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.

Klaus Ermecke with his ‘Rescue from the Climate Saviors‘ provides a telling exposition of the junk science underpinning the so-called greenhouse gas theory. It merits showcasing here for the edification of the increasing number of likeminded scientists now recognising that a paradigm shift, led by Principia Scientific International, is now in full swing.

If one believes politicians and the media, the world is in danger: the earth is heating up – catastrophe will result – and civilization is the cause! Even school children are frightened and taught that mankind can and must save the climate.

But this message is linked to a hidden agenda. Its purpose is to prepare the citizens for sacrifice: Rescue is possible – maybe – though unfortunately it is awfully expensive!

In spite of the rising burdens imposed on almost all businesses and citizens, few politicians have questioned the “fight against climate change”. Over years, hardly a newspaper challenged the scientific basis of the “greenhouse” dogma. If asked, its proponents referred to a “scientific consensus” regarding “human made climate change”.

Accordingly, dissenting opinions had to be unfounded and were not worth consideration.

The derivation of the “effective temperature of the earth” being -18°C is based on the assumption of a rocky planet without atmosphere and oceans. But, as Gerlich and Tscheuschner demonstrated, the assumptions and the reasoning leading to this result contain several physical and mathematical errors. Consequently, the supposed “natural greenhouse effect” of 33°C is just a lore, not rooted in the laws of physics that apply to the realworld around us.

Dr Nicola Scafetta’s newly-published paper showing strong evidence supporting the planetary theory of solar variation due to gravitational and electro-magnetic forces. Tellingly, the theory and the associated evidence has never been factored into any official climate change models for earth. As such, this new line of research may go some way towards explaining why climate models have notoriously low reliability.

After complex analysis Dr. Scafetta‘s new paper shows there exists a clear signature for the 1.09-year Earth-Jupiter conjunction cycle, in particular during solar cycle 23 maximum with the Jupiter side of the Sun being slightly brighter during solar maxima.

This has led Scafetta and his colleagues to conjecture that on annual and sub-annual scales both gravitational and electro-magnetic planet-sun interactions and internal non-linear feedbacks may be modulating solar activity.

Scafetta has long argued, “At least 60% of the warming of the Earth observed since 1970 appears to be induced by natural cycles which are present in the solar system.”

Scafetta proposed that the gravitational energy released by the planetary tides to the sun may trigger slight nuclear fusion rate variations by enhancing solar plasma mixing. In fact, solar plasma is made of protons and electrons that can freely move and interact through electromagnetic forces. Under gravitational perturbations electrons and protons may drift in opposite directions perpendicular to the gravitational forces generating micro currents in the plasma.

Dr. Scafetta advises, “In general solar records present peaks at about 85-90 year and 200-215 year, and they are well known. These frequencies can be easily reconstructed by planetary harmonics. In general these statistical tests need to use the physical statistical error in the data instead of generic white or red errors definition. One never knows if the problem is the data or the statistical test.”

Abstract

The time series of total solar irradiance (TSI) satellite observations since

1978 provided by ACRIM and PMOD TSI composites are studied. We find

empirical evidence for planetary-induced forcing and modulation of solar

activity. Power spectra and direct data pattern analysis reveal a clear

signature of the 1.09-year Earth-Jupiter conjunction cycle, in particular

during solar cycle 23 maximum. This appears to suggest that the Jupiter side

of the Sun is slightly brighter during solar maxima. The effect is observed

when the Earth crosses the Sun-Jupiter conjunction line every 1.09 years.

Multiple spectral peaks are observed in the TSI records that are coherent

with known planetary harmonics such as the spring, orbital and synodic

periods among Mercury, Venus, Earth and Jupiter: the Mercury-Venus

spring-tidal cycle (0.20 year); the Mercury orbital cycle (0.24 year); the

Venus-Jupiter spring-tidal cycle (0.32 year); the Venus-Mercury synodic

cycle (0.40 year); the Venus-Jupiter synodic cycle (0.65 year); and the

Venus-Earth spring tidal cycle (0.80 year). Strong evidence is also found

for a 0.5-year TSI cycle that could be driven by the Earth’s crossing the

solar equatorial plane twice a year and may indicate a latitudinal

solar-luminosity asymmetry. Because both spring and synodic planetary cycles

appear to be present and the amplitudes of their TSI signatures appear

enhanced during sunspot cycle maxima, we conjecture that on annual and

sub-annual scales both gravitational and electro-magnetic planet-sun

interactions and internal non-linear feedbacks may be modulating solar

activity. Gravitational tidal forces should mostly stress spring cycles

while electro-magnetic forces could be linked to the solar wobbling

dynamics, and would mostly stress the synodic cycles. The observed

statistical coherence between the TSI records and the planetary harmonics is

Scafetta’s new paper is behind a paywall and may be purchased on Springer.com for $39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95  The title is:

