Global warming has been in the news a lot in the last several years, and the issue is presented to the general public as if anthropomorphic warming is scientifically proven, with 100% of the scientific community fully on board. The truth is that in the US alone, 31,487 scientists (9,029 with PhDs) got so pissed off at being told that they were on board that they signed a petition insisting that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." But nobody told the reporters, and the issue is still being presented as scientific fact.
One of the big problems in assessing the effects of increased CO2 levels is that we actually don't know what regulates the Earth's temperature. It is hotter than it has a right to be just due to solar radiation, so there is some sort of internal heat source. We just don't know what that is.
My work on the current-free double-layer (CFDL) model of the Earth has led me to some interesting conclusions. The interior of the Earth below the Moho is under sufficient pressure to separate charges, due to electron degeneracy pressure. Thus the upper mantle is positively charged due to the expulsion of electrons, and the crust is negatively charged due to acceptance of those electrons. Fluctuations in pressure due to tidal forces shift the boundary between these two double-layers, driving electric currents. (So the CFDLs are not entirely current-free — the boundary between the double-layers is electrically active.) When the tidal forces relax, producing a low tide, pressure at depth is increased, and more electrons are expelled. At high tide, the pressure decreases, allowing those electrons to flow back in. With two floods and two ebbs per day, that's 4 surges of electric current, and the ohmic heating at this boundary makes the Moho anomalously hot. The crust can then slide around effortlessly on this frictionless supercritical fluid, with the resulting plate collisions, mountain-building, etc. There is also reason to believe that a similar arrangement of charged double-layers exists at the boundary between the core and the lower mantle. Under even higher pressures in the core, a higher degree of ionization is achieved, making it even more positively charged. Electrons expelled from the core congregate in a thin layer at the bottom of the mantle, and fluctuations in pressure drive electric currents across the boundary. Evidence of a temperature anomaly can be found in the refraction of seismic waves, and in the fact that the core rotates at a different rate from the mantle, which would be quite impossible if they were not separated by a frictionless boundary.
So there are 4 charged double-layers: a positive core, a negative lower mantle, a positive upper mantle, and a negative crust. And the 2 most distinct boundaries are at the top of the core, and at the top of the mantle, where ohmic heating generates temperature anomalies. Away from those boundaries, the charged double-layers should actually be anomalously cool, because the electric force removes degrees of freedom from charged particles, thereby reducing the temperature.
Thus the internal heat source is electric currents at the boundaries between charged double-layers. And the prime mover is tidal forces, which alter the pressure, forcing the expulsion and subsequent re-uptake of electrons. This means that the energy generated from tidal forces has been grossly underestimated. We know that crustal deformation due to tides creates heat, but it's only 0.01% of the surface energy budget, since most of the force is absorbed by elastic strain, which is non-lossy (i.e., no thermalization if the crust doesn't fracture). But that only acknowledges heat from flexing the crust — it does not measure heat from electric currents in the Moho due to fluctuations in pressure at depth. To get the energy budget right, we have to take that into account. And the source of that internal heat is not internal to the Earth — the energy is coming from tidal forces. And I've demonstrated that tidal forces defy the laws of gravity, while obeying all of the laws of electrostatics. The Earth, Moon, & Sun are net negative bodies surrounded by positively charged plasma sheaths, with concentrations of positive plasma between them. The net negative bodies are attracted to their shared positive charge, and the responses to this attraction obey the laws of induction, while clearly defying the laws of gravity.
This means that disruptions in the interplanetary medium, which might alter the concentration of positive plasma in these sheaths, have significant effects on tidal forces, and thus on ohmic heating in the Moho. This will affect surface temperatures, weather, earthquakes, volcanoes, and everything else defined by the characteristics of these CFDLs.
moses
Re: Electric Climatology
One of the big problems in assessing the effects of increased CO2 levels is that we actually don't know what regulates the Earth's temperature. It is hotter than it has a right to be just due to solar radiation, so there is some sort of internal heat source. We just don't know what that is. Charles Solar radiation heating of the Earth depends upon the albedo of the Earth. If the albedo changes, then more radiation is absorbed ( or reflected ) by the Earth. Of course ice/snow is the major factor and we know that glaciers have diminished and the Arctic ice is somewhat reduced, but there is another factor at work.
