Telluric Currents and Atmospheric Temperature


darkbeaver
#1
Telluric Currents and Atmospheric Temperature

Posted on March 8, 2016by Louis Hissink
Philip Callahan is an entomologist, or studies insects, and has written a book for the layman that’s easy to read but he did write a clanger or two when he states that a dimagnetic material is slightly repelled by a magnetic field, and that a paramagnetic one is attracted to a magnetic field.
The problem is the phrase “magnetic field” – is it the north seeking or south seeking pole of a magnetic field that is causing the observations?
And while he concentrates on magnetic fields, by omitting the role of electric currents, or telluric currents, miniscule as they might be, in the process also limits comprehension.
Many a time I have supervised mineral drilling operations in the hot northern latitudes of Australia, watching a rig bore a vertical hole into the earth in stifling, unmoving hot atmosphere or air, only to see small, say 500 mm high, mini-dust devils appear, to move laterally and to then disappear while the surrounding air mass is motionless.
There’s no possibility of this observed rotational motion being caused by miniature thermal uplifts, or other gravitationally induced processes, some of which strain credulity.
Instead what I interpreted I was observing were small vortices caused by near ground electric currents wafting upwards. This suggested that the hot air temperature I experienced was probably caused by massive electric currents slowly moving upwards heating the air as opposed to the conventional explanation of the Sun’s direct radiation heating the air.
One of the peculiarities of working in these semi-desert areas in summer is the coolness one feels when standing under a small tree. A coolness one does not feel when standing under an artificial shade-cloth or large patio umbrella. The air under the shade-cloth was just as hot as the air in the adjacent direct sunlight, though the effect of direct radiation was lower, as expected.
This is in contrast with a natural tree and its cooler shade area. Not possible you might believe, but facts are facts. How to explain it? I think the explanation is that a tree exists as a result of a flow of electrons (electricity) from the ground via its trunk and branches and leaves so that the telluric electrons enter the atmosphere via the leaves at the top of the tree. Hence the air is cooler surrounding and under the leaf head of the tree because the air is not being heated by the passage of electric current from the Earth to the ionosphere via the atmosphere, but actually by-passes the air surrounding the tree.
But take the tree away and the electric current wafts upwards heating the air making it hot, and occasionally forming little dust devils at the ground-atmosphere interface when the electric currents trip into mini-Birkeland currents as a result of electric heterogeneities in the air at ground level.
If it wasn’t for the existence of these small dust-devils, and hence the existence of electric currents leaving the Earth’s surface, explaining the cause of the intense heat would be restricted to the incoming solar radiation, along with the inexplicable anomalous temperature differences between tree-shade, and artificial shade.
So it’s hot at the equator not so much that the sun is overhead, but because of the massive flow of electrons upwards via the vegetation cover to the ionosphere, which makes it an equitable climate, while in the deserts the electric currents pass directly through the highly resistive air, heating it and making it rather inhospitable.
This leads to the possibility that vegetation and trees proliferate where telluric currents are dense (high amperage) and the potential difference is high in a conductive environment, ie. water rich. And if you realise that electrons move upwards, then how do the necessary electrical positive charges come down? By rainfall of course. Rainwater has an acidic pH, ~ 4-6, and this acidity is not due to dissolved carbonic acid, but due to an excess of protons. (This can be shown by the chemical analysis of rainwater by the CSIRO recently published in which no trace of carbonic acid is measured as mentioned in earlier post here).


 
Johnnny
#2
Musings that some think might be crazy today but tomorrow?
 
darkbeaver
#3
You should have waited untill tomorrow to comment.
 
darkbeaver
#4
Dr

The world wide list of 8000 dissident scientists.


The word “ dissident ” is used in a broad sense. It includes scientists proposing not fully accepted ideas within the Relativity-Quantum Mechanics paradigm as well as opponents to some or many aspects of these theories.




Electric Weather

Posted on September 21, 2015by Louis Hissink
I have just watched Gerry Pollack’s Keynote note address to the EU 2015 conference held in Phoenix, Arizona recently in which he presented extremely interesting ideas about the role of electric charge and the Earth’s weather. The videos of the presentations etc can be viewed online by going to the Thunderbolts.info site and paying your money to gain on line access.
Very briefly the following points were made:
  1. The incidence of solar radiation, vis light, causes electric charge separation over the oceans during the daytime in which protons evaporate and accumulate. This emission of protons also might occur in the subsurface due to IR affecting ground water, and deeper where magmatic and hydrothermal fluids dominate.
  2. There is a diurnal electric charge differential between day and night hemispheres that causes prevailing winds to form moving west to east, faster than the underlying solid earth.
  3. If atmospheric winds are produced by electric charge movement (positive) then co-rotating electric charges would generate magnetic fields, and thus raises the possibility that the geomagnetic field is produced externally, and not internally via an unseen dynamo mechanism. The geomagnetic field is thus probably the average of the fields produced by the circulating atmosphere and the co-rotating Van Allen Belts.
  4. Atmospheric high pressure cells are caused by accumulation of protons near the earth’s surface and not from gravity.
  5. The earth’s weather is electrically driven by the effect of the sun, not gravity and thermal effects. This idea was previously put by a paper I had published in NCGT News some years back.
And some ideas I have:
  1. The counter-rotating winds at the equator could also be explained by Dr, Don Scott’s Birkeland current mechanism.
  2. Protons reach the Earth’s surface via rain, so it’s not gravity that causes rain to fall, but the existence of proton rich rain ascending down to the negatively charged Earth.
The one physical parameter not routinely measured by climate science is the magnitude and fluctuation of the solar electric field, and hence the earth’s electric field. Further no climate theory incorporates any electrical force in its modelling.
It very much looks like I was right all those years ago that weather is electric, and this is why the existing climate models do not work — they have the basic physics wrong.
But will it take them another 100 years to learn, or might it come sooner? Scientific paradigms change when the old school dies out. That makes those paradigms not science but religion. Only religious minds are not swayed by empirical evidence to the contrary.
 

Similar Threads

16
May breaks global temperature record
by mentalfloss | Jun 24th, 2014
0
3
Aggression and temperature
by strange | Sep 3rd, 2009
3
Computer Temperature
by lysyfacet | Apr 22nd, 2007