Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

[Tonington]

Sunlight is about 1000 watts per sq meter. , Is .016 of that is significant? The 1.6 is a guess anyway.

Solar irradience varies by about 0.2 watts from peak to trough, at about 1366 Watts.

And how is it exactly you expect this to be causing climate change? For one, you would have to violate thermodynamics for this to be causing a buildup of heat in the atmosphere.

Also, 1.6 watts is small, but so is climate change to date. About 0.8 °K, while the entire natural greenhouse warms the planet by 33°K.

Second, more solar would cause all layers of the atmosphere to warm. That's not what is happening:

a:

b:

c:

d:

Panel a is lower troposphere, b is mid-troposphere, c is the tropopause, and d is the stratosphere. What do you think we should expect if more radiation is trapped and re-radiated downwards into the troposphere by greenhouse gases? Would all layers warm? Nope. Less radiation escapes to space, so the stratosphere cools.

 

[CDNBear]

Tonnington, you're going to have to break that down if you want to convince me that beaves post was somehow out to lunch.

 

[Tonington]

OK.

On the aspect of solar. Yes, solar irradience is a much higher forcing at 1366 watts, but as you can see it has been cycling up and down again. In order for this to cause global warming we're seeing now, it would mean that the earth would have to be storing heat from the high points of the oscillation, and not losing it on the low points. That is not physically possible. If I turn off a stove top burner, your hand held above it will cool down. It has to. The source of heat is gone. It's the same thing with the solar radiation.

Also, the fingerprint is completely wrong. If increasing solar energy was causing the earth to warm, then all layers of the atmosphere would warm. As the radiation passes through the atmosphere down to the surface, it heats the atmosphere. When it bounces off the surface and back into space, it heats the atmosphere some more. If we add more greenhouse gases, then less radiation escapes to space. The result is the upper atmosphere cools radiatively, just as your hand did when I turned off the stove.

We've measured this at the top of the atmosphere, with satellites. No urban sources of contamination there. We know that more radiation comes into the earth system than leaves. So the climate system moves towards equilibrium, in this case it warms up to compensate for this flux of radiation.

 

[CDNBear]

OK.

On the aspect of solar. Yes, solar irradience is a much higher forcing at 1366 watts, but as you can see it has been cycling up and down again. In order for this to cause global warming we're seeing now, it would mean that the earth would have to be storing heat from the high points of the oscillation, and not losing it on the low points. That is not physically possible. If I turn off a stove top burner, your hand held above it will cool down. It has to. The source of heat is gone. It's the same thing with the solar radiation.

Also, the fingerprint is completely wrong. If increasing solar energy was causing the earth to warm, then all layers of the atmosphere would warm. As the radiation passes through the atmosphere down to the surface, it heats the atmosphere. When it bounces off the surface and back into space, it heats the atmosphere some more. If we add more greenhouse gases, then less radiation escapes to space. The result is the upper atmosphere cools radiatively, just as your hand did when I turned off the stove.

We've measured this at the top of the atmosphere, with satellites. No urban sources of contamination there. We know that more radiation comes into the earth system than leaves. So the climate system moves towards equilibrium, in this case it warms up to compensate for this flux of radiation.

I might have to read that a few more times, before I can say I fully get it, but...

What if I told you, that I actually feel a difference in the intensity of the sun? I know how strange it sounds, but I am kind of perceptive in a weird way to my surroundings.

 

[Tonington]

I'd say that you should. Ozone hole size is only now plateauing.

UVA&B can give you a wicked burn.

 

[CDNBear]

I'd say that you should. Ozone hole size is only now plateauing.

UVB can give you a wicked burn.

I don't burn, I just get darker, lol.

As usual Ton, you've said a mouthful. Give me some time to gigest it and I'll post some more questions later this weekend. I likely won't be around much tomorrow, we're doing some Crappie fishing. But rest assured, I'll be back to ask you to walk me through some more info, if you're up to it, lol.

 

[Tonington]

Anytime. Have fun out there. I have to get my license here, and figure out where the good fishing spots are.

 

[CDNBear]

Anytime. Have fun out there. I have to get my license here, and figure out where the good fishing spots are.

You're near Truro right? If so let me know and I'll get you some spots.

 

[Tonington]

Nope. I live in Charlottetown now. I work for a pharmaceutical now outside the city

 

[darkbeaver]

Solar irradience varies by about 0.2 watts from peak to trough, at about 1366 Watts.

And how is it exactly you expect this to be causing climate change? For one, you would have to violate thermodynamics for this to be causing a buildup of heat in the atmosphere.

