3. Diverse natural factors and their climatological effects, which have been ignored
3.1. Negative feedback mechanism with respect to net electrical charge
Leaving aside the political forces that serve as ratio essendi for the myth of global warming, one must still wonder how such a myth found the semblance of a scientific basis that has permitted it to take hold of official climatology. At bottom, this was made possible by the lack of understanding of the natural decadal, supradecadal and intradecadal oscillations ('trends' is definitely not the right term) in the temperature and chemical composition of the atmosphere. These oscillations reflect a complex interplay between various natural factors and their fluctuation, most prominent among which are solar radiation, atmospheric latent heat, atmospheric electricity and geothermal energy. Without a serious physical and chemical grasp of these natural factors, there is little hope that one can isolate the climatic and meteorological impact of man-made actions - deforestation, urbanization, pollution, warming and cooling. We have presented evidence, in this context, that at least in what concerns monopolar oscillations of charge in the anticyclonic ground-level atmosphere, there is a constant compensatory (negative feedback) process at work to keep the overall net charge neutral [26, 45]. Furthermore, we have also shown that incoming solar radiation is not simply captured locally in the form of photons (light and heat), but also in the form of latent heat associated with weak intermolecular bonding and the heats of state [26]. In other words - one may not infer the energy of the atmospheric system simply from a determination of its temperature or its content of sensible heat!
3.2. The basic allotropic cycle of the atmosphere
Earth climate is inextricably linked to the fundamental allotropic cycle of gas substrates that constantly regenerates the atmosphere, and in which water and oxygen play a privileged role. But climate modelers and global warming acolytes make parameters such as ozone or CO2 concentrations into end-point references, disregarding the complexity of such interlinked processes. Allotropic states, particularly of conjugated key molecules (such as water and oxygen), are not systematically understood or studied. Ozone is not an end point, but a stage in the oxygen cycle, and cycles exist exactly so that systems may self-regulate via negative feedback. The fact that the enthalpy of the basic allotropic cycle of the atmosphere, which is the main regulatory cycle, has not even officially been balanced (see our analysis and proposed enthalpy balance [7]), is one more proof of how far meteorology and climatology are from grasping their subject. They have not been able to show energetic balance, even in terms of heat theory alone, between absorbed solar energy and released atmospheric heat for as fundamental a cycle as that of the allotropes of water and oxygen.
3.3. Physical chemistry of water
Water is a simple yet complex molecule. It plays a key role in all interlinked systems - in the liquid state and interacting with salts, in the oceans, and in the vapour phase in the troposphere, clouds and the stratosphere. It is an energy carrier in a variety of ways - and not just in the chemical sense of energy. Yet, aside from chemical energy, and the key role played in the atmospheric metabolism of sensible and latent heats through evaporation, little is really understood about the way water functions as an energy carrier. To underline but the main lines:
3.3.1. Noncovalent bonds & salinity
Water forms a complex variety of inter-molecular non-covalent structures, further complexified by the ionic bonds promoted by its salt content. These bonds are an instance of a variable latent heat content that is not associated per se with a phase state. Solubility varies with relative size of anions and cations (and this depends on the chemical composition of the salt and its relative concentration), and as a function of lattice and solvation energies. In their 2001 study, Levitus et al admit that their claim of a substantial melting of sea ice is an estimate "that requires additional assumptions, such as assigning a salinity and temperature to the sea ice that melted" [46]! Once more, this demonstrates the volitional character of the interpretation of the 'data' as evidence for 'global warming'. If it is this arbitrary, even with respect to the matter of salinity, what can be expected on any other matter - such as the chemical composition of the diluted salts, their variation over time, the exact composition of samples, etc?
