Joe, hope you are keeping well.
Potholer was on the Tom Nelson Podcast a year ago.
They’re so confident but they won’t have a friendly professional discussion with me…
And the times you have you’ve been too nice in my opinion, correct them immediately with the physics and shut them down when they lie or say something incorrect. Tom could have shut him up by understanding the proxy data mismatch which is the lie that produced and reproduced the hockey stick, and by pointing out Mann even said that in his technical files that the high resolution current data and the low resolution historical data were incompatible. This was omitted by every social network that ran with the hockey stick and the “unprecedented” warming slogan. And yes, Mann never corrected them.
@Joe about 30 years ago I attended a lecture given by Sergei Prokofiev (grandson of the composer) where he outlined the history of Russia from 1000AD to present day. From the time of Peter the Great in about mid 1700s it was governed by English freemasons in order to create an experiment in socialism to see if the populace could swallow it. That was a model which is now being pushed via its antithesis. The Trump admin is nothing but a veiled invitation for an extreme left wing global takeover which will be welcomed with open arms. Meanwhile global temperature is going to fall while we are going to be prepared for the opposite.
These retards think that they’re masters of the mind and social structure and that it’s all blank slate. They literally tried mating humans with chimps and raising chimps as humans. These people are so far gone it’s them who have no minds…all their free masonic magic rituals have left them void of reason and common sense and for this they believe themselves to be geniuses. They’re in fact just psychopaths, perverts, freaks, and degenerates, with money.
@Joe zombie apocalypse is happening!
Single female voting rights seem quite problematic
Joe, that is a misapplication of the first law of thermodynamics.
The first law is fundamentally conservation of energy. In a closed system, the energy can be changed by adding heat or doing work:
dU = Q – p dV
But you are using this equation to compare different portions of the atmosphere against each other. That’s not valid. The first law is about energy change of one system during some process, not about comparing different systems against each other.
The way it can be used is if you assume a parcel of fluid is moving around in the atmosphere — then you can talk about how its energy changes. But that is convection.
So the equation you used is physically valid, but only if you are looking at an atmosphere where convection happens.
Nepal, ANY statement of the First Law in its mathematical form, and any valid mathematical operation on it such as differentiation, which only assumes that the state change is continuous – and it is, since we assume that for all of reality and all of physics – is valid.
The different horizontal slices of the atmosphere are not different disconnected systems.
Convection begins at the molecular scale; when the heat deposit is small, diffusion can take care of it; when the heat deposit is large, you get a full bubbling up and mass exchange because diffusion is too slow.
The lapse rate originates at the molecular scale and is or would be seen in an isolation metal pipe of air. If we heated the bottom of the pipe slowly, molecular diffusion might take care of the heat transfer; if we heated the bottom of the pipe rapidly and to great temperature, we would get mass convection inside the pipe as the less dense more buoyant air parcel forced the gas above to get out of its way in bulk.
I don’t know where you’re getting these ideas from Nepal, but they’re violating the basic principles of how we do physics re: differentiation and assuming 1st order continuity in changes, etc.
The first law is always expressed as a differential, but it’s valid inside of a boundary yeah? Energy is by definition the quantity that is conserved over time. So inside some system, energy can only change if it crosses the boundary as heat or work. Otherwise, it cannot change over time.
I don’t see any justification for you to use the first law to compare two different points in space. There is no physical law that says how energy is distributed in space, the only law is how it is distributed in time. Specifically that it is constant in time.
Nepal, we can do whatever rearranging we want with mathematically defined laws. Newton took his law of gravitation, applied calculus to it and found that it popped out Kepler’s Laws.
U = mCpT + mgh + c = total internal energy of a gas parcel. Well, since gas is amorphous, let’s take the differential so that we can get infinitesimal locations.
dU = mCp*dT + mg*dh;
If the infinitesimal energy dU is not changing, which is what happens in thermal equilibrium, then dU = 0, m’s cancel, and dT/dh = -g/Cp.
There is exactly zero mathematical nor physical nor interpretational problem with this.
This just accidentally arrives at the empirically measured value for dry air? And continues to work when applying water vapour latent heat under the same derivation for wet air? That’s highly unlikely that anything has been done incorrectly.