Deforestation has an effect that it not much publicised. Trees pump water from deep in the water table into the atmosphere. This produces a measurable difference in the humidity of the air and subsequently decreased rainfall. Along with loss of vegetation due to feral and stock animals, this produces drought conditions and increased desertification. This affects the albedo and the ground gets to a higher temperature producing a measurable heating of the Earth regardless of CO2.
Of course this is not an endorsement of CO2 as it is a pathetic source of energy compared with what we could be using. And I am not against your theories Charles, just your initial assumptions. Cheers, Mo
Lloyd
Re: Electric Climatology
Weakening Solar Magnetic Field? Charles, your idea about warming coming from within the Earth is interesting, but as Ben Davidson's interesting video at http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/a21cs/ points out, the sunspot maximum is weaker than usual and seems to affect the solar wind, which seems to be causing changes on numerous planets, not just Earth. He explains how the weakening magnetic field of the Sun seems to be increasing the solar wind temporarily thus causing warming on Earth. But in the long run, it looks like we might be in for another prolonged sunspot minimum, which was previously correlated with the little ice age that especially is known to have affected Europe (and Greenland) from about 1400 to 1800. I think he's saying that the Sun's magnetic field is weakening on average and is permitting more cosmic rays to enter the heliosphere, which has some kind of effect on Earth's weather and climate.
Do you have strong evidence that the Sun's changes do not significantly affect Earth's climate?
Global Cooling Danger Anyway, it seems to me that the real danger is global cooling rather than warming. Cooling would possibly be a disaster if it results in much of the temperate zone being unable to sustain normal crop yields. A recent TPOD said that even the plague that struck Europe and I think much of Asia was caused by the global cooling. The plague reduced Europe's population to half or so of what it had been and it took centuries for it to return to its previous level.
Solutions Mo mentioned overgrazing causing desertification, but proper grazing actually reverses it, as Allan Savory shows in his TED talk video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI. I'm trying to see what I can do myself to help promote Savory's method of improving soil fertility of arid lands by proper grazing, which aerates the soil, allowing more rain water to soak in, knocks down dead vegetation to allow sunlight to reach sprouting plants, and fertilizes the ground with animal wastes. The herbivores need to be confined to small areas of land for brief periods of time, up to 2 days or so, and not return to the same area until a certain amount of plant regrowth occurs.
Savory's method can apparently restore thick vegetation in most arid lands. The Sahara has been expanding for a few hundred years and Savory's method can likely reverse that trend. Vegetation seems to have the ability to moderate temperature. Where barren land allows water to rapidly evaporate and heat to escape, vegetation helps retain both.
If there's evidence against a coming ice age, that would be good news, but I think it's worth trying to be prepared to reduce its effects or even prevent it as much as possible.
CharlesChandler
Re: Electric Climatology
Lloyd wrote: Do you have strong evidence that the Sun's changes do not significantly affect Earth's climate?
Quite the opposite — the evidence is that the Earth's temperature varies directly with number of sunspots. For example, the Maunder Minimum coincided with the Little Ice Age.
The question is, "What is the nature of the correlation?"
During the sunspot maximum, there is definitely a more complex magnetic field, and more "open" lines streaming away from the Sun. Thus we get a more robust solar wind. But I'm not saying that the magnetic fields themselves are doing the work. Rather, it's the density of the charge in the ionosphere that causes crustal deformation in the tidal cycle, and crustal deformation drives electric currents in the Moho. So in a strong solar wind during the sunspot maximum, we get a greater charge density in the ionosphere, higher tides, more powerful electric currents in the Moho, and higher surface temperatures. During the sunspot minimum, the solar wind is choked, and we get lower surface temperatures.