Scafetta N, Willson R.C. (2013). Empirical evidences for a planetary modulation of total solar irradiance and the TSI signature of the 1.09-year Earth-Jupiter conjunction cycle. Astrophysics and Space Science. DOI: 10.1007/s10509-013-1558-3

Free download is available from here:
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/Scafetta_EE_2013.pdf

A team of experts from the “hard” sciences working with climate researchers at Principia Scientific International (PSI) have devised what they believe is an important new energy model of our planet that turns conventional “flat earth” climate thinking on its head.

Published below, the diagram deftly accounts for all the energy Earth receives from our sun without the need to factor in the hotly disputed “greenhouse gas theory.” The diagram serves as a simplified version of an earlier PSI model produced in answer to a “put up or shut up” challenge (May 10, 2013) by climatologist, Dr Roy Spencer that appears to have the now subdued Spencer stumped.

Pointedly, PSI’s model depicts our planet in three-dimensions, unlike the preferred flat earth two-dimensional model favored by Spencer and other climatologists (the Kiehl-Trenberth model). PSI believes it is crass and contrary to the advancement of science that promoters of the “greenhouse gas theory” (GHE) should insist on relying on the outmoded flat-Earth model. The GHE is increasingly discredited because despite its core claim that more atmospheric carbon dioxide means higher temperatures the hard evidence proves this has not happened.

COMMENTS – EARTH’s SOLAR ENERGY BUDGET

This diagram (‘Miatello Model’), in our opinion as members of Principia Scientific International (PSI), is a precise, simple and visually immediate way of presenting and depicting the Earth’s solar energy budget.

In order to explain a physical process the mathematics that has been developed to describe it must be a good representation of all of the steps. What Dr. Spencer has done with his article, ‘Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still‘ is to take the basic Stefan Boltzmann equation (SBe) that I described in my previous article and neglected to consider the changes required in the adjustable parameters, with the exception of T₁, by his addition of the second plate. 

Dr. Pierre R Latour has already pointed out errors by Dr. Spencer in Latour’s ‘No, Virginia‘ rebuttal. The full email exchange between Spencer and Latour may be studied here.

Without a doubt the energy flux to the container from the heated plate will change. The A and ε are no longer the same as before the addition, and have to be included inside the bracketed part of the equation, with a corresponding time dependent variable as the emissivity and temperature now become a function of time. Note that T₂ in the SBe is neglected in the picture presented to attempt to describe the effect.

Following on in his discussion Dr. Spencer boldly asserts that “back radiation” is occurring although nowhere in the illustration is any evidence as to how it is possible.

The methods that we use to develop the mathematics that are used to describe energy transfer by radiation are established by concepts that are not part of our experiences that underlay all of the skills that we have acquired since we were born to guarantee our survival in the world in which we live. How many of those skills or parts of them are transferred to our progeny through our genes is now a serious scientific study (think spider webs).

The formulas that govern where a photon goes and how much energy it carries have arisen as a result of observed physical phenomena and an attempt to construct an expression (usually mathematical) that allows us to predict how energy is transmitted from one place to another. The idea that it was carried in bundles resulted in a Nobel Prize being awarded to Einstein. The properties of these bundles (quanta of energy called photons) require several different mathematical frameworks to explain how they travel from place to place. They are treated as particles, waves, entities having the property of mass as they are even affected by gravitational fields, and the apparent paths that they seem to take are governed by their surroundings. To develop the equations governing their behavior may requires such a bizarre mental pictures that no two theoretical physicists would tell you the same story if you asked him/her the simple question, “In twenty words or less, tell me what is a quantum of energy”. (Or maybe 50 or 100.)

Save the Eagles International and the World Council for Nature, the two NGOs that claim “green” policies are causing more harm than good, unite again today to issue a warning: wind turbines attract and kill bats, plus many species of birds, from many kilometers away. “Even “carefully-sited” wind farms or wind turbines will attract and kill them.”

“We recorded 11 species (of bats) … flying over the ocean up to 14 km from the shore,” wrote years ago a European authority on bats, Professor Ingemar Ahlén, in the Journal of Mammology (1). Studying bat migrations over the Baltic, professor Ahlén had found the following: “The bats did not avoid the turbines. On the contrary they stayed for shorter or longer periods hunting close to the windmills because of the accumulation of flying insects. Hunting close to the blades was observed, why the risk of colliding might be comparable to land-based turbines. Bats also used wind turbines for resting. Insects were collected at places and times when bats were observed feeding.” (2) He then discovered that some of these bats were not migrants, but commuters from the shore (see the first quote above).