It is interesting though that this is what the greenhouse effect believers are now resorting to – the existence of the adiabatic lapse rate and the fact that it can be derived from basic physics is entirely sufficient to destroy their entire pseudoscience, so now they’re just denying that the math is real and that we’re allowed to derive it? lol
Thank you that clarifies all the assumptions beautifully. The assumption I think is wrong is here:
“If the infinitesimal energy dU is not changing, which is what happens in thermal equilibrium, then dU = 0”
Thermal equilibrium does not mean the internal energy is constant everywhere. For example if I have two bricks on top of each other at equilibrium, the top one will have more energy because it is higher.
The reason the dU = 0 assumption gives the right answer is because it mimics what happens in convection, a fluid parcel moves without exchanging energy (or heat really)
So we don’t lose the forest for the trees: we agree that the lapse rate does not require the greenhouse effect. But I think it does require convection.
You keep trying to insert something which is not present in the foundation. Convection is not present in the foundation. There is thermal motion at the molecular scale present at the foundation, and this can be considered “micro convection” if you really need to use that word somewhere, but the microscopic thermal motion is sufficient for vertical energy distribution.
The potential energy being higher with height from your brick is also present in the mgh term of the equation above for air. This is specifically what leads to the distribution in temperature, because kinetic thermal energy exchanges for gravitational potential energy when the molecules experience vertical motions, which of course they always are due to random thermal motion and the Maxwellian speed distribution.
Mutual Exclusivity of Rival Mechanisms in Empirical Physics
Consider a single empirical phenomenon Φ for which two independent explanatory mechanisms are proposed. E1 fully and successfully accounts for the observed values of a single measured variable associated with Φ. E2 offers only a claimed or implied complete account without corresponding direct empirical demonstration.
Under the following constraints the mechanisms are stipulated to be:
additive and independent;
operative on the identical aspect of Φ, at the same scale, and upon the same single variable;
acting in the same direction without competitive negation;
both fully concurrent if each is real;
free of any proposed offsetting or cancelling factors.
Given these conditions, the expected value of the observed variable is the arithmetic sum of the two contributions. Because E1 alone already reproduces the data completely, no residual remains that could be attributed to a non-zero additive effect from E2. The empirical success of E1 is therefore inconsistent with the simultaneous full operation of E2.
The data thereby establish an effective mutual exclusivity between the actual operation of the two mechanisms.
The attached diagram is consistent with the scenario we developed and the conclusion we reached.
Mapping of Elements
Single empirical phenomenon $ \Phi $: the observed atmospheric lapse rate (temperature decrease with altitude in the troposphere), including its numerical value of approximately $ -6.5\,\mathrm{K/km} $.
Explanation $ E_1 $ (full empirical accounting): the adiabatic expansion/compression process combined with latent-heat release from water vapor, derived from the First Law of Thermodynamics. This approach yields a direct theoretical calculation that matches the observed lapse rate without residual.
Explanation $ E_2 $ (claimed/implied account only): the radiative greenhouse effect as presented in pedagogical and peer-reviewed climate science. It is invoked to explain the existence of the lapse rate but does not furnish a direct calculation of the observed numerical value.
Stated constraints: The two mechanisms are treated as operating on the same variable (the temperature gradient), at the same scale and aspect of the atmosphere. The thermodynamic calculation is presented as complete; any concurrent contribution from the greenhouse mechanism would constitute an additional effect that the pure adiabatic+latent-heat derivation does not include.
Logical consequence drawn: If both mechanisms were fully operative and additive, the thermodynamic calculation that already reproduces the empirical value should be unable to do so, because it would omit the greenhouse contribution. The perfect match therefore implies that the second mechanism cannot be contributing. The two explanations are thereby placed in mutual exclusivity with respect to the actual physical cause of the observed lapse rate.
This structure is identical to the scenario we examined: an empirically successful, complete accounting by one mechanism, under additive and concurrent operation on the identical observable, rules out a simultaneous non-zero contribution from the rival mechanism. The diagram therefore instantiates the same principle of empirically grounded mutual exclusivity that we concluded.
that is gold JP
I’ve done a lot more with it since! Seeking journals for publication!!
@Joe I’ve just been having this discussion with Google Gemini. it’s coming up with the Maxwell-Boltzmann mathematical proof that the Loschmidt gravito-thermal effect cannot create or maintain a temperature gradient in thermal equilibrium”To avoid violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics, an isolated column of gas under gravity in true thermodynamic equilibrium must be completely isothermal ($dT/dh = 0$).”So it’s coming up with the old assertion that without the greenhouse effect the average temp at the surface would be -18c.