This "sounds" like the make/break data are probably already available. I'm currently searching for historical info on high/low tide ranges. Of course, crustal tides are direct indicators of the forcing mechanism, while oceanic tides are indirect, and we only have crustal tide data from very recently. Nevertheless, the oceanic tides "might" tell the story. I'll let you know if I find anything useful.
Lloyd wrote: If there's evidence against a coming ice age, that would be good news, but I think it's worth trying to be prepared to reduce its effects or even prevent it as much as possible.
Well, we can all do our part to generate as many greenhouse gases as possible. But if I'm right about the charge density in the ionosphere being the key factor, I'm afraid that anthropomorphic warming/cooling are probably well out of reach, so we're not the problem, nor are we the solution. But at least if we understood it, we'd know how to predict it, and to do what we could to prepare.
Lloyd
Re: Electric Climatology
But if I'm right about the charge density in the ionosphere being the key factor, I'm afraid that anthropomorphic warming/cooling are probably well out of reach, so we're not the problem, nor are we the solution.
Looks to me like making arid regions fertile, using Savory's holistic grazing management method, would put down enough organic matter to help insulate the Earth and keep it warmer. Do you agree? Organic matter generates a little heat, but it also helps insulate somewhat, so less heat would escape. Si?
CharlesChandler
Re: Electric Climatology
I liked it better when I thought that global warming was anthropomorphic, because if we broke it, we should be able to fix it. If we have actually released enough CO2 to warm up the planet, we should be able to release enough SO2 to cool it back down (because SO2 is an icehouse gas). But if these fluctuations are out of our control, then they're... out of our control. And if global warming isn't the problem, but rather, the Ice Age Cycle, we're really out of luck. Attempting to insulate the Earth to help retain the internal heat won't help. The oceans are far better at absorbing heat from the crust and transporting it to the surface, where it can radiate into the atmosphere. And there's no way to insulate the surface of the oceans to prevent that. So any heat build-up in the continents would escape through the oceans (and rivers, streams, lakes, etc.).
Still, if we do have a chance, it will only be because we came to a mechanical understanding of all of the forces involved. So the noblest work that can be done right now is to pursue that understanding.
Lloyd
Re: Electric Climatology
Maybe Not So Bad According to the graph here, http://www.co2science.org/articles/V14/N38/Birdetal2011b.jpg, which comes with this article, http://www.co2science.org/subject/m/summaries/mwpsoutham.php, the Little Ice Age average temperature was only about 1 degree cooler than now, so hopefully it won't be a disaster. The Americas were discovered during that period of the Little Ice Age and the U.S. was first being colonized during the coldest part of it. It looks like the greatest danger may be from another plague like what decimated the populations of Europe and Asia in the 1300s or so. Vaccines, by the way, are more likely to cause such a plague than to prevent it. I think the deadly Spanish flu of 1918 was due to vaccines. Anyway, I think ending desertification would be a boon for humanity and the ecosystem.
In addition to clearly indicating the presence of the Little Ice Age in the Arctic, these several studies suggest that much of this northernmost part of the globe has actually cooled over the last several decades. This finding is just the opposite of what is universally predicted by state-of-the-art climate models. However, it is consistent with real-world temperature measurements from across the entire region, which also depict a cooling over this period (Przybylak, 2000). Hence, the story from the "top of the world," where CO2-induced global warming is supposed to be most strongly expressed, according to essentially all climate models, is abundantly clear: the predicted warming is just not there.
Ionosphere Key
the charge density in the ionosphere being the key factor,
Then what's the cheapest way to restore the charge density in the ionosphere to supplement a weaker solar wind? Could jet exhaust be made to produce positive ions that would float upward?
CharlesChandler
Re: Electric Climatology
CharlesChandler wrote: The evidence is that the Earth's temperature varies directly with number of sunspots. [...] It's the density of the charge in the ionosphere that causes crustal deformation in the tidal cycle, and crustal deformation drives electric currents in the Moho. So in a strong solar wind during the sunspot maximum, we get a greater charge density in the ionosphere, higher tides, more powerful electric currents in the Moho, and higher surface temperatures. During the sunspot minimum, the solar wind is choked, and we get lower surface temperatures. This "sounds" like the make/break data are probably already available. I'm currently searching for historical info on high/low tide ranges.
Interestingly, when I searched for correlations between sunspots and tidal forces, so I could test my hypothesis that charge density in the solar wind is directly related to terrestrial tides and surface temperatures, I found a bunch of information, all having to do with the equal-but-opposite effect that tidal forces have on the Sun. There is very definitely a strong correlation between planetary alignments and the number of sunspots. This is something that we have discussed before, but I didn't know what to make of it. Now I have a framework to understand this. I'll have to cross-link this into the tides discussion, and I'll have to locate the discussion(s) on the solar barycenter and what that has to do with the sunspot cycle. And I have a lot of references to track down. But just to give a preview of how this piece fits into the larger framework, here's a brief description.
The correlation between planetary alignments and the sunspot cycle has been known for some time. It is assumed that tidal forces are purely gravitational, and that when planets tug on the Sun, it warps the surface of the Sun, somehow enhancing the production of sunspots. But as discussed on the tides thread, gravity should operate on the entire Sun in the same way, just like there shouldn't be any differential effect here on Earth from the lunar/solar gravity. The gravity gradient should be weak, and within the scope of observed selectivity, there shouldn't be any. So it isn't gravity. But what if it's the electric force, where there is a concentration of positively charged plasma in the interplanetary medium, to which the negatively charged planets, and the Sun, are attracted?
The first implication is that at least some of the "gravity" that keeps the planets in orbit is actually the electric force. (At the very least, gravity anomalies will trace back to fluctuations in electric fields.)
The second implication is the surface of the Sun and the planets will get warped by the selective action of the electric force on the surfaces, producing tides.
The third implication is that tidal forces flex the crusts of the planets, and the surface of the Sun, resulting in fluctuations in pressure at depth, and this drives electric currents at the boundaries between charged double-layers. So tidal forces are a source of heat, far beyond just the thermalization of crustal deformation.
The fourth implication is that the extra electric force enhances the steady electrostatic discharge from the Sun, which produces the light and heat that we get from it here on Earth. I have shown (elsewhere) that the Sun is a net cathode with respect to the interplanetary medium, and that there is a slow but steady drift of excess electrons though a thin positive double-layer (i.e., the photosphere) out into the IPM. The light and heat that we get from the Sun is from ohmic heating due to that drift, through that positive double-layer. I have also demonstrated that the electrons are sitting on a current divider, where they are attracted to a positive double-layer inside the Sun, and also to the positively charged IPM. The net force is weak, so the drift is slow. And due to electrostatic repulsion in the negative layer, the electrons emerge equally from all points on the Sun. But during the sunspot cycle, the current density increases, and magnetic pinches come into play, consolidating currents into sunspots.
So what would enhance the current? Planetary alignments. It's the positively charged IPM that sucks the electrons out of the Sun. If the planets are in a radial pattern, +ions in the IPM around the Sun will be well distributed, and electrons will emerge from the Sun from all points. But when there are planetary conjunctions, the electric field gets consolidated. I have demonstrated (elsewhere) that the electric force in a daisy chain of alternating charges is much more powerful than in a radial pattern (i.e., hub & spokes). So imagine the planets in a line, all negatively charged, along with the Sun, and imagine a tube of +ions connecting them. In this configuration, there is no electrostatic repulsion — every negative charge is exposed to only positive charges on both sides, and likewise, the positively charged plasma is exposed only to negative charges in the very next nodes in the chain. The significance here is that the positive charge exposed to the Sun is much greater, drawing much more current, and instantiating the electrodynamics of sunspots.
So tides, planetary alignments, the Sun's motion around the barycenter, sunspots, electric currents in the Moho, terrestrial heating, earthquakes, and volcanoes are all related by the CFDL configuration inside the Sun & the planets, and by the density of +ions in the IPM.