The actions of the advocates of Climate Science have certainly caused significant public controversy.

Perhaps the most interesting result has been the public discussion itself.  If one takes the time to view the posts and comments on many websites that present climate science one is left with the inescapable viewpoint that everyone is an expert and that ridicule and sarcasm are actually cogent arguments that have become more important than the discussion at hand.

Perhaps, before we continue, we could humbly remember that Einstein said:

“All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, ‘What are light quanta?‘

Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.” (Albert Einstein, 1954)

Principia Scientific International’s Professor Ole Humlum of the University of Oslo publishes the latest monthly climate data on his excellent site, Climate4you, and it makes scary reading for alarmist global warming climate scientists.

The official government data, as presented in the graphs below, is as telling as it is iconic: while the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) measured at Mauna Loa (the official reference source) continues its ceaseless rise the satellite records – month on month – continue to show our climate is cooling.

In other words, the real world ‘laboratory experiment’ of adding more CO2 into the atmosphere is showing that this trace gas (<0.4 {154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}) is associated with cooling, not warming.

Of course, if you ask a biased government-funded climate scientist he/she will tell you this isn’t proof that the “greenhouse gas theory” is busted. They will, as always, point to their computer models that “prove” that CO2 “must” cause warming. So which is wrong: is it nature or the models?

For those readers looking for an independent expert’s explanation of the above we recommend a read of eminent Professor Karl Erdman’s latest article, ‘The Heating and Cooling of the Atmosphere of the Earth.’

Abstract:

The unrealistic picture of the regulation of the temperature of the earth that has led to the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming has arisen because of a misunderstanding of how the energy arriving from the sun heats the earth. It was postulated that radiation arrives at the surface, heats it, and then the atmosphere is heated from the warmed surface by direct transfer of some of the energy by means of conduction, convection, and evaporation. The majority of the energy was thought to be transferred by radiation which was trapped by the “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere in a layer at some distance from the surface. It was then thought to be re-radiated from this layer and equal amounts were radiated outward into space and back to the surface. The surface was postulated to be heated additionally by “backradiation” from this “blanket”. According to the progenitors of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) the surface is heated above the temperature calculated from the simplistic model used to define the black body temperature of the surface. In this note is a short description of what constitutes a black body and explains why the earth is not one and why the presence of the so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere leads to a drop in the temperature at the surface rather than a rise.

The detailed description outlines how the energy from the surface is transported to the level at which the radiation temperature measured from space corresponds to the physical temperature measured by the use of radiosondes and how this altitude if determined by energy arriving from the sun. It explains how the fraction of the energy arriving at the surface that is transformed into heat, and does not enter the atmosphere by physical means but leaves the surface by infrared radiation, is converted near to the surface into heat by means of the principal greenhouse gases, water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO₂₎. The measured results of the variation of the surface temperature with the increased concentration of the “greenhouse gases,” of which water vapor contributes 95{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} to the so-called greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide only 4{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}, show that the temperature is lowered with an increase in their concentration rather than raised, and so if we wish to regard it as a blanket, it is an unusual one since it cools rather than heats. The idea that increasing the concentration of CO₂ will warm the surface is not only wrong but has been experimentally determined to be a bit of malicious nonsense.

The Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (AWED) is officially announcing its new website: WiseEnergy.org. AWED is an informal, non-partisan, non-profit coalition of North American individuals, organizations, communities, and businesses who are primarily concerned about the future of the electrical energy sector. 

Principia Scientific International (PSI) has no hesitation in recommending the AWED website to our readers.The new site declares “At AWED, we believe that we do have environmental and energy issues, and that such technical matters should be resolved by using real Science.”

The site’s coordinator, John Droz Jr. says, “Our modest objective is simply to have the most informative energy website, anywhere.”

John advises that AWED’s objectives are to benefit citizens, scientists, elected representatives, etc. to make more informed energy and environmental decisions. The press announcement continues:

Good news! The 2013 Southwestern US heat wave has been cancelled because a deluge of water vapor has moved into the region and cooled everything down.

Just two weeks ago we saw these dire warnings in the media:

“Dangerous heat wave forecast in Southwest”

– USA TODAY Cancelled

“Scorching Southwest heat wave could challenge all-time records”

– Washington Post Cancelled

“Weekend heat wave to bake western US; temps in southwestern cities to near 120”

– StarTribune Cancelled

Why? The Southwestern USA has been inundated with water vapor, which doused the heat wave.

