Talk:Global atmospheric electrical circuit

[Untitled]
Quote: "Thunderstorms generate an electrical potential difference between the earth's surface and the ionosphere, mainly by means of lightning". I would say that thunder and lightning are the result of the potential difference, not the cause of it. Biscuittin (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Biscuittin has misunderstood; the article refers to the combined effect of the thunderstorms generating a potential difference that is universal, and present everywhere, even well away from thunderstorm regions. This is the very basis of the global electrical circuit concept, and should not be confused with the local potential difference generated within thunderclouds. The article references explain these aspects.

A few thoughts
First, the article is rubbish. I really needs a re-write by someone who honestly understands the subject. One key point was reversing the earth vs atmospheric charge, where the earth is largely positive and the atmosphere negative. Another is the ionosphere is charged by the *sun*, not thunderstorms, they can pump it a bit and that charge then is released, thunderstorms do not charge the ionosphere any more than my flatulence does. Finally, there are telluric currents that do a whopping lot. I learned of those the hard way, but being nearly knocked from a ladder when I rediscovered ground current differentials that are caused by telluric currents. That all said, I'm far from an expert or even conversationally conversant in this particular subject, I only know enough to hurt myself and dispel nonsense in this article as it stands. Hopefully, tomorrow, I'll get a chance to search out which desk can help with this and turn the article into a factual one. As it stands now, it gives rubbish a bad name.Wzrd1 (talk) 08:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

From another Reviewer who works in the field: I totally agree with the above: this article is rubbish nd should be removed from Wikipedia immediately. One needs only look at the many other publically accessible literature to see this article is not based on science. See for instance The global circuit, E.A. Bering, III, A. A. Few and J. R. Benbrook, Physics Today, 51(10), 24-30, 1998 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.179.147.235 (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

a better explanation for the net charge difference
http://plasmasphere.nasa.gov/84.248.86.252 (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No. This does not explain charge distribution in the atmosphere. Rather, it explains (very well) the charge distribution above the atmosphere (i.e. from the ionosphere to the space above)! Karl Missouri (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

- a much better explanation:

http://www.gz-bichwil.ch/de/docs/studien/earthwaver-studie--chevalier--source-of-earths-potential.pdf

This link not longer works, as of 5-Dec-2016. Also, the hosting site does not seem specialized in atmospheric science.

84.248.86.252 (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume II, Chapter 9, has a very good explanation, accessible e.g. here:

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html

It addresses the concerns stated above. It also proves that the article is not rubbish, but rather correct: The Earth is negative compared to the high atmosphere, and this potential difference is generated by thunderstorms (i.e. thunderstorms are not discharging this electrical field, but keeping it up). Karl Missouri (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

… positively charged relative to the earth
The author likely ignored his/her college course of electric theory. The electric charge is a conserved quantity and needs not to be measured “relative to” anything. It’s the electric potential which needs a kind reference zero. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)