Dissent in the climate ranks

Watts Up With That has republished Fred Singer’e essay “Climate naysayers are giving climate skeptics a bad name” here. Fred is a little concerned that the climate deniers, (the Skydragon Slayers one more than suspects) keep denying the role of the CO2 as a greenhouse gas:

“One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence.”

If we assume Fred Singer is correct in that the downwelling IR is ever present and real, and that the climate deniers are also correct that CO2 can’t do what is claimed it can do, i.e.. produce downwelling IR, then in a scientific sense one would then think outside of the box and wonder if there is a third source of this measured downwelling atmospheric IR.

This is much like the situation that the late Fred Hoyle mentioned when a particular scientific issue was characterised by acrimonious debate, with neither side willing to budge; the cause of the acrimony was because the participants were thinking with the wrong ideas, or theory, and this is precisely the problem.

I’ve suggested for many years that this downwelling IR is more likely to come from atmospheric electrical currents rather than from a ‘trace gas’ such as CO2. Unfortunately when you look at the various ‘official’ radiative budgets assigned to the various known energy inputs and outputs from the Earth’s surface to space, atmospheric electricity is a glaring omission, as are the geological inputs of CO2 from volcanic eruptions, whether surface or submarine.

Both Fred Singer and the Skydragon Slayers are right, but the downwelling IR is coming from atmospheric electric currents, and not solely from CO2. And just what proportion of that downwelling IR is due to CO2 vs. electric current(s) remains to be quantified.

Update: Gerry Pollack has flagged his 2015 presentation to the Thunderbolt Project conference later this year and pointed out that when water evaporates it does so as two electrically distinct species, electronegatively charged EZ water, and, new to me, another group that are positively charged, and which I presume are protons (?).

The -ve charged particles form clouds, while the +ve charges go further up towards the ionosphere and whose distance to the earth waxes and wanes diurnally.

Moving electric charges are what? Electric currents. If water vapour is for most part electrically charged, -ve, then we have massive electric currents passing through the atmosphere via the water medium. And electric currents passing through matter generate IR.

Pollack has also suggested that these +ve charges produce the winds at the surface of the earth, and the jetstreams up above the troposphere, due to electric charge imbalance between the night time and day time charge movement.

I would rather adopt Alven’s solar electrical model and explain the jet streams as being produced by the Lorentz force due to the inrush of protons into the polar regions. It is this mechanism that also causes the earth’s rotation, ideas that I have canvassed before on this blog.

But downwelling IR is better explained by atmospheric electric currents than radiating CO2.

There is much, much more to water than most of us suspect.

Update 2: Gerry Pollack’s Preview on YouTube below.

Update 3: If the Earth’s surface has an electric field of some 100 volts per vertical meter and is -ve, then I can understand how EZ water, being also -ve charged, moves upwards due to electrostatic repulsion. What is difficult to accept is that +ve ions, as observed by Pollack et al, also move upwards but towards the ionosphere. +ve ions are attracted to -ve charges and should move downwards to the Earth’s surface. It is more likely that the observed charge separation is the result of the spontaneous formation of a plasma double layer between the Earth and its plasma environment, rather than from the emission of -ve and +ve species from the evaporation of water. This explanation, however remain problematical.

About Louis Hissink

Retired diamond exploration geologist. I spent my professional life looking for mineral deposits, found some, and also located a number of kimberlites in NSW and Western Australia. Exploration geology is the closest one can get to practicing the scientific method, mineral exploration always being concerned with finding anomalous geophysical or geochemical data, framing a model and explanation for the anomaly and then testing it with drilling or excavation. All scientific theories are ultimately false since they invariably involved explaining something with incomplete extant knowledge. Since no one is omniscient or knows everything, so too scientific theories which are solely limited to existing knowledge. Because the future always yields new data, scientific theories must change to be compatible with the new data. Thus a true scientist is never in love with any particular theory, always knowing that when the facts change, so too must he/she change their minds.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Dissent in the climate ranks

  1. PeterMG says:

    I have long given up wasting my time sifting through some of the dross at Watts Up With That. When the site was started many moons ago it had a simple mantra, to highlight the dross that climate science was coming out with. Back in those days it was hard to get anyone to listen when you said AGW based on CO2 was nonsense, but that was the message. WUWT was then my first port of call everyday on the internet. Today it is like an abandon yacht in the doldrums, going nowhere.

    Watts chose to do his surface station audit to prove his point that the temperature data was not fit for purpose. It was good diligent work and got everyone’s attention and suddenly Watts had some new friends, especially in science. The only trouble was rather than embrace any and all theories and allow evidence based discussion, plus comments of a more philosophical nature, Watts chose the “Luke warmer” roll of the establishment, where he argued the theories are correct but it’s just the magnitude that’s wrong, and ignored or censored other valid comments as off the wall.

    To my mind he is doing the sceptical community and science a huge disservice, but it does mean he avoids adverse comment from the “scientists” and would rather preserve his “most hits for a scientific blog” than to try and grapple with man’s almost complete misunderstanding of his environment. Watts has turned from “real world warrior” to “believer” in things he can’t see, replicate or prove. Oh the irony.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s