Remember me
▼ Content

Potential Effects of Broadcast Induced REP on Climate Change



Page 5 of 7<<<34567>
09-11-2018 00:21
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
VLF Transmitter Induced Effects in the Ionosphere and Magnetosphere

"Given ambient terrestrial ionosphere and magnetosphere magnetic field and electron density values, VLF fixed frequency transmissions can not only pass through the medium but can under certain conditions trigger a variety of natural stimulated wave emissions, often interacting with existing particle populations in these regions.

Observations exploring these physical mechanisms have been and continue to be conducted both from the ground and in-situ within the ionosphere and magnetosphere. Section 3 of Parrot and Zaslavski (1996) provides a mid 1990s snapshot review of observations and mechanisms.

Work in the 1960s and 1970s found that during sufficiently long keydown transmitter periods, triggered electron precipitation and stimulated wave events could occur, known as Trimpi effects [(Helliwell et al., 1973); see also the observational and theoretical reviews by Helliwell (1988) and Omura et al. (1991)]. These findings, other electron precipitation observations (Imhof et al.,
1986; Inan et al., 1982, 1984, 1985; Sauvaud et al., 2006; Vampola, 1987, 1990) and later theoretical work (e.g. Abel and Thorne, 1998) led to the realization that VLF waves of sufficient amplitude might be useful in modifying the radiation belt electron populations through so-called Radiation Belt Remediation (Inan et al., 2003; Rodger et al., 2006), consisting of precipitation by alteration of particle pitch angle and therefore lowering of the minimum bounce altitude (2nd adiabatic invariant)."

Anthropogenic Space Weather - https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.03390.pdf
Edited on 09-11-2018 00:21
09-11-2018 00:26
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
"New observations from Van Allen Probes wave and particle instruments have provided high fidelity equatorial plane in-situ measurements of ground based VLF transmissions out to >24,000 km radial distance (L∼2.8), at the edge of what Foster et al. (2016) term the VLF bubble. VLF transmissions that propagate to these locations are strong and nearly omnipresent due to
50 T. I. Gombosi et al. naval military operational considerations for submarine communications as mentioned previously.

Initial investigations point to these strong VLF fixed frequency transmissions of anthropogenic origin as playing a potentially important role in shaping dynamic responses of the radiation belts, primarily through interactions with wave amplification processes for those coherent plasma wave modes known to be highly resonant with relativistic particles outside the plasmasphere."

Anthropogenic Space Weather - https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.03390.pdf
09-11-2018 00:31
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
"These intensifications occurred at the radial location where the ground based VLF transmitter frequency bands were near half the local electron cyclotron frequency, under conditions appropriate for the generation of whistler-mode stimulated emissions. The resultant electric field intensity in the transmitter frequency band was observed up to 100,000 times background.

Sharp gradients in highly-relativistic outer zone electron fluxes were also observed to be spatially coincident with the region of VLF enhancement, suggestive of the significant space weather effects of VLF transmitters in defining the earthward extent of outer radiation belt "killer electrons" (e.g. Baker et al., 2014; Foster et al., 2016).

In the region at the outer extent of the VLF bubble, beyond the contracted plasmapause, interactions involving signals from ground based VLF transmitters have a high cyclotron resonant potential to cause energetic electron precipitation, wave amplification, and/or other associated effects."

Anthropogenic Space Weather - https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.03390.pdf
Edited on 09-11-2018 00:32
09-11-2018 01:27
James___
★★★☆☆
(736)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
VLF Transmitter Induced Effects in the Ionosphere and Magnetosphere

"Given ambient terrestrial ionosphere and magnetosphere magnetic field and electron density values, VLF fixed frequency transmissions can not only pass through the medium but can under certain conditions trigger a variety of natural stimulated wave emissions, often interacting with existing particle populations in these regions.

Observations exploring these physical mechanisms have been and continue to be conducted both from the ground and in-situ within the ionosphere and magnetosphere. Section 3 of Parrot and Zaslavski (1996) provides a mid 1990s snapshot review of observations and mechanisms.