Also, 1.6 watts is small, but so is climate change to date. About 0.8 °K, while the entire natural greenhouse warms the planet by 33°K.

Second, more solar would cause all layers of the atmosphere to warm. That's not what is happening:

a:

b:

c:

d:

Panel a is lower troposphere, b is mid-troposphere, c is the tropopause, and d is the stratosphere. What do you think we should expect if more radiation is trapped and re-radiated downwards into the troposphere by greenhouse gases? Would all layers warm? Nope. Less radiation escapes to space, so the stratosphere cools.

Add this and the engine of climate becomes more understandable ignore it and we have no workable theory. Pay particular attention as to the mechanics of actual atmospheric suspension.

Comment: It seems that the basic problem in gaining acceptance for ionization technology is the facile description of what causes rain. And that is a problem inherited from the experts –' the meteorologists and atmospheric scientists. The water molecule is fascinating because, unlike the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the air, it is electrically polarized.

>>The oxygen (blue) side of the water molecule is more negative than the hydrogen side (red), forming an electric dipole.

In an electric field, the water molecule will rotate to line up with the field. When it condenses in a cloud the average electric dipole moment of a water molecule in a raindrop is 40 percent greater than that of a single water vapor molecule. This enhancement results from the large polarization caused by the electric field induced by surrounding water molecules. In the atmospheric electric field the water molecules will be aligned with their dipoles pointing vertically and in a sense that is determined by the charge polarization in the cloud. It is interesting to note that the tops of storm clouds are positively charged and the base is negative. That is the reverse of the radial charge polarization within the Earth itself. And it is this charge polarization that gives rise to the low-order attractive force we call gravity. So it is proposed that water droplets in clouds experience an antigravity effect. It appears to be related to the 'Biefield-Brown Effect,' where a charged high-voltage planar capacitor tends to move in the direction of the positive electrode. That effect may explain how millions of tons of water can be suspended kilometres above the ground, when cloud droplets are about 1,000 times denser than the surrounding air.

Of course, this raises the issue of charge separation in clouds. The conventional 'isolated Earth' view is that positive and negative charge is 'somehow' separated by vertical winds in clouds and that this process in thunderstorms is responsible for charging up the ionosphere and causing the atmospheric electric field. But this begs the question of cause and effect. Recent high-altitude balloon flights find that charge is not built up in the cloud, it already exists in the ionosphere above. In January 2002 I argued the electric universe model: "Thunderstorms are not electricity generators, they are passive elements in an interplanetary circuit, like a self-repairing leaky condenser. The energy stored in the cloud 'condenser' is released as lightning when it short-circuits. The short-circuits can occur either within the cloud or across the external resistive paths to Earth or the ionosphere. The charge across the cloud 'condenser' gives rise to violent vertical electrical winds within the cloud, not vice versa."
Electric Weather

 

[darkbeaver]

Current is conducted into both of earths poles it is not just a radiant transfer. Many billions of amps have been left out of all the calculations.

 

[Tonington]

So it is proposed that water droplets in clouds experience an antigravity effect. It appears to be related to the 'Biefield-Brown Effect,' where a charged high-voltage planar capacitor tends to move in the direction of the positive electrode. That effect may explain how millions of tons of water can be suspended kilometres above the ground, when cloud droplets are about 1,000 times denser than the surrounding air.

Nothing that complicated is needed to explain how clouds form, and travel. Moist convection. Warm air carries moisture up into the atmosphere. As it rises and cools with the pressure drop, the vapour condenses into drops of water which coalesce into larger drops. This drag slows the ascent, and limits the height a cloud can reach. It's an adiabatic process and is determined specifically by the saturated adiabatic lapse rate.

How can you explain the vertical extent of the cloud layer if there is an anti-gravity effect induced by the polarity of the water droplets?

More to the point, it's certainly not quantified how this is causing climate change.

 

[AnnaG]

Too much shock therapy?

 

[darkbeaver]

Global Warming in a Climate of Ignorance
It has been shown that the Sun's constancy of light and heat output is due to a natural transistor action of the plasma sheaths forming the photosphere and chromosphere of the Sun. A very small voltage between the body of the Sun and the underside of the photosphere controls the enormous current that lights the Sun. Nature, as we have come to expect, has found a beautifully simple method of steadying the light output of main sequence stars.

A star is the focus of a galactic "glow discharge." The electrical energy that courses through the solar system and powers the Sun is a subtle form of energy that all of the planets intercept to some degree. Planets orbit within this discharge and intercept some of the electrical energy. Planets are minor "electrodes" within a stellar discharge envelope. The electrical energy is delivered to stars and planets in the manner of a simple Faraday motor.


