Is Lightning a form of Space Weather and Climate Speculation

Picked this information up from SpaceWeather.com. The link to the actual source article is Here.

The following summary from SpaceWeather.com gives a brief outline.

A new study published in today's edition of the Environmental Research Letters finds that lightning rates over Europe are modulated by the solar wind. The results contradict some previous studies, and the physical mechanism linking lightning and solar wind is uncertain. Nevertheless, the research appears credible and worthy of follow-up with global studies beyond

I'm not clear as to whether this relates to the electric universe theory or not so if there are any experts out there feel free to jump in.

The point I would like to put up for consideration though, is does the continued discovery of forces that affect our climate significantly undermine climate science and is it still appropriate to determine "Carbon Pollution" as the driver of a climate system we clearly do not fully understand.

Lightning a form of Space Weather is certainly a new one. Another recently discovered process whereby Noctilucent Clouds affects weather in the USA is also an eye opener. The following is quoted from the article regarding said clouds;

"we have found that the winter air temperature in Indianapolis, Indiana, is well correlated with the frequency of noctilucent clouds over Antarctica."

This is the link to the article regarding Unexpected Teleconnections in Noctilucent Clouds

For me it seems clearer and clearer that the climate system is so little understood that any determination relating to manmade climate warming is wildly premature.

I'd appreciate your thoughts ATS.

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell

Very interesting article. I read the linked article earlier today after finding it on spaceweather. It just shows that many things are related within this solar system. People who denied the relationship because of lack of evidence or because someone made up the false assumption with no actual evidence that they weren't related should read this article. I didn't believe those who said that our weather was not related to the sun's activities. There will inevitably need to be more research to understand this better. Remember that the action of lightning and thunder is related to the release of droplets.

S&F. It is good that you made this thread.

a reply to: rickymouse

All good mate.

Well said and I believe you are correct.

One of the things I find the most disappointing about the whole discussion about climate science is the manner in which climate scientists and others discuss the issue as a fait accompli.

I believe that this attitude does undermine the whole premise of what science and specifically climate science should be about. Really, discoveries such as these should be significant WOW moments that should drive the imagination and enthusiasm to question what other complex relationships out there really do impact on our planet and ultimately our societies. This in turn will likely lead to a deeper understanding of what the climate system really is.

I do know that this prevailing attitude of a fait accompli is not the exclusive domain of climate scientists. Many times over the last 50 years or so particle physicists have also declared their work to be nearly at an end, only to discover that erm... there might be another 80% of the universe out there we know absolutely nothing about.

Perhaps scientists are just too keen and quick on the conclusion trigger.

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell

a reply to: myselfaswell

...does the continued discovery of forces that affect our climate significantly undermine climate science and is it still appropriate to determine "Carbon Pollution" as the driver of a climate system we clearly do not fully understand.

It's complex system analysis. In other words, everything is connected, and interacts. Everything.

Once the dogmatists let go of their 'single-cause-and-effect' illusions, we'll no doubt "discover" numerous more factors that affect both weather and climate. Please don't make the mistake of thinking that any such discovery undermines the importance of other factors. It's all about complex relationships.

a reply to: soficrow

Soficrow

As per Rickymouse, I agree with your assertion and believe you are correct.

Perhaps it's more appropriate to consider that it's not so much an undermining of science, more a reinforcement that the current scientific approach is failing in its' relevance ?. This would be demonstrated by it's inability to see beyond it's singular "field specific" purpose, perhaps ?. Seems like a reasonable enough proposition to me.

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell

a reply to: myselfaswell

I'm not clear as to whether this relates to the electric universe theory or not so if there are any experts out there feel free to jump in.

I'm not an expert on EUT, far from it - i'm not even particularly knowledgable about it...but if EUT is accurate, lightning might be a completely missunderstood phenomena.

It may be that lightning is direct and clear evidence of an EU.

What if, lightning was the power source for planets?

A 'dead' planet is basically a rock floating dead in space and has no lightning..an active, alive planet does have lighning and electrical discharges...where do these electrical discharges go? Directly into the planet.

Could it be that we can think of lightning as a delivery mechanism for a planets energy supply? The supply originating from the Universe, from space itself delivered to the planet via lightning.

Powering everything from planetary core interactions, Quantum forces, strong and weak nuclear atomic forces, life force (we are electric) cell division etc, orbital and gravitational forces, magnetism...everything?

All delivered by the EU's planetary equivalent of a transformer and booster cable set...lightning.

a reply to: MysterX

MysterX

As for an EU, wouldn't have a clue.

As I noted in another threat the other day, particle physicists have only recently, relatively speaking, discovered the likely probability of dark matter. This dark matter potentially has the capacity to be a universal medium, much like air for example, albeit with significantly less density. If indeed that potential is the case, then one could reason that a body, with potential, passing through such a medium would generate an electric charge. Subsequent to that possibility, one could also reason, then, that any such charge will actively seek, possibly in the absence of observation, a source of equal and opposite charge with which it can equalise.

Personally I'm on my third glass of red, so yeah, as I said, clueless.

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell

a reply to: myselfaswell

...it's not so much an undermining of science, more a reinforcement that the current scientific approach is failing in its' relevance ?. This would be demonstrated by it's inability to see beyond it's singular "field specific" purpose, perhaps ?.

The current scientific approach involves multi-disciplinary teams of highly educated scientists working together on complex systems analysis. The "field specific" guys are dinosaurs in this context - and very much behind the times. Not to say systems analysis has it nailed yet, but they're working on it.

a reply to: myselfaswell

Yeah...but won't we both feel very smug and self satisfied when they show we were right!

We can bore people and use it as an anecdote for years to come, and exclaim: 'But that's not even the good bit..no, the good bit is, i came up with the theory when i was half sloshed on wine!'