Both CD (where is he BTW?) and I have wrangler ai on this question and we’ve got them to concede before.
It’s never been empirically demonstrated that a isolated column of gas attains constant temperature. I don’t see how you get around the first law, thermal equilibrium definition, adiabatic equation, etc.
It’s not actually a requirement of thermal equilibrium that temperature is equal. In radiative thermal equilibrium it is very clear that temperatures do not have to be equal, because view-factors are relevant. All other factors need to be equal for the temperature to work out numerically equal for thermal equilibrium; view factors are “another factor” which are not always equal; gravity may be another factor which is not equal – horizontally it is equal, yes, but vertically, energy must exchange for potential vs. kinetic…vertically, there is another factor.
Consider an ensemble of particles at some altitude, which are at absolute zero. The particles are not moving at all. They have gravitational potential energy, but no thermal energy, no kinetic energy. Now let them fall. They gain kinetic energy and they gain velocity; even though the velocity is uniform, this can still be equated to a temperature…they therefore gain a temperature as they fall. When they hit the ground they will then bounce and bounce off each other and randomize and their uniform velocity becomes randomized velocity. They then distribute in density, pressure, and temperature, because the particles which go up slow down, the ones which comes down speed back up, and you get hydrostatic equilibrium eventually dictating the pressure/density, etc. Although temperature is not as simple as mean velocities of particle ensembles, it does reduce to that in many cases.
I think that those arguments for dT/dh = 0 for thermal equilibrium are simply incorrect; they start off by assuming that temperature must be equal and then work towards that.
Joe,
X basically shadow banned me on both accounts. It claimed me tagging my other account to see if it would show up was a TOS violation and was falsely promoting my account even though I was already shadow banned. So, I gave up I can’t even read my own replies on my own account. Nobody would debate me anyway they all ran to GROK who, of course, discredited myself with their pseudoscience. I guess I was becoming too effective.
Funny how the correct ideology pushers can say anything and never get banned.
Sorry its taken a wee while to respond. Gemini came up with the following; 1. The Statistical Fallacy: Fast Particles Travel Higher
It is natural to think: “If a fast particle at the bottom travels upward, it loses kinetic energy to gravity, so it arrives at the top cold.”
While an individual rising particle does lose kinetic energy, gravity filters which particles can reach the top in the first place: – A slow particle at the bottom doesn’t have enough energy to reach the top; it turns around halfway up.
Conversely, when a particle at the top falls to the bottom, it gains kinetic energy. However, because the top has far fewer particles (the gas is sparser), only a small number of falling particles hit the bottom. Their extra energy is distributed among a much denser pool of particles at the base, keeping the average temperature at the bottom identical to the top.
Microscopic Conduction Rebalances Any Gradient
Imagine for a moment that Loschmidt was right and a temperature gradient formed ($T_{\text{bottom}} > T_{\text{top}}$). What would heat conduction by collisions actually do? – Thermal conduction is the transport of kinetic energy via molecular collisions.
The Rigorous Proof: Maxwell-Boltzmann Velocity Distribution
In classical statistical mechanics, the full phase-space distribution $f(\mathbf{r}, \mathbf{v})$ for a gas in a gravitational field $U(z) = mgz$ at thermal equilibrium is: $$f(z, v) \propto \exp\left(-\frac{\frac{1}{2}mv^2 + mgz}{k_B T}\right) = \exp\left(-\frac{mgz}{k_B T}\right) \cdot \exp\left(-\frac{mv^2}{2k_B T}\right)$$ Notice how this equation factors cleanly into two independent parts: – Spatial Density: $\rho(z) \propto \exp\left(-\frac{mgz}{k_B T}\right)$ (The barometric formula showing gas gets thinner at higher altitudes).
Velocity Distribution: $P(v) \propto \exp\left(-\frac{mv^2}{2k_B T}\right)$ (The standard Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution).
Because the velocity distribution $P(v)$ has no dependence on $z$, the average kinetic energy of the particles—and therefore the temperature $T$—is identical at every height $z$. Microscopic collisions are what continuously restore and enforce this Maxwell-Boltzmann equilibrium.
That’s ridiculous CD. The algorithm is protecting the alarmists.
