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.