Astronomer Hilton Ratcliffe published an article on the issue of man-made global warming on Ndaba of April 2009, after which followed a reply by one Malcolm Keeping to which Hilton subsequently responded. In his final response Hilton mentioned one:
Arno Arrak, author of the book What Warming? Satellite view of global climate change; he was a nuclear chemist on NASA’s Apollo programme: “In 2007 we got some serious cooling while climate models using carbon dioxide theory insisted on relentless warming at the same time. If a theory predicts warming and we get cooling that theory as a scientific theory has failed and must be abandoned.” Source
Then we have Australian scientist David Evans who had a Damascene experience from warmer to sceptic when the tropospheric hotspot failed to appear despite the computer modelling of the climate system based on the theory of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot-spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10km up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, 80s, and 90s, the weather balloons found no hot-spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.
Not only are the climate models fundamentally flawed but so too the reasoning of what this measured evidence actually means.
It is generally thought that the absence of the tropospheric hotspot shows that we are over estimating the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere but this is not correct, for what it does show is that the idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is itself wrong. In other words the basic idea of a greenhouse gas effect is intrinsically wrong. This does not mean that there isn’t some sort of greenhouse atmosphere effect due to water vapour, because there is, but the reason that the earth’s temperature is what it is, is not due to the effect of an atmospheric greenhouse effect, but due to some other input of energy that I suggest is the totally ignored electromagnetic energy entering the earth system.
There is indeed a thermal anomaly in the earth-system – it is warmer than it should be according to basic physics, but this thermal anomaly is due to the continuous input of millions of amperes of electrical energy into and out of the polar regions, energy that we only become aware of when solar wind surges cause the polar Birkeland currents to trip into the plasma glow-mode producing the polar auroras. After the solar wind surge diminishes the polar currents return back to plasma dark-current mode and we become unaware of them.
The energy that enters the earth via this route is prodigious but very little is understood about this global electric circuit, apart from the work by Tinsley and his co-workers.
Abstract: The role of the global electric circuit in solar and internal forcing
of clouds and climate, Advances in Space Research, 40 (2007) 1126–1139.
Reports of a variety of short-term meteorological responses to changes in the global electric circuit associated with a set of disparate inputs are analyzed. The meteorological responses consist of changes in cloud cover, atmospheric temperature, pressure, or dynamics. All of these are found to be responding to changes in a key linking agent, that of the downward current density, Jz, that flows from the ionosphere through the troposphere to the surface (ocean and land). As it flows through layer clouds, Jz generates space charge in conductivity gradients at the upper and lower boundaries, and this electrical charge is capable of affecting the microphysical interactions between droplets and both ice-forming nuclei and condensation nuclei.
Four short-term inputs to the global circuit are due to solar activity and consist of (1) Forbush decreases of the galactic cosmic ray flux; (2) solar energetic particle events; (3) relativistic electron precipitation changes; and (4) polar cap ionospheric convection potential changes. One input that is internal to the global circuit consists of (5) global ionospheric potential changes due to changes in the current output of the highly electrified clouds (mainly deep convective clouds at low latitudes) that act as generators for the circuit.
The observed short-term meteorological responses to these five inputs are of small amplitude but high statistical significance for repeated Jz changes of order 5% for low latitudes increasing to 25–30% at high latitudes. On the timescales of multidecadal solar minima, such as the Maunder minimum, changes in tropospheric dynamics and climate related to Jz are also larger at high latitudes, and correlate with the lower energy component (1 GeV) of the cosmic ray flux increasing by as much as a factor of two relative to present values. Also, there are comparable cosmic ray flux changes and climate responses on millennial timescales. The persistence of the longer-term Jz changes for many decades to many centuries would produce an integrated effect on climate that could dominate over short-term weather and climate variations, and explain the observed correlations.
Thus, we propose that mechanisms responding to Jz are a candidate for explanations of sun–weather–climate correlations on multidecadal
to millenial timescales, as well as on the day-to-day timescales analyzed here.
2007 COSPAR. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved (Source)
There is a persistent belief that the observed electrical charge in clouds is caused by the bumping of water molecules against each other causing charge separation, and hence electrical fields and electricity, similar to that believed to happen in some volcanic eruptions. However if this mechanism is plausible, then the commercial vacuum cleaner made by Dyson using cyclonic activity would have to be an electrical generator – and which we know isn’t, so the standard idea for charge separation by colliding particles is wrong. We have it back to front.
The irony of the situation is that while the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has been resoundingly falsified by observation and measurement, sceptics continue to believe that none the less there still is a CO2 greenhouse gas effect, and that the argument is over how much an effect is present. It does not occur to them that they have falsified the greenhouse gas effect itself, or it does, and if we admit that, then it also means that Carl Sagan was wrong about Venus when he proposed a runaway greenhouse gas effect to explain the Venusian thermal anomaly; Velikovsky deduced that Venus was hot because it was a recently formed planet from historical data . This, and other observations, prompted Velikovsky to propose that there was an additional force operating in the universe – the force of electromagnetics – in addition to gravity. We now know he was right, and that electro-dynamic forces form the basis of the physics of the plasma universe.
However it is the, almost violent, rejection of Velikovsky’s hypotheses that forms the basis of the current obsession with the CO2 greenhouse gas effect – for to deny the existence of this effect, is to admit that Velikovsky was right.