Here is the satellite photo of the water vapor distribution over North America June 27^th, 2013, just two weeks ago when dire predictions of an unprecedented Southwestern heat wave scorched the media. 

Here is the satellite photo of the water vapor distribution over North America July 11^th, 2013, just yesterday and all warnings of an eminent Southwestern heat wave have vanished from the media. 

What happened? Water vapor messed up the heat wave!

For years, we’ve been pointing out that Peak Oil is a dominant social theme, a scarcity meme used by the powers-that-be to reinforce the US petrodollar and generally to control economic and sociopolitical elements of society.

And now comes word via various news reports including a story at MarketWatch that a main Internet proponent of the Peak Oil myth – The Oil Drum – is shutting its doors.

Pierre R Latour, PE, PhD Chemical Engineer, July 11, 2013

I wish to provide you with sound scientific and chemical engineering analysis of the faults with the Greenhouse Gas Theory, GHGT, proposed to drive Anthropogenic Global Warming and Climate Change, AGW & CC, especially as it pertains to CO₂. I want to arm you for this huge, ongoing debate. I seek and receive no financial support from any government, business or organization; I finance my own work in retirement.

For the life of me I cannot get a solid, consistent grip on the underlying physics supporting the notion first proclaimed by James Hansen, Science, 1981, atmospheric CO₂ has any quantitatively verified effect on Earth’s temperature. It is the duty of AGW & CC promoters to provide it, not skeptics like me. So I claim political leaders promoting GHGT have not explained the physics and quantified the effect to my satisfaction. They make claims and charges with little or no relevant evidence to back it up. In American law courts these are called frivolous claims and dismissed (thrown out). When their expensive schemes collapse due to foreseeable engineering consequences, their claim they are unintended consequences rings hollow.

While it is not my job as skeptic, I will offer eight objections to their GHG Theory, each of which falsify it. It is their job to prove me wrong. I will present my assertions in simple terms with justifications; I have detailed chemical engineering mathematical analysis verified by experiment to support them.

1. GHGT science is settled, consensus is established, skeptics and deniers are crackpots. Wrong.

2. GHGT effect 15C – (-18C) = 33C is wrong.

3. GHGT says atmosphere acts like a blanket. False.

4. CO2 is green plant food.

5. GHGT neglects the effect of absorbing CO2 on incoming solar irradiance.

6. Kiehl-Trenberth Energy Budget back radiation is false.

7. Thermostat adjusting fossil fuel combustion will never work.

8. Modeling temperature data is worthless.

The Steel Greenhouse as proposed by Willis Eschenbach and published twice on the “Watts Up With That” website is a misinterpretation of the fundamental rules of physics governing the radiative transfer of energy.

Below are 2 statements of this fundamental principle from 2 modern physics references.

It is trivial to use this fundamental principle to prove the “Steel Greenhouse” proposition as proposed and its ability to double the energy flux is a complete fallacy.

“The energy an object absorbs comes from its environment, which consists of other bodies that radiate energy. If an object is at a temperature T, and its surroundings are at a temperature T₀, the net energy gained or lost each second by the object as a result of radiation is –

P_net = A ξ σ (T⁴ – T₀⁴).”

College Physics 7^th Edition

“While a body at absolute temperature is radiating, its surroundings at temperature T_s are also radiating, and the body absorbs some of this radiation.

If it is in equilibrium with its surroundings, T = T_s and the rates of radiation and absorption must be equal.

For this to be true, the rate of absorption must be given in general by H = A ξ σ T_s ⁴. Then the net rate of radiation from a body at temperature T with its surroundings at temperature Ts is:-

H_net = A ξ σ (T⁴ – T_s⁴).”

Sears and Zemansky’s – University Physics With Modern Physics – Young and Freedman.

The “Steel Greenhouse” proposal is a sphere with an internal source of energy capable of causing it to radiate at 235 Watts per square metre.

A steel shell is then closely “fitted” and it is claimed this action causes the sphere to increase in temperature until it emits double the original flux at a temperature that is approximately 1.1892 (the fourth root of 2) times its original temperature.

It is assumed ξ is unity.

Let’s analyse this proposal from first principles.

Rise in the level of carbon dioxide in the air is causing desert “greening” and has increased foliage cover by 11 percent reports Sam Lehman in hngn.com (July 9, 2013)

Up until now the negative aspects of rising levels of carbon dioxide have been highlighted in almost all studies conducted on this matter. A new study, based on satellite observations, CSIRO, in collaboration with the Australian National University (ANU) reported that the rising levels of carbon dioxide have caused deserts to start greening and  increased foliage cover by 11 percent from 1982-2010 across parts of the arid areas studied in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa.