There IS NO Temperature-Anomaly For The “Greenhouse Effect” To Explain.

SOMETIMES IT CAN BE A LITTLE BIT EMBARRASSING TO READ OVER WHAT ONE HAS WRITTEN. THIS HERE IS TAKING AN EXTREMIST POINT OF VIEW. PLUS THERE ARE A FEW THINGS WRONG WITH IT. STILL IT IS IMPORTANT TO SEE THINGS FROM MANY DIFFERENT ANGLES.

According to David Karoly:

“Carbon dioxide is such a minor atmospheric constituent that it can’t affect global climate. This is untrue. While carbon dioxide makes up only 0.038% of the atmosphere, it is vital in the energy balance of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. If the atmosphere contained no greenhouse gases, the surface temperature would be about 30C colder. ”

This is nonsense. In fact it cannot be true even if one were to accept the wrong view that there are greenhouse gases and a greenhouse effect.

But some of you might disagree. Clearly Karoly is working under the assumption that he’s found an average temperature anomaly that needs to be explained by some mechanism or other. But there is no basis for such a claim. Where is the gap that he is talking about? And why is it not assumed that such a gap is not explained by a multitude of factors?

The most obvious factor amongst many is the electrical energy coursing through the galaxy. This electrical energy comes in at least two forms. The charged particles that relentlessly bombard the earths atmosphere. That is to say the charged particles themselves. And on top of that further electrical energy arriving via Birkeland currents. This electrical energy arrives THROUGH the charged particles but can be considered somewhat distinct from the charged particle movement proper.

When the solar winds are blowing hard we are bombarded by charged particles not factored into the average wattage represented by the alleged “solar constant” The solar constant, so-called, is a wattage based only purely on electromagentic radiation moving at the speed of light. So we see that straight electrical energy is being excluded by stupid people.

Louis Hissink has pointed this out a number of times. It is not the whole of the story but it is probably the most important part of the temperature difference. If there is a rival it will be to do with the behaviour of liquid water.

When the solar winds are not blowing as hard we are STILL bombarded by charged particles from the rest of the galaxy. Now folks point out that these wrongly named “cosmic rays” have a marginal cooling effect because of their influence on cloud cover. Yes this is true and pretty much proven. But nonetheless, forgetting the marginal effect, the background effect is in the first instance to add to the thermal energy of the atmosphere by adding electrical energy. When the electrical energy given to us via the solar winds … when this source of electrical energy wanes, part of the slack is taken up by electrical energy from the rest of the galaxy in the form of these “cosmic rays …….. marginal cloud-cover effect notwithstanding.

Moving ions, whether positively or negatively charged, constitute an electric current. It does not matter if we are talking positively or negatively charged particles, or positively or negatively charged molecules. In all cases with this movement we have an electric current. This is what an electric current IS.

This is all going over old wine that Louis has told you about before but I want to add my weight to what he has told you because I have checked it all out and found out that he was right as usual. In total, the Earth appears to absorb a great deal more negatively charged particles than positively charged particles but the fact is it absorbs both. And for thermal purposes they do not cancel.

Whereas most non-planetary matter (and perhaps to make this generalisation we would have to exclude much of the core of stars also) constitutes plasmas once we get below the ionosphere, most of the planet that we have full knowledge of and access to, is made of standard, uncharged molecules. And the thing is that plasmas tend to conduct electricity well. Whereas standard, non-metallic molecules, without charge, conduct electricity poorly.

So the atmosphere is like this resister. The moving particles bombard the atmosphere, they represent electrical energy, they excite the molecules in the Earths atmosphere producing heat. Its analogous to an electric current moving through a resistor. Or you might wish to think of it merely as a kinetic thing. The charged particles bombarding and exciting the molecules.

It is a fact that this happens, totally regardless of whether or not you have come around to the realisation that the “electric universe” contingent have the better paradigm for how the stars operate than the “fusion alone” people.

So what with the way that liquid water behaves. And with overturning. With the way phase-change happens with water vapour and airborne-liquid-water. With tidal warming from the moon and sun. With warming from the centre of the earth itself. With the electrical energy coming in from the bombardment of charged particles from the sun, and from the rest of the galaxy also……… and on top of all that with FURTHER electrical energy conveyed via Birkeland currents from the rest of the galaxy ………..

……

With all of the above and more …. Just where is this anomaly? What known anomaly is there? What anomaly in temperature exists that this nonsensical non-existent “greenhouse effect” is supposed to explain?

If you are a believer find me the anomaly first. I don’t think that this is too much to ask. Find the anomaly or give up on your cost-imposition, and sovereignty selling-out for all time. Find me an anomaly I can work with. If you cannot even so much as find me an anomaly then where are you with this jive? You are nowhere with this jive. Without an anomaly the alarmists are just a bad joke.