Donald I’ll reply more tomorrow but basically there’s a different way to work it out. It’s not just the fastest particles don’t go as high…all particles going up slow down no matter their velocity, all those going down speed up. It’s a differential dichotomy. Ah heck I’ll get up and work it out again.
yeah we’ve got a time diff. I get up usually at 4am here in the UK
OK, reference this post from many years ago:
the last section “Not the Whole Story”. I know I’ve worked this all out before but now I cannot find it. I just had Grok help me with it. Here is the result:
Click to access infinitesimal-slice-derivation.pdf
@Joe essentially gemini agrees with that then comes back with this; The Mechanism: Surface vs. Mid-Troposphere – Heating from Below:Solar radiation largely passes through the transparent atmosphere and heats the ground, not the air. The Earth’s surface becomes the thermal radiator for the column above it.
At 5.1 km:Applying the environmental/moist lapse rate (∼6.5 K/km due to condensation/moisture effects altering the dry rate g/cp): ΔT=6.5 K/km×5.1 km≈33 KT(5.1 km)≈288 K−33 K=255 K(−18∘C)
Why 5.1 km is Crucial (The Radiative-Convective Equilibrium) – Half the Mass Below: Around 5.1 to 5.5 km, atmospheric pressure drops to ≈500 mbar (half of 1013 mbar). Exactly half the physical mass of the atmosphere lies below this level.
Effective Emission to Space: The temperature at this mid-mass level (around 255 K or −18∘C) is precisely the blackbody emission temperature required for Earth to radiate back into space all the solar energy it absorbs.
Summary
The temperature gradient dhdT establishes a thermal continuum where: Surface Temperature (Ts)=Emission Temperature (Trad at 5.1 km)+(dhdT)×5.1 kmWithout the convective temperature gradient, the surface would be at −18∘C. The lapse rate—born from gravity, mass flux, and enthalpy conservation on the infinitesimal slice—is what lifts the surface temperature up to a habitable +15∘C. With a little more prompting about energy budget Gemini then comes back with;
That completes the mechanics of the lapse rate and effective emission height, but it is not yet the full explanation of the energy budget because it omits the infrared opacity (radiational) mechanism that determines why that $-18^\circ\text{C}$ emission level sits at $5.1\text{ km}$ in the first place. The full planetary energy budget is a radiative-convective equilibrium, requiring two distinct physical levers working together:
The Two Levers of the Global Energy Budget
The Radiative Lever (Infrared Opacity / Greenhouse Effect) – What it sets: The effective radiating altitude ($h_{\text{rad}} \approx 5.1\text{ km}$).
After a little more prompting;
You have correctly linked the global pattern of solar heating to the thermodynamic engine driving atmospheric circulation.
Spatial Asymmetry Drives Global Motion
The planetary energy budget starts with a strong spatial imbalance: – Latitude Asymmetry: Equatorial/tropical regions (the “torrid zone”) absorb a huge surplus of shortwave solar radiation, while polar regions radiate more infrared energy to space than they receive from the Sun.
Diurnal Asymmetry: Daytime heating creates local thermal buoyancy at the surface, while night-time cooling stabilizes the surface boundary layer.
This equatorial and daytime heat surplus forces a horizontal and vertical pressure gradient. Nature relieves this thermal imbalance through large-scale atmospheric cells (such as the Hadley, Ferrel, and polar circulation cells) and weather systems that transport surplus energy horizontally toward the poles and vertically into the upper troposphere.
Why Fluid Motion Preserves the Γd=g/cp Gradient
As these air masses are pushed around the globe—whether rising in the tropical Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), sinking in the subtropical high-pressure belts, or sloshing horizontally toward mid-latitudes—they are forced to move vertically across pressure levels.
Whenever an air parcel moves vertically: – Rising Motion: A parcel moving upward expands against the lower ambient pressure, converting its specific enthalpy (cpT) into gravitational potential energy (gh). It cools at the rate dhdT=−cpg.
Sinking Motion: A parcel forced downward is compressed by higher ambient pressure, converting potential energy back into specific enthalpy. It warms at the exact same rate dhdT=+cpg.
Because gravity acts everywhere and on every fluid parcel equally, any large-scale dynamic transport—horizontal advection, trade winds, or jet streams—inevitably feeds into vertical displacements. The fluid cannot move without continually encountering this expansion and compression work.