3.3.2. Role of the oceans as a store of latent heat
Atmospheric metabolism is a complex process driven by the interplay of solar energy, atmospheric latent heat and electricity, and geothermal heat. But the main energy reservoirs in this system are the oceans of this planet, and the entire metabolism of the atmosphere is largely tied into the interaction of solar, atmospheric and geothermal energies with the energy tank of sea water. Land-mass surfaces cannot hold energy for long periods; they radiate most of the energy they absorb - from solar radiation and atmospheric sources - back to the atmosphere during nighttime, as happens with the frigid nights of a hot desert. Like the atmosphere, but with much greater energy density because of higher specific gravity, higher pressure and higher specific heat, sea water is a gigantic reservoir of latent heat in the form of weak non-covalent and ionic-salt bonds. This energy reservoir absorbs solar radiation and converts it into latent heat, releasing some of this latent heat into its surface and to the atmosphere (at the interface) in the form of sensible heat, along with production of water vapour by evaporation. In turn, water vapour carries the rest of the released latent heat into the atmosphere and the clouds.
The estimates of the specific heat (and energy contribution) of oceans are based solely on extrapolations from thermal data. There are no real experimental confirmations. None of these extrapolations takes into account the variation of the content of latent heat in water (liquid or vapour) or seawater (associated, for example, with barometric variations), its varying response to a variable energy magnitude of solar radiation, the electric energy or the electrical radiative states of water, the inter-conversion of latent heat and electric energy. In fact, the greatest mystery for oceanographers and climatologists is how the ocean can absorb solar radiation, store it as latent heat, and thus sequester energy from being expressed as sensible heat. Climatologists refer to this problem as that of the ocean's "removal of heat from direct contact with the atmosphere"... It is the problem of the storage of latent heat in oceanic depths. But even when latent heat is taken into account, it is regarded solely as a function of sensible heat, a function of absorption of sensible heat - in particular, radiative or electromagnetic heat.
The traditional view of the interaction between solar radiation and the oceans is that the latter absorb electromagnetic radiation from the sun down to an average depth of 160m, called the pycnocline depth. Below this depth, temperature correlations do not appear to be responsive to the electromagnetic signals associated with solar radiation (they fail to detect them). The deepest penetrating electromagnetic component is attributed to UV-rays, whereas at the opposite end of the spectrum, infrared rays only penetrate a few millimeters below the surface. When the acolytes of global warming cite the trapping of heat and the infrared production by so-called GHGs, as a major factor in the alteration of climate, one can only smirk since, by accepted mainstream physics, this radiation could not affect in any significant way the mass of ocean water - neither the total mass, nor the mass that lies above the pycnocline, nor even sea-water in the main thermal zone which lies in the upper 2 or 3 meters, above the more familiar thermocline. So, by the tenets of Royal Physics itself, the myth of global warming is patently inconsistent - infrared radiation could never significantly affect the temperature of ocean water.
3.3.3. The 'reinterpretation' of thermohaline circulation
See on this topic Stevenson's criticism of the sheer mind-boggling stupidity of the now mainstream interpretation of thermohaline circulation. To explain thermal turnover inside the oceans, the 'global warming' zealots are obliged to reinterpret 'thermohaline circulation' as a thermal 'subduction' or inversion. Thermohaline circulation is the sinking of cold water, or water rapidly cooled by wind and heat loss (IR radiation), when it is layered over warm water. But with the myth of 'global warming', presto, it becomes warm water which, by change in salinity, not only sinks in water as warm as itself, but in colder water too [11]...
3.3.4. Water vapour as a latent heat carrier
What's valid for saltwater, is a fortiori valid for water vapour. How it forms noncovalent bonds with other molecules, how it rises in the atmosphere as a function of its latent heat content, how it stores this latent heat in its phase state, how its latent heat content is trapped in the formation of clouds - all these basic questions have been insufficiently explored to be understood or incorporated into general climatological models.
When designing their models, climatologists have tended to take into account only thermal radiation, specifically electromagnetic radiation in the IR range. Oceanographers have been more prone to take into account the dominant role of the oceans in climate, by considering the effect of their specific heat on evaporation, the role of convection in heat transfer, and the flux of thermal air masses. Yet parameters for the greater shedding of latent heat by evaporating water at lower altitudes and the base layers of airstreams constitute a critical variable affecting atmospheric temperatures near the ground (where the effect of 'global warming' is said to be detected).