Work in the 1960s and 1970s found that during sufficiently long keydown transmitter periods, triggered electron precipitation and stimulated wave events could occur, known as Trimpi effects [(Helliwell et al., 1973); see also the observational and theoretical reviews by Helliwell (1988) and Omura et al. (1991)]. These findings, other electron precipitation observations (Imhof et al.,
1986; Inan et al., 1982, 1984, 1985; Sauvaud et al., 2006; Vampola, 1987, 1990) and later theoretical work (e.g. Abel and Thorne, 1998) led to the realization that VLF waves of sufficient amplitude might be useful in modifying the radiation belt electron populations through so-called Radiation Belt Remediation (Inan et al., 2003; Rodger et al., 2006), consisting of precipitation by alteration of particle pitch angle and therefore lowering of the minimum bounce altitude (2nd adiabatic invariant)."

Anthropogenic Space Weather - https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.03390.pdf


led to the realization that VLF waves of sufficient amplitude might be useful in modifying the radiation belt electron populations through so-called Radiation Belt Remediation (Inan et al., 2003; Rodger et al., 2006), consisting of precipitation by alteration of particle pitch angle and therefore lowering of the minimum bounce altitude


Mr. Carlson, can you clarify what they mean by the minimum bounce altitude and what the right conditions are?
Is the bounce altitude relative to the ionosphere or the radiation belt?
Could the change in bounce altitude be an effect of dispersion theory? In this aspect trapped solar radiation might repel a wave of sufficient amplitude. Is that what they mean by under the right conditions?
What's not mentioned is how the density of electrons which have a wave/particle duality can bounce (disperse) VLFs.
https://goo.gl/images/ZpsmBH
Edited on 09-11-2018 01:44
09-11-2018 02:03
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
James___ wrote:
Lewis Carlson wrote:
VLF Transmitter Induced Effects in the Ionosphere and Magnetosphere

"Given ambient terrestrial ionosphere and magnetosphere magnetic field and electron density values, VLF fixed frequency transmissions can not only pass through the medium but can under certain conditions trigger a variety of natural stimulated wave emissions, often interacting with existing particle populations in these regions.

Observations exploring these physical mechanisms have been and continue to be conducted both from the ground and in-situ within the ionosphere and magnetosphere. Section 3 of Parrot and Zaslavski (1996) provides a mid 1990s snapshot review of observations and mechanisms.

Work in the 1960s and 1970s found that during sufficiently long keydown transmitter periods, triggered electron precipitation and stimulated wave events could occur, known as Trimpi effects [(Helliwell et al., 1973); see also the observational and theoretical reviews by Helliwell (1988) and Omura et al. (1991)]. These findings, other electron precipitation observations (Imhof et al.,
1986; Inan et al., 1982, 1984, 1985; Sauvaud et al., 2006; Vampola, 1987, 1990) and later theoretical work (e.g. Abel and Thorne, 1998) led to the realization that VLF waves of sufficient amplitude might be useful in modifying the radiation belt electron populations through so-called Radiation Belt Remediation (Inan et al., 2003; Rodger et al., 2006), consisting of precipitation by alteration of particle pitch angle and therefore lowering of the minimum bounce altitude (2nd adiabatic invariant)."

Anthropogenic Space Weather - https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.03390.pdf


led to the realization that VLF waves of sufficient amplitude might be useful in modifying the radiation belt electron populations through so-called Radiation Belt Remediation (Inan et al., 2003; Rodger et al., 2006), consisting of precipitation by alteration of particle pitch angle and therefore lowering of the minimum bounce altitude


Mr. Carlson, can you clarify what they mean by the minimum bounce altitude and what the right conditions are?
Is the bounce altitude relative to the ionosphere or the radiation belt?
Could the change in bounce altitude be an effect of dispersion theory? In this aspect trapped solar radiation might repel a wave of sufficient amplitude. Is that what they mean by under the right conditions?
What's not mentioned is how the density of electrons which have a wave/particle duality can bounce (disperse) VLFs.
https://goo.gl/images/ZpsmBH


The electrons that bounce back and forth (between northern and southern poles) in the magnetosphere require a perpedicular force when they come to where the magnetosphere meets the ionosphere. If there's turbulence in the ionospheric plasma, the force isn't perpendicular it alters the pitch angle diffusion and causes the electrons to fall into the loss cone of the polar vortex. The alteration to the pitch angle diffusion in the polar cusp changes the overall diffusion profile and lowers the altitude at which the wave-particle interactions occur.

The plasma tubulence can be in the ionospheres E layer and F layer as Electrostatic Ion Cyclotron waves, but when both the E and F layers are overdriven the space between the two ionospheric layers can ALSO generate VLF/ULF chorus waves that ALSO stimulate Electron Precipitation.

So the VLF waves aren't just from VLF transmitters. Because EIC waves in the ionosphere can be stimulated by even HF broadcast transmitters on the ground, ALL sources of HF broacast can contribute to VLF wave formation in the ionosphere.
Edited on 09-11-2018 02:13
09-11-2018 02:18
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
I understand your concerns that nobody is going to want to stop using radio, but what we have to understand here, that there are only specific frequencies that are super effective and generating EIC waves in the ionospheric plasma, specifically those close to the ionospheres resonant gyrofrequency. So if we enacted policy that limited use on those specific frequencies it's likely we'd alter the whole EEP-NOx-ozone depletion mechanism. The system is too big to estimate what that would look like though, because we don't actually know what natural background ionosphere-magnetosphere coupling looks like. So when you asked me for exact numbers on that, it's just not a reasonable request without doing further testing to understand what it's like without broadcast induce gyrofrequency stimulation.

You're starting to ask much better questions now

Edited on 09-11-2018 02:20
09-11-2018 02:56
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Solar radiance alters the F layer morphology ie. Maximum Usable Frequency MUF and such. This changes how well VLF waves propagate between the ionospheric layers.
Edited on 09-11-2018 03:03
09-11-2018 03:47
James___
★★★☆☆
(736)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
I understand your concerns that nobody is going to want to stop using radio, but what we have to understand here, that there are only specific frequencies that are super effective and generating EIC waves in the ionospheric plasma, specifically those close to the ionospheres resonant gyrofrequency. So if we enacted policy that limited use on those specific frequencies it's likely we'd alter the whole EEP-NOx-ozone depletion mechanism. The system is too big to estimate what that would look like though, because we don't actually know what natural background ionosphere-magnetosphere coupling looks like. So when you asked me for exact numbers on that, it's just not a reasonable request without doing further testing to understand what it's like without broadcast induce gyrofrequency stimulation.

You're starting to ask much better questions now


Ozone depletion over the Arctic isn't a concern. Antarctica is recovering. I don't think what you're promoting caused any warning.
Yet you keep referring to either pole as having the right conditions. Most of what you're promoting requires the right conditions. You haven't stated how often those opportunities exist. And at the moment the general health of the ozone layer is improving. That kind of suggests that everything happening to this point is working.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/06/health/ozone-healing-scli-intl/index.html
Edited on 09-11-2018 04:11
09-11-2018 04:57
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
James___ wrote:
Lewis Carlson wrote:
I understand your concerns that nobody is going to want to stop using radio, but what we have to understand here, that there are only specific frequencies that are super effective and generating EIC waves in the ionospheric plasma, specifically those close to the ionospheres resonant gyrofrequency. So if we enacted policy that limited use on those specific frequencies it's likely we'd alter the whole EEP-NOx-ozone depletion mechanism. The system is too big to estimate what that would look like though, because we don't actually know what natural background ionosphere-magnetosphere coupling looks like. So when you asked me for exact numbers on that, it's just not a reasonable request without doing further testing to understand what it's like without broadcast induce gyrofrequency stimulation.

You're starting to ask much better questions now


Ozone depletion over the Arctic isn't a concern. Antarctica is recovering. I don't think what you're promoting caused any warning.
Yet you keep referring to either pole as having the right conditions. Most of what you're promoting requires the right conditions. You haven't stated how often those opportunities exist. And at the moment the general health of the ozone layer is improving. That kind of suggests that everything happening to this point is working.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/06/health/ozone-healing-scli-intl/index.html


First of all James.. I'm asking here.. the only thing I'm promoting is a big fat Question? l ALSO do not know if there is any reason for concern.. this is why I'm asking in my Original Post.

Second of all, although the ozone layer is showing signs of recovery in the polar regions.. it's thinning in mid latitudes.