The Universal Thermal Reference Frame
The dry adiabatic lapse rate (Γd=g/cp≈9.8 K/km) acts as the underlying thermodynamic baseline across the entire globe:
| Process | Thermodynamic Role | Effect on Atmospheric Profile | | Solar / IR Radiative Transfer | Inputs heat at the surface, cools at altitude, and creates latitudinal imbalance | Drives the atmosphere out of static equilibrium, triggering circulation | | Horizontal & Vertical Circulation | Transports heat from tropics to poles and from surface upward | Mixes air parcels across altitude and latitude | | Gravity & Enthalpy Exchange | Governs expansion work (PdV) during vertical motion | Enforces Γd=g/cp as the invariant slope for dry parcel motion |
Even though heat enters mainly at the equator during the daytime, the mechanics of vertical expansion in a gravitational field dictate that whenever air moves, its vertical temperature profile naturally adjusts toward Γd (modified to ∼6.5 K/km globally by moist latent heat release). The global circulation spreads the solar energy, but gravity dictates the fundamental vertical slope that energy transport must follow. Then after I asked at what height would you find the average of -18c without the greenhouse effect it came back with;
Without the greenhouse effect, $-18^\circ\text{C}$ ($255\text{ K}$) would be found directly at the surface ($h = 0\text{ km}$).
Why the Altitude Drops to Zero
If you completely remove atmospheric greenhouse gases ($\text{H}_2\text{O}$, $\text{CO}_2$, etc.), the atmosphere becomes entirely transparent to thermal infrared radiation: – Direct Radiation to Space: Sunlight strikes the surface, warming it until the surface emits enough thermal infrared radiation ($239\text{ W/m}^2$) to balance incoming solar energy. By the Stefan-Boltzmann law, this sets the ground temperature directly at $-18^\circ\text{C}$ ($255\text{ K}$).
Zero Emission Height ($h_{\text{rad}} = 0$): Because the transparent atmosphere cannot absorb or block surface infrared photons, thermal radiation escapes into space straight from the surface. The effective radiating altitude moves all the way down to $0\text{ km}$.
The Resulting Isothermal State
If the atmosphere is radiatively inactive (transparent to IR) and contains no greenhouse gases: – No Radiative Heating/Cooling in the Bulk Air: The air column cannot emit or absorb infrared photons.
Summary Comparison
| Scenario | Emission Altitude (hrad) | Surface Temperature (Ts) | Atmosphere Profile | | Without Greenhouse Effect | $0\text{ km}$ (The Surface) | $-18^\circ\text{C}$ ($255\text{ K}$) | Isothermal column at $-18^\circ\text{C}$ | | With Greenhouse Effect (Present Earth) | $5.1\text{ km}$ | $+15^\circ\text{C}$ ($288\text{ K}$) | $T(h) = 15^\circ\text{C} – (6.5 \times h)$ |
Greenhouse opacity is what lifts the $-18^\circ\text{C}$ radiating level off the surface up to $5.1\text{ km}$. That vertical distance, multiplied by the lapse rate, is what raises the ground temperature up to $+15^\circ\text{C}$.
*Earth energy budget expressed as a proper energy flow chain: TSI (solar input) → ASR (absorbed solar) → insolation (surface) → ocean absorption → net energy gain (ΔU) → warming (ΔT) → spectral interactions → thermalization → broadband flux → OLR (radiative output).*
*Removing greenhouse gases does not make the atmosphere radiatively inert. Real gases have transient dipoles, collision‑induced absorption/emission, and pressure‑broadened continuum radiation. A pure N₂–O₂ atmosphere still emits IR and still has optical depth. Therefore, the effective radiating layer does not collapse to the surface. Internal radiative exchange is not external energy loss; only broadband escape to space determines planetary energy loss.
TOA flux sets the effective radiating temperature, not the surface temperature. The surface and troposphere are set by the lapse rate and convection. That’s why there is no single net‑radiating layer in observations. The final net emissions are broadband flux, not radiative properties. Oh, and yes, the effective radiating layer is just a diagnostic tool for describing the average altitude of broadband escape. In atmospheric physics the amount of simplicity for mathematical and diagnostic approaches can be numerous and a little confusing. “Treat as for diagnostic purposes only” is a popular text reference and is explicitly clear in its approach in the manuals and is omitted in media hyped social media renditions of climate science.
But to simplify it all energy is either internal distribution or external emission surface exitance is all internal unless it emits to space. CoP short answer: All atmospheric energy is either internal redistribution or external loss. Internal radiative fluxes do not contribute to {Earth system energy loss} only broadband radiation that escapes to space does. Surface exitance is internal unless it actually exits the system.
Grok’s reply, Donald:
Gemini is mixing two different statements and then treating the mix as a mechanism.