3.3.5. Latent heat distributions and the chemical composition of clouds
As we noted above, the chemical composition of clouds alone is never considered by general circulation models or so-called 'studies' on global warming; and yet the composition of clouds is substantially altered by man-made pollution, as it is by volcanic eruptions, and this altered chemistry changes both the thermal and the electric energy states of clouds - the amount of latent heat they trap in the different phase states and in the noncovalent structure, and the charge density and electric potential of cloud systems.
3.4. A new concept and function of solar radiation: aetherometric contributions
3.4.1. Shortcomings of a 'radiative physics' of atmospheric sensible heat fixated on IR production
The true radiative nature of the interaction of the atmosphere with solar radiation is actually unknown to existing climatology (see below). This shortcoming is not climatology's doing, however - it is a flaw of standard mainstream physics, one that is well summed up by the reign of that 'common sense' notion which holds steadfast that all energy has mass, carries mass and equates to mass. Since the existence of massfree energy is thus proscribed, ignoring its dynamics in physical and chemical processes is not just permissible but in order. The only permissible radiative interactions are those that reduce solar radiation to its electromagnetic byproducts - and this reduction is then generalized by assuming that photons travel through space. Accordingly, the interaction of solar radiation with the atmospheric/ocean/earth system is reduced to the mere absorption and emission of photons. Furthermore, the matter interacting with this electromagnetic radiation, in particular, atmospheric matter, is always presented as a given; its genesis or creation is never understood past the existence of chemical processes of molecular reactions, where one molecule is always the parent of another. The account of the input effect of solar winds is deficient, and altogether lacking is any notion of regulating chemical cycles or, 'god forbid', cosmological processes of the creation of matter. Ionizing electromagnetic radiation - caused, for example, by solar flares or storms - is understood as having an impact on the transmission of electromagnetic signals (noisy E-layer, etc) and the production of electrical phenomena like the Aurora borealis, but not as having any influence on the weather. Beyond that, while there is some understanding of the interaction of 'synchrotron radiation' and UV photons with stratospheric gases, the bulk of the treatment fixates on IR photons and their role in conveying atmospheric sensible heat.
Typical treatments begin by assuming that the energy balance is exclusively radiative in the usual electromagnetic sense. Even without introducing a new physics of energy radiation, it is clear that this is the wrong assumption, since convection, at least, plays a role in the heat transfer from the troposphere to the stratosphere - not to speak of adiabatic lift or the role of molecularly bound latent heat. And conventional understanding of the interaction of solar radiation with the Earth's atmosphere begins by assuming that the atmosphere is transparent to 'solar radiation', and that, in essence, it gets its warmth -
1. From the trapping of IR photons 'reflected' from the Earth's surface, or radiated during nighttime, from that surface or from ground atmospheric 'greenhouse gases', amongst which water vapour.
2. From IR photons released from the ocean's surface, ie sensible heat released from the oceans.
3. From the release of the latent heat of seawater, particularly along coastal lines, through evaporation and convection of water vapour.
However, the fact of the matter is that the atmosphere is not transparent to solar radiation, nor is it primarily driven by IR heat. This general problem underlines the lack of a proper physical and chemical understanding of the complexity and systematicity of the processes involved in weather formation and climate change. The major cause of this lack is a total miscomprehension of the nature of energy, coupled to a willful resistance to consider, and inability to understand, the world of massfree energy.
In fact, the present authors contend that there is a more general, basic and widespread error still, which Royal Physics and 'global warming' zealots more regularly commit, a hidden act of faith not consistent with science itself, and thus not consistent with good physics: when pontificating about atmospheric energy, they focus only on temperature, which is merely an indicator of sensible heat (kinetic and radiative), and ignore: (1) the physics of latent heat, and what is effectively meant by the specific latent heat of sea water, and how latent heat is mostly generated from the capture of solar energy; and (2) electrical processes of energy conversion, not just those of lightning but also those of massfree electric radiation. Even the relation between atmospheric energy and pressure is generally omitted.
These authors further contend that the nature of solar radiation is not electromagnetic, and that light, photons and their various 'rays', are a local production. Furthermore, this local production of blackbody photons requires threshold densities of matter, the acceleration of this matter by 'electric fields', and a mechanism for charge deceleration or stoppage. Remove any of these three conditions and you have no photon production at all; but you still have transmission of electric massfree energy across 'that space', and thus transmission of energy - but not in electromagnetic form.
