“Scientists are still puzzled as to what triggers a spark during a thunderstorm. The latest attempt to answer the question only adds to the intrigue. It seems hard to believe that we still don’t understand what causes lightning during thunderstorms – but that’s a fact.” – BBC’s Phillip Ball
Yep, scientists can’t tell you what causes lightning to form. However, they claim that they can predict what the global climate will be nearly a century from now.
How about tornadoes?
“We don’t know if a particular storm will produce a tornado so the truth is we really don’t know what causes a tornado. We do know the necessary conditions needed for tornado formation. ” - Steven A. Ackerman and Jonathan Martin, professors in the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at UW-Madison.
And what about clouds?
Climatologists are remarkably mum on the subject of clouds. While they have plenty of theories about cloud formation, virtually none of them address why clouds appear as they do. Obviously an attractive and repulsive force is necessary for the water droplets in a cloud to stick together cohesively the way they do. There is only one obvious force that meets this requirement, and it’s not dark matter.
A few scientists have seen the light, or should I say charge? A recent study by Giles Harrison and Maarten Ambaum, from the University of Reading, found that the electrical connection between Earth and its surrounding electrified plasma environment may play a much larger role in driving Earth’s weather than anyone previously realized. “Particularly interesting is the possibility that space weather changes could affect weather in the lower atmosphere, ” Harrison notes in a recent PhysicsWorld article.
“The realization that the electrical heartbeat of the planet plays a role in the formation of layer clouds indicates that existing models for clouds and climate are still missing potentially important components,” adds Ambaum. “Understanding these missing elements is crucial to improve the accuracy of our weather forecasts and predicting changes to our climate.”
That article was from this past March. Does anyone think the climate models predicting doom for the planet have incorporated this finding into their research? I doubt it.
The Earth’s weather is obviously highly electrical. From lighting storms to cloud cohesion, the electrical forces of weather are on display for all to see. However, the vast majority of climate scientists want nothing to do with electricity. Electricity screws up their models and injects a climate driver that they can’t model nor predict. Harrison should be nominated for “Understatement of the Year” with his comment.
In fact, Harrison and Ambaum aren’t the only climatologists to see a connection between Earth’s weather and space. Looking at hurricanes, a recent study by N.V. Isaev et al, noted that, “In some cases the ‘typhoon eye’ is formed over the tropical depression zone in the ionosphere, that is, the region with sharply decreased plasma density and pressure is observed a day and more prior to the moment when it happens in the atmosphere.” The ionosphere is a region of electrified plasma on the edge of space that surrounds the planet.
Professor Gerald Pollack, University of Washington, has presented findings that demonstrate the water molecule has some amazing electrical properties that science is only now starting to uncover. Pollack’s lecture will blow your hair back. For example, I bet you didn’t know you that you can create a battery using water and piece of polymer. You can view Pollack’s presentation here: part 1, part 2
Pollacks’ work with water casts some serious doubt on the climate models presently held up as gospel by the academic community. Pollack contends that the like-likes-like electrical properties of water create a colloid crystal structure in clouds, giving them the cohesive shapes we observe. The science he presents to back his case is nothing short of stunning.
Bill Nichols, a scientist for the National Weather Service, also has some serious issues with current theories of weather and climate that fail to incorporate the electrical nature of Earth’s solar environment into their models. Quoting Nichols, “the present model suck.” Nichols contends that the majority of Earth’s weather is electrically driven, and the space surrounding the Earth plays a large role in that process.
Nichols notes that weather formations can appear homogeneously out of nowhere, with no thermodynamic drivers, other than the Sun. This obviously indicates a strong correlation between weather and the Sun that goes ignored in climate models, but fits very well with Pollack’s findings about water.
Further, Nichols talks about the dozen or more atmospheric and oceanic oscillations that have been identified. Of particular interest is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Contrary to Wiki’s claims, this oscillation is poorly explained by “tropical forcing and extra-tropical processes.” This oscillation of temperature is statistically perfect across the entire Pacific ocean over the time frame of decades. There’s just no possible way that can be explained by local thermodynamic drivers. I’ll bet my bottom dollar that we see a matching oscillation taking place in the ionosphere. The data shows that the atmosphere goes with or leads the changes in the oceans, discounting the oceans as being primary drivers of weather and climate, as our climate models assume today.
To demonstrate just how out of touch our present weather science is with the rest of the physics world, Wikipedia claims that, “Electromagnetics and lightning have little or nothing to do directly with what drives tornadoes.” As Pollack demonstrated, electromagnetic forces have virtually everything to do with clouds and their formation, so saying that electromagnetics play no role in tornado evolution is just flat out wrong. It’s also worth noting that dusty plasmas can naturally create vortex formations. Plasma vortex formations appear everywhere we look in space, yet this simple electrical explanation for tornadoes remains ignored. Plasma vortexes have been identified in the Earth’s magnetosphere, on Saturn, on Venus, etc.. etc.. etc..
Another recent Thunderbolts article points out that tornadoes have been observed to electrically discharge. I’m not talking about lightning, I’m talking about the entire column of air lighting up with the intensity of an arc-welder, causing near blindness in the people who observed it from thousands of feet away. There are also reports from people who have survived being run over by a tornado that the interior column is lit up like a neon sign. Don’t believe me? I was able to find an example of a discharging tornado on YouTube. The event was so strange that it was filed under UFO conspiracy junk – but remember, “Electromagnetics and lightning have little or nothing to do directly with what drives tornadoes.”
If scientists can’t explain what causes lightning or tornadoes, how is it possible that they can model the climate? They MUST be missing a big piece of the puzzle here. I haven’t even touched on upper-atmospheric lightning, which is completely ignored by climatologists. This lightning can stretch right to the edge of space. Wiki notes that, “The global rate of TLE [upper-atmospheric lightning] occurrence has been estimated from satellite (FORMOSAT-2) observations to be several million events per year.” This lightning shows that there is a direct connection between space and weather events occurring on the surface.
The Earth is a globe immersed in an ever changing sea of charged particles. Given the proven electrical nature of Earth’s weather, it seems illogical to conclude the weather we experience on Earth is primarily driven by local Newtonian forces of pressure, confined to our lower atmosphere. It seems much more likely to me that the Sun, and the sea of plasma we are immersed in, are the dominant drivers of weather and climate here on planet Earth. A growing number of scientists agree.
It looks like I was correct with my guess. Here’s a paper showing that records of the aurora match the decadal oscillations:
We show that a harmonic constituent model based on the major astronomical frequencies revealed in the aurora records and deduced from the natural gravitational oscillations of the solar system is able to forecast with a reasonable accuracy the decadal and multidecadal temperature oscillations from 1950 to 2010 using the temperature data before 1950, and vice versa.
I didn’t know this paper existed at the time I wrote the article, but when you view things through the framework of the Electric Universe, it makes it easy to know where to look.
Dr. Nicola Scafetta, Duke University, has made some major contributions to this area of research. There are several more papers available on his page that demonstrate the same kind of effect.
Dr. Scafetta writes,
We show that the IPCC GCM’s claim that all warming observed from 1970 to 2000 has been anthropogenically induced is erroneous because of the GCM failure in reconstructing the quasi 20-year and 60-year climatic cycles…
…The results of this paper reinforce previous claims that the relevant physical mechanisms that explain the detected climatic cycles are still missing in the current GCMs and that climate variations at the multidecadal scales are astronomically induced and, in first approximation, can be forecast.
Thanks for proving my point Dr. Scafetta. If I ever meet you in person, I’ll have to buy you a beer.