Lloyd
Re: Electric Climatology
Wonderful exposition! I think you're making perfect sense. Am I the only one here smart enough to understand that your CFDL Debye sheath model is on the verge of explaining everything? If you're so smart, why can't you explain to everyone here why the EU theory of electric circuits in space powering the Sun doesn't explain where the electric generator is to provide the electric currents in those circuits, whereas your model explains that the Sun is a battery and that electric solar system accretion was the generator or factory that made the battery and the heliospheric circuit?
You need to get a small team together to make a video with clear diagrams of how all this works. Then everyone will see and understand. Si?
Wait a minute. Are you saying the Sun is negative, like the planets? I thought you guys said it's positive.
CharlesChandler
Re: Electric Climatology
Lloyd wrote: Am I the only one here smart enough to understand that your CFDL Debye sheath model is on the verge of explaining everything?
You've been following along, so you know. Other people only see posts on one aspect of the model or another, and might not realize just how many different things it explains. But the CFDL model explains a lot of stuff, and somewhere in there, it becomes compelling. Nobody gets this lucky — when you start getting additional explanations for free (i.e., the model just naturally explains something else, without having to be tweaked or augmented), you know you're onto something. Well, this model is spitting out one free explanation after another, for planets as well as main sequence stars like our Sun. And if Jeffrey is right about stars evolving into planets, it makes sense that the same model explains both of them — the organizing principle hasn't changed, but the power output has dropped, so you still have CFDLs, but in planets, there aren't any discharges at the surface, so it's no longer a star — it's just a planet. Then it all makes sense.
Lloyd wrote: If you're so smart, why can't you explain to everyone here why the EU theory of electric circuits in space powering the Sun doesn't explain where the electric generator is to provide the electric currents in those circuits, whereas your model explains that the Sun is a battery and that electric solar system accretion was the generator or factory that made the battery and the heliospheric circuit?
Acceptance of a new model takes time. A lot of people here found the EU's criticisms of the mainstream to be convincing, and decided to give the EU a chance, so they're still in that mode. Most of them think that anybody who criticizes the EU has to be a mainstreamer, and I've been accused of that. But I'm no mainstreamer! The Universe is electric, and I can prove it. I'm not trying to take this show back to the QM/GR gibberish. Rather, I'm trying to go the next step in EM theory, developing more accurate models, of a more comprehensive nature. Thornhill et al. laid the foundation for this work. I wouldn't be here if it weren't for them. But they didn't figure it all out, and no, Birkeland currents don't do everything in this Universe. I learned from my study of tornadoes that if you think that EM is present, don't start with electrodynamics — start with electrostatics, and get that squared away first. Then you can understand the real currents. So that's the method I'm applying to solar and terrestrial topics, and that's how I arrived at the CFDL model. It was literally the only physical possibility left, after I got done weeding out all of the forces that were out of range. So I checked the properties of CFDLs against the data, and it checked out (and it's still checking out).
We all knew that it had to be something like this. The Sun is clearly an electrostatic discharge. The Earth is an EM system, with its geomagnetic field, and with all of the evidence of electric and magnetic fields in earthquakes, volcanoes, weather, etc. The EU tried to see if Birkeland currents would explain everything, but never identified the source of the fields driving those currents, and wound up asking currents to do stuff that they just don't like to do (like 1026 watts in a galactic current flowing in one side of the Sun and out the other, without leaving a mark). But once the charge separation mechanism is identified, it becomes easy to see where the currents are, and why each of them take on a distinctive form.
But you're right — the CFDL model can be better explained, and better illustrated, so people don't have to struggle to get what it's about. I'm still finding new stuff that needs to be included, and with a successful model, that's an open-ended task. Ironically, I'd have a better presentation by now if I had hit a brick wall somewhere in there. But no, I haven't hit any theoretical walls, so the scope continues to expand. Anyway, you're right that it will take a team of people to arrive at a polished presentation. We really need to get an illustrator involved in the project. But we don't have any funding...
Lloyd wrote: Are you saying the Sun is negative, like the planets? I thought you guys said it's positive.