Finally, even the atmospheric variations in net monopolar charge, its concentration in clouds, or even traditional electric interactions - such as electrostatic and electrodynamic ones - are barely understood in ways that actually fit with the electrical facts of cyclonic and anti-cyclonic systems [26]. Here, too, an excessive reliance upon the theory of ionization has led to a great deal of confusion about charge accumulation and separation processes.
The oceans also interact with solar ambipolar radiation to absorb all that was not absorbed by the atmosphere, storing it as latent heat at high pressure and then releasing it, by conversion into sensible heat. The process is mostly driven by solar radiation, but there is also a terrestrial component ('geothermal heat', see below), indeed one that is even more poorly studied. Furthermore, the behaviour of oceans, from the viewpoint of an atmospheric system, is that of a gigantic tank of energy, closer to a blackbody having the internal properties of eutectic salts, than to a mere relay mechanism in the metabolism of radiant sensible heat.
The result of our contentions - derived from original research in atmospheric physics - is that the interactions of water and fundamental atmospheric gases with nonelectromagnetic solar radiation, and the physics and chemistry of latent heat, cannot be inferred from variations of sensible heat alone, nor are they a consequence of the latter. Rather, production of electromagnetic 'radiation' and generation of fluxes of sensible heat with attendant temperature variations, are the outcome of the underlying physical processes driven by solar non-electromagnetic radiation, its conversion into latent heat and the transfer of that latent heat. So, the obvious question is: without understanding the real nature of solar radiation and the energy processes that convert that radiation into latent heat and the latter into sensible heat, how can the science of meteorology ever become a science?
3.4.2. The real physical nature of solar radiation
Let's right away address IR photon production in the atmosphere. Unlike the tenets of accepted electromagnetic theory, the present authors must agree with Nikola Tesla and Wilhelm Reich: neither do IR photons reach the atmosphere from the Sun, nor is most of the energy reflected from the Earth's surface in the form of photons, or in electromagnetic form. The facts of the matter are substantially different, indeed: solar radiation is electric, massfree and nondispersive - what we have called ambipolar radiation [47-48]. There is a substantial capture of solar ambipolar energy throughout the E-layer, the stratosphere and the troposphere, ranging from 28 to 100 keV, which drives the convective activity, the vaporization of water and the latent heat transfer, as well as the natural cycle of formation and dissociation of water, oxygen, ozone and hydrogen [49]. Formation of water and oxygen are, in this cycle, the very steps whereby the bulk of solar energy is transformed into blue light and into IR photons, ie radiant sensible heat. In fact, it is the very formation of oxygen which is the natural source of IR photons. A variety of other blackbody photons are absorbed and released in this cyclic process, but its understanding requires a proper grasp of the nature of solar radiation and its true electrical potential and energy.
Tesla was quite correct in arguing that solar radiation was not electromagnetic, but electric and filamentary. But he was not able to provide the physical and analytical links between this radiation and the spectrum of blackbody photons [48, 50]. So, he failed to explain how the main mode of that solar electric radiation corresponds exactly to the production of blue light, when that electric radiation interacts with free electrons or excitable 'outer' electrons in the 'orbital shells' of atmospheric molecules. No blackbody photons, IR or otherwise, reach the Earth from the Sun, or 'reflect' from the land surface or the seas. What reaches the Earth and bounces off its surface, land or water, is electrical radiation of massfree filamentary charges. Blackbody photons are always and only produced as a residual of the interaction of this radiation with massbound charges, ie with electrons, protons and molecular ions.
