You can hold whatever position you like, it’s still wrong. Any resemblance is largely superficial. They study entirely different things. Climate science is interested in studying influences like radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, sulfate aerosols, surface albedo changes, the carbon cycle and carbon cycle feedbacks, ocean heat uptake, polar ice reductions and ice-albedo feedback, lapse-rate feedback, and the earth’s total energy budget as a balance between total solar irradiation and the earth’s blackbody radiation. None of that is of interest in telling you whether it’s going to be a nice day tomorrow or if it’s going to rain on your picnic.
And you’re still hung up on this business of “force”. I think possibly you have it confused with radiative climate forcing.
Thanks for the child’s primer on “where electricity comes from”, but that doesn’t answer the question. You just avoided the question instead of answering it, in that sentence which makes very little sense and is, at best, very badly worded. And joules are a unit of energy – they aren’t “converted” to anything.
The question, again, is where your mechanical notion of force as F = ma comes in to the picture when I turn on a light bulb. For a 100-watt bulb, what is the mass and what exactly is being accelerated when electrical energy is converted to heat and light? How is this a useful concept?
There’s actually a theoretical answer to that and you’re not getting it, but it isnt a useful concept in helping our understanding of how a light bulb works. My point was to show that any such perspective, should you be able to come up with one, is completely irrelevant to understanding radiative forcing and climate.