>>Schematic of the Faraday motor effect upon a planet (or star). [Click to enlarge]

The electromotive power is deposited mostly in the upper atmosphere at mid to low latitudes and gives rise to fast upper atmosphere winds and even "super rotation." That is, the wind races around the planet faster than the planet turns. It is a phenomenon observed on Venus and Titan and remains unexplained by atmospheric physics, which relies on solar heating. It is the cause of the extraordinary winds on the gas giant planets in the outer solar system, where solar heating is weak. It has implications for the jet streams and weather patterns on Earth as well. Notably, the polar current streams take the form of twin Birkeland current filaments, which give rise to the enigmatic "double vortexes" seen at the poles of Venus. It is apparent that electrical energy from space doesn't merely light up auroras. It has a profound influence on upper atmosphere winds and storms. An expert on the dynamics of planetary atmospheres, F. W. Taylor, has admitted, "the absence of viable theories which can be tested, or in this case [Venusian polar vortex] any theory at all, leaves us uncomfortably in doubt as to our basic ability to understand even gross features of planetary atmospheric circulations." Meanwhile, electrical energy appears nowhere in any climate model. (DB so you can understand what I'm on about, the prime mover is no where considered DB)

 

[darkbeaver]

Nothing that complicated is needed to explain how clouds form, and travel. Moist convection. Warm air carries moisture up into the atmosphere. As it rises and cools with the pressure drop, the vapour condenses into drops of water which coalesce into larger drops. This drag slows the ascent, and limits the height a cloud can reach. It's an adiabatic process and is determined specifically by the saturated adiabatic lapse rate.

How can you explain the vertical extent of the cloud layer if there is an anti-gravity effect induced by the polarity of the water droplets?

More to the point, it's certainly not quantified how this is causing climate change.

Nothing is suspended in our atmosphere unless it is charged. How is it that water vapour rises miles without loosing it's heat and condensing like steam from a kettle? Everything that is suspended is charged, variations of charge produce variations of suspension. Whatever is causing climate change cannot be understood without electrical theory.

 

[Tonington]

It does cool and condense as it rises...That doesn't mean that the convective process stops.

Look up the saturated adiabatic lapse rate for yourself. Try explaining the Chinooks experienced in Alberta and other Foehn winds around the world without this known meteorological phenomenon.

 

[darkbeaver]

It does cool and condense as it rises...That doesn't mean that the convective process stops.

Look up the saturated adiabatic lapse rate for yourself. Try explaining the Chinooks experienced in Alberta and other Foehn winds around the world without this known meteorological phenomenon.

When the cloud hits the windward side charge equalization occurs, the moisture is dropped and the air falls on the leeward side raising the air temperature. That was a guess based on reading a few chapters. No ones going to argue the meteorological phenomenon itself it is the cause that we are concerned with the effects are readily and routinely observable.

 

[Tonington]

The cause you are concerned with is arguable. You're saying that clouds stay in the air because of an anti-gravity effect, despite known processes of convection, and despite any sort of explanation for cloud height limits.

It's like you're throwing spaghetti at the wall hoping some will stick.

 

[darkbeaver]

I sure there is no spaghetti involved. We've got the same mountain weather conditions two weeks later and the same five hundred tons of cloud passes over the mountain and dumps the snow on Calgary. How come no chinnook? Is it because the iconosphere above the formation is more highly positively charged and can lift the load higher to clear the mountain? The iconosphere is positive with respect to the earth, more positive more lift. You tell me what you were taught that accounts for the suspended mass of that much water. Other than the electrical explanation I can see no mechanism to do that. In no way can I accept that turbulent warm air lifts and maintains that much mass. I've seen a very nice map of the primary and secondary electrical and magnetic fields of earth generated by incoming polar current. Mars has no atmosphere to speak of but the same cyclonic phenomena occurs and their are many picture with the x-ray signatures to prove it only on that planet the sand replaces the water, the same is obseved on Jupiter and Saturn.
The known process of convection does not account for the suspended mass of weather systems. Show me the math and physics.

 

[darkbeaver]

Oct 23, 2007
Martian Global Warming
Martian Global Warming

Nice story about the Martian atmosphere which is one percent the density of earths. Billions of tons of material are held above the planet and it sure isn't its atmosphere nor convection doing it. So do we have a separate causal mechanism for each planet or just one operating in different mediums.? goodnight
​