The reflected - and, in the process, refracted - ambipolar radiation is attenuated in electric potential, and that natural process displaces the residual photon mode towards the IR part of the spectrum. In particular, due to the seas' constant agitation, sea surfaces act as 'displacement' concentrators of solar atmospheric energy through their reflective and refractive properties An ordinary confirmation of this concentration are the multiple reflections of the sun, low on the horizon, from a sea surface at the end of a clear anticyclonic day. These reflections may tan or burn the skin even more effectively than the midday sun precisely because they multiply the radiative energy reaching the surface (converging lens), and more heat is absorbed over a wider surface. Yet, a single one of those reflections is never as intense as is the solar source itself - as seen by the fact that each reflection displaces the blue solar mode of visible photons towards the green, yellow, red, IR portions of the spectrum. It is here that CO2 plays one of its roles (the ground level role), by absorbing the attenuated ambipolar radiation and releasing sensible heat in radiative form (ie IR photons).
Tesla also knew that one could change the functioning of an inductor to generate either (or mostly) local photons (electromagnetic 'radiation'), or filamentary electric radiation ('resonance loading'). A true Tesla transmitter does not function by way of the principles discovered by James Clerk Maxwell, Heinrich Hertz and Enrico Marconi for the generation and transmission of electromagnetic signals. Its objective is not to generate an electromagnetic signal or optimalize it. Its objective is to propagate longitudinally an electric signal under conditions of resonance [51]. A target may or may not, then eventually resolve that electric energy into a local electromagnetic signal, but the energy propagation is, otherwise, electromagnetically silent or 'dark'.
3.4.3. Understanding the interaction of ambipolar radiation with pollutants and the generation of free-radicals
Because it lacks a correct understanding of the physical nature of solar radiation, mainstream physics is condemned to a deficient grasp of the production and absorption of blackbody photons, and thus to an incorrect physical chemistry of water, oxygen-ozone and atmospheric pollutants. Hence, too, it is barred from understanding the interaction of ambipolar radiation with pollutants and the generation of free-radicals.
A central case in point is that of ozone. Perhaps the single greatest myth of mediatic geoscience is that stratospheric ozone protects the earth from harmful UV radiation. But enthalpy balance and a painstaking analysis of energy and radiation shows that, in fact, ozone does not absorb harmful UV. It emits near UV (336 nm), and does so upon its formation from atomic oxygen (3O), or oxygen and atomic oxygen (O2+O) [7]. What absorbs energy are the monoatomic states of oxygen, and the energy they absorb is not 'photonic', but ambipolar radiation near 71 keV [7, 49]. Once formed, however, ozone is capable of absorbing near UV radiation at 315 nm - but this radiation is emitted locally from free electrons, and does not come from the Sun. If this absorption takes place (1) in the presence of atomic hydrogen, and (2) in the presence of solar ambipolar radiation, so that further energy absorption (of ambipolar radiation) may occur at 48 keV (near solar mode) and 28 keV, then both water vapour and oxygen are formed together, as ozone is photodissociated by that 315nm UV photon. The result, as we have already said above, is the release of IR and blue light photons. Thus ozone is a step in the production of water and oxygen - their direct parent. Water vapour may be the parent of monoatomic oxygen and its main metastables, but the parent of water and oxygen is ozone.
Furthermore, the solar energy that the atmosphere and all living beings need protecting from is not 'solar far-UV', but ambipolar radiation of energy greater than 79.4 keV. The interaction of this energy with excitable electrons locally releases far and vacuum UV (or extreme UV, EUV) photons, which, in essence, are absorbed by (molecular) oxygen and atomic oxygen. In the course of 'protecting us from harmful components of solar radiation', it is oxygen that gives rise to toxic species, monoatomic oxygen and eventually ozone; thus oxygen, molecular or monoatomic is ozone's parent in turn. The entire cycle is driven by solar ambipolar radiation.
In light of the preceding, to say that 'stratospheric ozone over the Antarctica has decreased over a given period of time x' is not proof of anything; it could be due to reactions with pollutants that bind ozone in acid form or those that regenerate oxygen, but it may just as well be due to variations in the 71keV band of solar ambipolar radiation - a decrease permitting therefore more stratospheric oxygen to exist in the monoatomic state. Since the latter was not studied in conjunction with ozone, nothing can be said intelligently about such a shunt. And since it is not the only possible shunt (for instance, less ozone might exist because less monoatomic oxygen was produced and conveyed to the stratosphere, because, in turn, ambipolar solar radiation in the 85 to 99 keV range also decreased [49]), claims of a 'hole in the Antarctica ozone' and 'consequent increased melanoma risk of skin exposure', etc, patati-patata, are only further instances of media-driven alarmist faddism, senseless scientifically, but with plenty of logic when it comes to the jobs of Antarctic climatologists, or the profits of media empires and sunscreen industries.