"Here we report evidence from multiple satellite measurements that ozone in the lower stratosphere between 60°S and 60°N has indeed continued to decline since 1998. We find that, even though upper stratospheric ozone is recovering, the continuing downward trend in the lower stratosphere prevails, resulting in a downward trend in stratospheric column ozone between 60°S and 60°N."

https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/1379/2018/

You mentioned having some information contrary to this, if so now would be a great time to share it. So far that CNN document doesn't conflict in any way with what I'm saying.

Third, Electron Precipitation doesn't just happen at the poles. Though we are talking more specifically about that region with regards to VLF propagation. It also happens at the equator, mid latitudes and is also linked to the hottest region of climate warming in the Southern Hemisphere:

Peculiarities of Long-Term Trends of Surface Temperature in Antarctica and Their Possible Connections with Outer Belt Electron Precipitation

"Both experimental and model explorations of long-term trends of surface temperature in various places in Antarctica indicate with definite certainty presence of a vast area of climate warming around the Antarctic peninsula which strongly contrasted with clearly expressed tendency to cooling in other parts of Antarctica. This area of climate warming is the most intensive one in the whole Southern hemisphere and it is comparable with similar climate warming places in the Northern hemisphere (Alaska and Eastern Siberia). This phenomenon attracts close attention of the world scientific community but its real origin remains to be insoluble so far. Among many factors, which could explain existence of area of climate warming in this region the scientists mention peculiarities of atmospheric circulation around the Antarctic peninsula, influence of the El Nino effect, dynamics of cloud formation in the area etc. However,
none of these explanations could be considered as a complete solution of the problem.

In this report we attract attention to a fact that the global maximum of the outer belt energetic electron precipitation is localized in a narrow longitudinal belt centered in the Weddell Sea i.e. in the area of climate warming in the Southern hemisphere. It was shown by several explorers that energetic resources of this electron precipitation are sufficient to change temperature regime of the stratosphere and troposphere."

https://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EMS2006/00027/EMS2006-A-00027.pdf?PHPSESSID=3

If you aren't concerned then this is fine.. duly noted.

For me.. personally.. when it has been established that our use of broadcast can stimulate an ozone depletion mechanism and we then find out that our use of VLF is creating an artificial bubble around our planet.. I have to wonder if it isn't depleting an ozone layer that according to scientists has been and continues to thin over major areas of broadcast use. Thus I'm ASKING if anybody has any more information on why this may or may not be significant here on this forum.

Does this make sense?
Even if you aren't concerned.. is it fair that I am concerned enough to ask?
Especially when the some of the most brilliant ionospheric physicists say we should be!?
Edited on 09-11-2018 05:19
09-11-2018 05:42
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
"Controlled experiments using purpose-built radio transmitters have shown that non-linear interactions in the ionosphere give rise to noise-like secondary EM radiation [29]. This radiation is particularly strongly excited when the frequency of the injected radio wave is near a harmonic of the ionospheric electron cyclotron frequency. Similar sideband structures are expected when radio waves from powerful broadcast stations propagate in the ionosphere."

Studies of radiation-turbulence interactions above geographical regions with a high density of very powerful broadcast and TV stations (e.g., central Europe and the Far East).

The spectra measured in the HF frequency range onboard the Intercosmos-19, Cosmos-1809, ACTIVE, APEX and CORONAS-I satellites revealed unusual features suggesting a strong modification of the electron plasma in the topside ionosphere over densely populated areas of Europe and Asia. The location of broadband enhancements of about 20 dB relative to the cosmic noise over these areas is evident.

The processes in this transition region connect the solar and magnetospheric effects with the atmospheric response which, in fact, determine space weather in the Earth's environment. This region is also the part of the Earth's atmosphere where electromagnetic radiation from natural sources such as lightnings, and artificial sources such as radio, TV and radar transmitters, exhibit resonance and other interaction phenomena. The impact of these natural and man-made effects on the Earth's space environment are of major public concern."