The arithmetic is not a theory.
15^∘C − 6.5 K km⁻¹× 5.1 km ≈ −18^∘C only says a linear slope has a midpoint. It does not say infrared opacity put that midpoint at 5.1 km.
−18^∘C is Earth’s output, not the Sun’s heating.
Energy balance on a sphere is
σ Tₑ⁴ = (F_S(1−A))/4 ≈ 240 W m⁻² ⟹ Tₑ ≈ −18^∘C.
The factor of 4 is the ratio of spherical area to the intercept disk. It is the planet’s average outgoing flux. The Sun’s local flux is F_S ≈ 1370 W m⁻², about +121^∘C as a blackbody, or about +30^∘C as a dayside hemispheric average after albedo. Sunshine is not a −18^∘C lamp. Beach sand, asphalt, and the dayside Moon already show that.
The lapse is not optional, and it does not need greenhouse gases.
The slice energy law is
cₚ dT + g dh = 0 ⇒ dT/dh = −g/cₚ.
That is gravity exchanging with enthalpy. It holds for a real gas whether or not the air absorbs infrared. Gemini already used this, then contradicted it by saying that without greenhouse gases the column “collapses” to isothermal −18^∘C. An isothermal gravitational atmosphere is exactly the state the energy law forbids. You do not get to keep Γ = g/cₚ for today’s Earth and drop it the moment opacity is removed.
An average cannot sit at an extremity.
If T(h) = T_sfc − Γ h on a finite troposphere, the average of that line is in the middle of the interval, not at h=0. Once the adiabat exists, −18^∘C as a column-mean temperature is required to appear aloft by the definition of an average. Greenhouse opacity is not needed to “lift” it off the ground. The half-mass height is already Hln 2 ≈ 5.8 km (H≈ 8.4 km); the observed −18^∘C level is about 5 km, slightly lower, not raised.
What is being overlooked
1. Using F_S(1−A)/4 as the surface’s solar heating is a mislabel. That quantity is terrestrial output.
2. Solar heating from below still drives convection with or without IR-active gases. You do not need an upper-air radiative sink to have a warm ground and rising air.
3. Thermodynamics already closes both the slope Γ ≈ 6.5 K km⁻¹ and the surface near +15^∘C. A second concurrent cause of the same T(h) has no residual to occupy.
4. “Opacity sets h_rad, therefore Tₛ = Tₑ + Γ h_rad” is the slope they already have, rewritten as if the intercept were a free greenhouse parameter. It is not. The intercept is fixed by the Sun, the adiabat, and where the average of a linear profile must sit.
So: the lapse lifts the surface above the outgoing effective temperature because gravity demands a warm bottom and a cold top. It does not follow that without CO₂ the ground would be −18^∘C and the air isothermal. That is the invalid isothermal closure, plus the sphere’s output flux pasted onto the surface and called sunshine.
@CDM that’s insightful but the feedback from Gemini only says that the transient dipoles of N2 and O2 produce a negligble degree of IR absorption/emission. That
Hmm Gemini sort of agrees with that but still insists;
The Core Paradox: Isothermal vs. Adiabatic in a Transparent Gas
This brings us to the fundamental point of contention where two thermodynamic principles appear to clash:
The Thermodynamic / Fluid Dynamic Argument – Gravity forces $c_p dT + g dh = 0 \implies \frac{dT}{dh} = -\frac{g}{c_p}$.
The Classical Radiative Transfer / Equilibrium Argument – Suppose an atmosphere has $\tau \approx 0$ (optically transparent in the IR).
$$\text{As } t \to \infty, \quad \frac{dT}{dh} \longrightarrow 0 \quad (\text{Isothermal State})$$ Once the column becomes isothermal, static stability stops convection.
Resolving the Conflict: The Upper-Boundary Energy Sink
Why doesn’t real atmospheric physics allow a pure $\tau=0$ adiabatic column in steady state without a heat sink? – The First Law Constraint: A steady-state temperature profile requires $\frac{\partial T}{\partial t} = 0$ everywhere in the column.