These facts are not State secrets. Foukal said as much when he wrote back in 1990:
"Changes in solar UV emissions might cause a variation of 1 to 2% in total global ozone. This could account for much of the global decrease in stratospheric ozone measured by satellites between 1978 and 1985, a period of mostly declining solar activity" [52]
3.5. The dominant solar control of weather
Here much too much could be said. It begins perhaps with all those studies that never succeeded in understanding the complex variation of the motion of planets and the solar system, nor the different solar cycles caused by distinct motion components, nor the effect of these cycles on the variations in the intensity and spectral composition of solar emissions. Almost everything in this chapter of climatology needs to be redone, since the sun does not determine terrestrial weather, but drives its patterns and controls or modulates its responses. Yet, so little is understood about this by Official Science, and the pace of the investigation is so slow, that it truly makes one cringe. In fact, solar-minded climatologists are largely shunned by Official Science; they are an eccentricity of climatology.
This ties in with the subject of the previous section because, in still another sense, the problem begins with not understanding the physical nature of solar radiation and thus not understanding the variations in intensity or spectral energy of this radiation. Yet, a displacement of solar ambipolar radiation towards emissions having electric energy greater than 50 KeV would result in a greater transfer of energy from the sun to the atmosphere, and would readily promote UV photon production in the atmosphere. As Landscheidt remarks, it is well established (see the references that he provides [43]) that -
"change in the UV radiation of the Sun is much greater than in the range of visible radiation. The UV range of the [electromagnetic] spectrum lies between 100Å and 3800Å. Wavelengths below 1500Å are called extreme ultraviolet, EUV. The variation in radiation between extrema of the 11-year sunspot cycle reaches 35% in the EUV range, 20% at 1500Å and 7% around 2500Å. At wavelengths above 2500Å, the variation reaches still 2%. At the time of energetic solar eruptions, UV radiation increases up to 16%."
Where are these variations taken into account in the models that predict what they assume, namely, 'global warming'? Landscheidt provides an answer to that question as well:
"There is not even an attempt to model such complex climate details, as GCMs are too coarse for such purposes. When K. Hasselmann (a leading greenhouse protagonist) was asked why GCMs do not allow for the stratosphere's warming by the sun's ultraviolet radiation and its impact on the circulation in the troposphere, he answered: "This aspect is too complex to incorporate it into the models."
So, in this chapter of forcing climatology to study what it should be studying, a first entry would be an effective taking into account of the variation of the so-called solar irradiance constant caused by such solar features as 'faculae' [52]. A second entry would further propose that the solar 10.7 cm radio flux has been abused as a proxy for the UV flux associated with solar radiation, to paraphrase Fred Singer [53]. Further, we claim this is a double abuse, since the ultimate cause of that EUV flux is solar ambipolar radiation greater than 79.4 keV. In both of these entries, it is actual research into basic science that is missing. Yet, the myths of global warming rely upon the glorification of this absence.
Decadal ranges of variation in the irradiance 'constant', spanning 3W/m2, or 0.22% of the mean value of that 'constant', are observed by satellite radiometers. The usual calculation is that 30% of this energy is reflected, and only one quarter of the remainder absorbed (on the order of 239 W/m2), with the result that the variation in absorbed energy only amounts to 0.53 W/m2 [43]. If one accepts that global warming reaches 2.4±0.4 W/m2, the variation of the solar 'constant' only accounts for one fifth of this magnitude. Even inference of the "solar radiative forcing change" as "slightly less than 1W/m2" [54] cannot account for that accepted value of global warming, nor for more than 0.27 deg C out of the claimed warming by 0.5 to 0.6 deg C [55]. The conclusion of 'global warming' advocates is, of course, that the remainder of the warming must be man-made.