Yes, the Sun is net negative, and emits electrons. The photosphere is a positive double-layer, but those +ions stay where they are, as electrons drift through, causing ohmic heating and EM radiation as they go. So the Sun is net negative, and the interplanetary medium is net positive, especially nearer the Sun. Further out in the IPM, electrons have recombined with +ions to produce a net neutral solar wind. But it's the net positive charge in the IPM that pulls the electrons out of the Sun.
Lloyd
Re: Electric Climatology
CharlesChandler wrote: Yes, the Sun is net negative, and emits electrons. The photosphere is a positive double-layer, but those +ions stay where they are, as electrons drift through, causing ohmic heating and EM radiation as they go. So the Sun is net negative, and the interplanetary medium is net positive, especially nearer the Sun. Further out in the IPM, electrons have recombined with +ions to produce a net neutral solar wind. But it's the net positive charge in the IPM that pulls the electrons out of the Sun.
Can you give me a reference to one of your writings on your site or on this forum that mentions the evidence that the IPM is positive? My understanding is that the IPM is the solar wind and that it's net neutral and that both protons and electrons (and a few other positive ions) exit the Sun as the solar wind which exits the heliosphere. How much of my understanding do you regard as wrong and why? I think you previously talked about CMEs being positive and accounting for only a small percent of the total positive charge leaving the Sun.
Sun = PNPNP = P1 N1 P2 N2 P3 My understanding of your solar model is that the Sun has a positive core of possibly osmium, a negative "radiative zone" of nickel/iron, a positive layer of liquid helium and hydrogen, a negative layer of hydrogen plasma, and a positive layer of hydrogen as the photosphere. Each negative layer consists of electron-rich material in which the electrons came from the lower layer of positive material. The Sun then would have 3 positive layers and 2 negative in which the negative came from previously neutral material below. If this is all correct, then I don't see how the net charge would be negative. Layer P1, the core, would have x +ions; the N1 layer would have x electrons; the P2 layer would have y +ions; the N2 layer would have y electrons; the P3 layer, photosphere, would have z +ions. x - x + y - y + z = +z. So the net charge should be positive.
Are you sure that photons don't have mass (which they obviously do, as Prof. Kanarev confirms) and that they don't push the electrons out of the Sun, just as the electrons push out some of the protons?
CharlesChandler
Re: Electric Climatology
Lloyd wrote: Can you give me a reference to one of your writings on your site or on this forum that mentions the evidence that the IPM is positive? My understanding is that the IPM is the solar wind and that it's net neutral and that both protons and electrons (and a few other positive ions) exit the Sun as the solar wind which exits the heliosphere.
Considering the transient nature of the solar wind, net fields are tough to measure, so there isn't much to go on. Here's the most direct reference that I've found so far:
May, H. D., 2008: A Pervasive Electric Field in the Heliosphere. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 36 (5): 2876-2879
It is a widely held belief that a large-scale electric field of any significant magnitude cannot be present in the heliosphere because of electric currents through the highly conductive plasma, present throughout the heliosphere, which would immediately neutralize any nascent electric fields. This paper questions that longstanding belief and describes a mechanism to account for such a field. Some of the galactic cosmic ray (GCR) ions lose almost all of their kinetic energy from solar modulation and, due to their short radii of gyration, are effectively deposited continuously throughout the heliosphere inside the solar wind termination shock. It is pointed out here that the deposition of these ions occurs at a greater rate than that for GCR electrons, and that a large-scale static electric field is sustained by the ions because of the time delay in the arrival of neutralizing electron currents.
This is the same conclusion that Bob Johnson drew in his EU talk in 2012 — that the current is electrons out of the Sun, not +ions. You're right that the solar wind is quasi-neutral, especially out where we are. I'm of the opinion that most of the charge recombination occurs within 10 solar radii, so most of the E-field is inside of that.
Lloyd wrote: I think you previously talked about CMEs being positive and accounting for only a small percent of the total positive charge leaving the Sun.