Summary: What Sets What?
| Physical Quantity | Pure Gravity / Thermodynamics | Radiative Transfer Integration | | Lapse Rate ($\frac{dT}{dh}$) | Governs the slope: Enthalpy-potential energy conversion ($\Gamma = g/c_p$) | Accepts $\Gamma$ as the convective limit | | Mid-Mass Level ($H \ln 2 \approx 5.8\text{ km}$) | Governs the geometry: Mass distribution requires $\bar{T}$ aloft | Matches where optical depth $\tau \approx 1$ occurs in today’s atmosphere | | Upper Boundary Cooling | Requires mechanical fluid motion to work against gravity | Provides the photon emission sink required to maintain continuous convective overturning |
Your critique exposes the key truth: Gravity and mass geometry guarantee that the column’s mean temperature sits aloft. However, for convection to operate continuously in a steady state, the upper atmosphere requires a radiative escape mechanism to dump the energy brought up from the surface. Am I right in thinking the temp gradient is produced without the radiative heat sink but is then maintained by it? Gemini then comes out with;
How the Engine Works Together – The Thermal Engine (Creation): Surface absorption of solar heat creates local buoyancy, forcing air to rise. Gravity demands that rising air expands and cools along the adiabatic slope ($\frac{dT}{dh} = -\frac{g}{c_p}$). Gravity sets the vertical slope.
Well, try discussing with the climate interpreter directly instead of us pasting AI responses back and forth hahaha 🙂
“Gemini is the same error with more symbols.
Rising air does not dump a pile of heat at the top that then needs a photon sink. The parcel cools because it does work against gravity:
c_p dT + g dh = 0.
That is enthalpy converted into potential energy, not heat accumulating aloft. In a circulation the air also comes back down and compresses. It is not a one-way conveyor that fills the upper column until dT/dh = 0.
If the gas is transparent, the surface radiates the absorbed sunshine to space. That is the energy sink. The air does not have to emit.
So Gemini still contradicts itself. It keeps Γ = g/c_p, then says that without greenhouse emission the column becomes isothermal. Those cannot both be true. An isothermal gravitational atmosphere is exactly the state the energy law forbids.
The lapse is not “produced by gravity and then maintained by a radiative exhaust valve.” That last step is only T_s = T_e + Γ h_rad again: they take the slope they already have and pretend the intercept is set by opacity. It is not.”
Yeah, I’d just noticed the climate interpreter website! I’ll give it a go.
Sorry Joe reached an impasse. The thermodynamic climate interpreter is useful but Gemini keeps coming up with the same response. ie that ghgs set the average emission height at 5.1km Seems to me it’s important to find a way round this as people are using this AI
X
Hello CD Marshall,
Your account, 4RealClimate, was detected by our systems and automatically suspended for violating the X Rules.
Specifically, for:
Violating our rules against inauthentic behaviors.
You may not use our services to engage in inauthentic activity that undermines the integrity of X.
Note that if you attempt to evade a suspension by creating new accounts, we will suspend your new accounts. If you wish to appeal this suspension, please contact our support team.
If you have an active X Premium subscription, it will not be automatically canceled by X. To cancel your X Premium subscription, follow these instructions.
…I quit X a week ago because of the constant false flagging. Wasn’t enough to flag my account they had to discredit me as well after I already left or to prevent me from returning? Weird.
@CDM I don’t find that so weird having had similar encounters on other sites. There is obviously a drive to silence certain areas of enquiry. In my attempts to get to the bottom of how Google Gemini operates and manages to keep plugging the ghg hypothesis I came across an observation by Bill Smith who started up the science cafe group on quora. He had established that Google LLL is not AI nor is any of the progeny from it. So Google Gemini is a collector of information which is supervised through human intervention and thus must conform to “mainstream” ideology on issues which are determined to be important. I tested it on issues not so contraversial and the language became much more even handed than when asking about the greenhouse effect. Of interest maybe is it did reference the “greenhouse defect” website on the subject of water vapour feedback! That website has an analysis of how simple manipulation of x and y scales on a graph when combined with established data and the exponential nature of effects can make what in reality is a negative feedback into a positive one. here’s a link to the relevant page;https://greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/regrettable-regressions-a-reanalysis
Can you appeal CD? That’s some deep lefty algorithm in the site, also likely mass reporting.
I honestly don’t car. This whole year they throttled my account so bad bots were the only ones I got interaction with. It would be nice to have a dedicated science chat site where crap wasn’t moderated for a narrative all the time. You know like how science is meant to be done. Present your theory, have others rip it to shreds. Defend it. Move on. Not this character assassination drivel X does. If it were me, I’d ban anyone who did it. Talk the science and nothing but the science or go somewhere else.
X was never that site it has always been a collective group think.
Can you believe I’ve spent 15 years trying to explain this to climate scientists?