This is something of a false conundrum, since energy reflection varies for land masses, oceans and ice cover, and to convert watts per meter squared into degrees of atmospheric temperature is a relatively arbitrary process with a range of 0.3 to 1.4 deg C per W/m2. As Landscheidt puts it, if one chooses the mean value at 0.85 deg C/W/m2, the solar variation of 0.53 W/m2 accounts for 0.425 deg C of change. A mean value of 0.55 deg C/W/m2 would suffice completely if the absorbed variation was "slightly less than 1 watt", as Soon, Baliunas et al proposed. Yet, all these researchers conclude to the need to postulate a positive feedback mechanism that enhances climate response to solar 'forcings', Soon and his group going as far as proposing a "climate hypersensitivity model" where substantially more absorption of solar radiation occurs in the stratosphere [55]. This is only necessary if one can establish the conversion rate to be ca. 0.27 deg C/W/m2. Yet, simple thought suffices to suggest that this rate must vary with varying atmospheric pressure and gas density. Moreover, with respect to latent heat, one cannot make rigid inferences about its quantity on the basis of some of its byproducts, temperature and radiant photon energy. Landscheidt quotes a profound remark of Juan G. Roederer relating precisely to this fact - a vintage aetherometric fact that is also obvious to non-aetherometric scientists, and is pregnant with still more consequences than even they suspect - and he employs it to argue for the existence of positive feedback processes:
"In a highly nonlinear system with large reservoirs of latent energy such as the atmosphere-ocean-biosphere, global redistributions of energy can be triggered by very small inputs, a process that depends far more on their spatial and temporal pattern than on their magnitude" [56]
For example, since ozone formation releases near UV photons, but ozone itself does not release blue and IR photons unless certain conditions are present (those needed for the production of water and oxygen), low ground ozone is a heat trap - retaining, as latent energy, the sensible heat that must be released in the course of the allotropic cycle. Hence, there is another aspect pertaining to the trapping of heat that is amplified in surface atmospheres by man-made pollution: namely the role of atmospheric free-radical pollutants in trapping latent heat, prominent amongst which is the role of ground-level ozone.
But on an even more basic level - one that does not need to invoke any aetherometric knowledge of ambipolar radiation, or an understanding of the variations in UV photon production by solar radiation - a full or complete account is yet to be made of the relative impact on weather systems and climate of variables such as the 21.33 year sunspot cycle, the 9 to 12 year oscillations of long and short solar orbitals in the plane of the ecliptic, the quasi-biennial oscillation of stratospheric winds [57-58] and its corresponding counterpart in the Southern Hemisphere.
In this context, we should cite as one of the important analytical contributions the rather Aspdenian study by Landscheidt of the relation between variations in solar radiation, solar rotation and orbital angular momentum in the plane of the ecliptic. He identified a contribution of the latter, on the order of 25%, to the total solar angular momentum [59], and has, for more than two decades, been proposing a transfer of angular momentum from the Sun's orbital in the ecliptic to the Sun's rotation around its axis. Foukal suggested that increases in production of UV and X-ray photons associated with stellar radiation could be a consequence of the differential rotation of the solar chromosphere (fastest at the equator), ie the process behind cyclic formation of sunspots and faculae [52]. He further suggested that only stars with high rates of rotation had high energy photons associated with their radiation spectra. Landscheidt's proposal explains what feeds the cyclic changes in that solar rotation, and serves as its periodic accelerator. This is of great consequence, first because the process in question is likely the main factor altering the intensity and spectral composition of solar radiation, and secondly because, in terms of aetherometric theory, the motion of the Sun in the plane of the ecliptic is matched by a periodic motion of the Sun and the entire solar system transversely to the ecliptic so that the total angular momentum of the Sun is a still greater quantity than heretofore suggested, and thus constitutes a still greater reservoir for momentum transfer.