Actually, I can account for 1025 watts of power (within an order of magnitude of the total) coming out of the Sun just due to CMEs expelling positive plasma, and electrons playing catch-up. Some +ions are pulled out of the Sun by electron drag, but there aren't any numbers on that. So I'm going with CMEs as the primary charge separation mechanism between the surface of the Sun and the heliosphere, which is responsible for the heat & light that we receive.
Lloyd wrote: Sun = PNPNP = P1 N1 P2 N2 P3 My understanding of your solar model is that the Sun has a positive core of possibly osmium, a negative "radiative zone" of nickel/iron, a positive layer of liquid helium and hydrogen, a negative layer of hydrogen plasma, and a positive layer of hydrogen as the photosphere. Each negative layer consists of electron-rich material in which the electrons came from the lower layer of positive material. The Sun then would have 3 positive layers and 2 negative in which the negative came from previously neutral material below.
Exactly.
Lloyd wrote: If this is all correct, then I don't see how the net charge would be negative.
Even though I'm saying that there are 3 positive and 2 negative layers, I'm contending that at the surface, with respect to the heliosphere, the net charge of the Sun is negative. So the topmost positive layer isn't thick enough to fully offset the negative charge below it. Without CMEs, I'm saying that the Sun would be net neutral (even with an odd number of layers). But CMEs disrupt the balance of charges, driving an electric current through the photosphere.
Lloyd wrote: Are you sure that photons don't have mass (which they obviously do, as Prof. Kanarev confirms) and that they don't push the electrons out of the Sun, just as the electrons push out some of the protons?
Increased dust in the atmosphere is increasing the conductivity. Creating more in number and more conductive discharge paths. Lightnings, spouts, tornado, volcanic eruption, earthquakes down drift columns http://www.sott.net/article/274128-Roll ... mment99215
Additional current can't be confined to ( can't be handled by ) existing polar vortex. That is the reason behind the "polar vortex split", actually scattered new north poles.
Seems like that is one of the new ( scattered ) north poles in formation.
If this is an indication of a persistent change, the south pole will need to move in the direction of the Indian ocean. Creating new ice cover there, while melting the Antarctic ice sheet from the Pacific ocean side.
That will change climate belts ( zones ). Siberia will became much more hospitable than now. With vast sparsely inhabited land and abundant resources, including fresh water and vegetation, you can easily see it as very attractive. One of the next mass migration events, in the next decades, would be to Siberia. Consider learning Russian.
Siggy_G
Re: Electric Climatology
pavlink wrote: Drop in the Sun's activity is a sign of voltage drop but current increase. Therefore in line with increased discharges through the atmosphere.
The Sun's activity is mainly related to its magnetic field strength and dynamics. Less of this would actually indicate current decrease as well. A drop in the Sun's magnetic field and currents, could either be due to increased medium resistance (unlikely), less external current density (somewhat likely, due to fluctations through galactic regions) or decreased potential drop between the heliosphere and the Sun (likely, due to fluctations in the Sun's net charge) - or some combination of all.
pavlink wrote: Increased dust in the atmosphere is increasing the conductivity. Creating more in number and more conductive discharge paths. Lightnings, spouts, tornado, volcanic eruption, earthquakes down drift columns
But if I'm right about the charge density in the ionosphere being the key factor, I'm afraid that anthropomorphic warming/cooling are probably well out of reach, so we're not the problem, nor are we the solution.
But at least if we understood it, we'd know how to predict it, and to do what we could to prepare.
But no, I haven't hit any theoretical walls, so the scope continues to expand. Anyway, you're right that it will take a team of people to arrive at a polished presentation. We really need to get an illustrator involved in the project. But we don't have any funding...
Lloyd wrote:Yes, the Sun is net negative, and emits electrons. The photosphere is a positive double-layer, but those +ions stay where they are, as electrons drift through, causing ohmic heating and EM radiation as they go. So the Sun is net negative, and the interplanetary medium is net positive, especially nearer the Sun. Further out in the IPM, electrons have recombined with +ions to produce a net neutral solar wind. But it's the net positive charge in the IPM that pulls the electrons out of the Sun.