3.6. Understanding the nature of geothermal energy and its modulating influence upon weather
If, to the preceding, one should add that virtually nothing is understood about geothermal energy - how it is generated within the earth, trapped in its insulating, high-pressure mineral structure (whose understanding has been reduced to the mantric formula of "a molten or semi-molten iron-nickel planetarian core"), etc - then it becomes apparent how nearly irrelevant are all the accepted, mainstream climatological models and their pretensions to encompassing an actual and factual science of the atmosphere. In fact, the processes at the core of the Earth are likely not that different from those at the core of the Sun, and there is a net, non-negligible contribution of these processes to heating ocean and land masses - a contribution which is simply not taken into account. Even as volcanic aerosols contribute to surface cooling, their release of sensible heat contributes to atmospheric warming.
3.7. An integral account of atmospheric energy
The atmosphere is not an isolated system, and neither is its energy content reducible to sensible heat, let alone radiant sensible heat. As Roederer puts it, the atmosphere is part of a nonlinear system also involving land and ocean masses, and their joint interaction with solar radiation and geothermal energy. This system is complex, as it contains energy in various compartments: radiant sensible heat; molecular kinetic energy of thermal drift (convection currents); latent heat of phase state, conformational or noncovalent; but also electric energy. And the latter includes both electric energy in the form of the kinetic energy of massbound charges in 'static' or 'dynamic' interactions, and ambipolar energy either solar-sourced or radiatively released by cooperative emission from those massbound charges [60]. Likewise, a more comprehensive understanding of latent heat is needed, all the more as its role in the atmosphere and oceans is recognized as being a primary one by meteorologists:
"The atmosphere as a whole acts like a steam engine [as] heating is effected at high-pressure on the surface of the ground (...). (...) The heat used to evaporate water remains in the water-vapour molecule as 'latent heat', which is liberated when the water-vapour condenses again [to form clouds or fog] (...). This liberation of latent heat is one of the most important sources of energy in the free atmosphere. (...) The turbulent transfer of latent heat (...) obeys the same laws as that for sensible heat and is measured by the product of the exchange coefficient A, the vertical gradient of water-vapour content ((...) known as specific humidity), and the latent heat of vaporization." [61] .
Though recognized as a major energy compartment in the atmosphere and the 'hydrosphere', the understanding of latent heat is limited to the heat of phase, or the energy associated with phase states. Obviously, from a climatologist's viewpoint, the accent on 'latent heat' is placed with respect to its metabolic cycle of conversion into sensible heat, and particularly as this concerns the energy of water in the vapour phase. But we could also describe 'latent heat' as the 'intrinsic potential energy' of a variety of air molecules - allocated to their rotary and vibratory states and which increases with more rarefied phases of Matter - or just as well to the noncovalent bond energies of such molecules.
We have already pointed out the existence of natural processes that withdraw energy from being expressed through thermally radiative or convective states, and discussed as well Tesla's original claim that one could make an inductor generate either a predominantly electromagnetic emission or a predominantly ambipolar emission ('filamentary current waves' [51]). And even if meteorology were ruthlessly ruled by a physics of electromagnetic radiation or a thermodynamic theory dominated by sensible heat considerations, there is still that other energy component - the electrical one - which, in the atmosphere and in the oceans, is completely ignored by climatological and meteorological models (really, doctrines). Atmospheric energy is not exclusively distributed in the form of sensible heat, nor by a closed cycle of sensible and latent heats. Electrical interactions are another source of energy and present a conversion of solar radiation, as well as direct conversion into latent heat. A true atmospheric physics must take into account (1) that component of atmospheric radiation which is present in electric form, both incoming (solar and terrestrial) and outgoing (eg sprites); (2) separate bursts of solar ionization from variation of solar irradiation, and take the former into account in any energy budget, including diurnal variation of the distribution of various ion species [26]; (3) the energy discharges of lightning and electrical storms, including the electrical resonance of the earth; but also (4) the ambipolar radiation of massfree charges cooperatively emitted by atmospheric gases, water vapour in particular, and its frequency tuning by acidification [60]. Until a comprehensive account of all forms of sensible heat (radiant and convective), latent heat (of state, as internal energy or noncovalent) and electric energy (massbound kinetic energy and massfree radiation) is made, there will be no science of weather and climate, no meteorology or climatology that can claim to be a science and is able to predict climate change and hurricane paths. Until then, it will remain what it is - a media spectacle of pseudoscientists in the pay of the State and corporate interests, an Official pseudo-Science.