Atmosphere-Ionosphere Mission - AIM Response to the Swedish National Space Board "Call for Ideas"

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/25321698/atmosphere-ionosphere-mission-swedish-institute-of-space-
09-11-2018 05:46
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
"Our research has demonstrated that not only natural perturbations but also radio waves from modern high-power radio stations can have such a "modifying" effect." from 5 earth radii away and from conjugate hemispheres. The signals that bounce off the polar cusp are clearer than those that bounce off the magnetosphere.

Experiments show that ion outflows can be caused by radio waves from powerful radio transmitters."

Atmosphere-Ionosphere Mission - AIM Response to the Swedish National Space Board "Call for Ideas"

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/25321698/atmosphere-ionosphere-mission-swedish-institute-of-space-
09-11-2018 05:51
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
"At VLF frequencies between 10 and 20 kHz, the ground-based transmitters are used for radio-navigation and communications. Their ionospheric perturbations include: the triggering of new waves, ionospheric heating, wave-electron interactions, and particle precipitation. <--EEP

At HF frequencies, the broadcasting stations utilise powerful transmitters which can heat the ionosphere and change the temperature and the density. All these wave dissipations in the ionosphere could participate to the global warming of the Earth because the change in global temperature increases the number of natural lightning discharges in the atmosphere.

Furthermore, it is a feedback mechanism because two different processes could be involved. First, lightning is a source of NOx, and NOx affects the concentration of ozone in the atmosphere which contributes to the greenhouse effect."<--NOx

http://wwwperso.lpc2e.cnrs.fr/www_experim/experim_espace_demeter_details_eng.php

"Parrot reviewed power line harmonic radiation; spectral lines spaced 50-60 Hz apart in the magnetosphere and generally observed to drift in frequency. The "Sunday effect" had been used confirm an anthropogenic source (no natural 7-day period). He speculated on an atmospheric/ionospheric link between PLHR and the greenhouse effect (in addition to the usually quoted increase in CO2 emissions associated with power generation), which could increase in importance as electrical power consumption continued to increase."

http://www.physics.otago.ac.nz/versim/versim04.html#manmadepdf
Edited on 09-11-2018 06:21
09-11-2018 06:26
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
I agree it could be totally insignificant..

..or seeing as how EEP-NOx is a hot topic in atmospheric physics right now..
..it could be that within the next 5~10 years atmospheric scientists will challenge our current consensus and say we need to include more in our current climate models that reflect the effects that broadcast on a global scale has on our environment through EEP-NOx.

'Anthropogenic Space Weather' is a super new term {2016/17} in our vernacular around how we affect our atmosphere. I think it will take us time to figure out what that means exactly. Probably even longer to agree that it's even significant if it turns out to be. And even even longer before we get our heads out of our ... to do anything about it.. provided we even can.. ?
Edited on 09-11-2018 06:32
09-11-2018 06:50
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
These are examples of transmitters in the UK - Europe - causing EEP in the conjugate hemisphere.. ie. NOT at the poles!

Line radiation events induced by very low frequency transmitters observed by the DEMETER spacecraft

"We presented a detailed systematic analysis of specific electromagnetic wave events observed by the low-altitude DEMETER spacecraft, which are formed by intense emissions at well-defined discrete, harmonically spaced frequencies. The appropriate frequency spectra are typically formed by up to four spectral peaks at multiples of about 1.3 kHz. Additional weaker spectral peaks at 1.9 kHz and 3.2 kHz are occasionally present.

Altogether, 87 such events were identified in the available DEMETER data (about 6 years). The events occurred exclusively during the night, and they did not show any clear relation to the AE and Dst geomagnetic activity indices. We showed that the events are strongly localized, occurring either close to Great Britain or in the vicinity of its geomagnetically conjugated point. It was found that the events observed in the Northern Hemisphere generally have larger-frequency bandwidths than those observed in the Southern Hemisphere. We demonstrated that the events are linked to the signals from VLF transmitters in Europe."

https://physics.mff.cuni.cz/kfpp/dbupload/publ/2017/k14_Nemec_JGRs.pdf
09-11-2018 09:20
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
"At VLF frequencies between 10 and 20 kHz, the ground-based transmitters are used for radio-navigation and communications. Their ionospheric perturbations include: the triggering of new waves, ionospheric heating, wave-electron interactions, and particle precipitation. <--EEP

At HF frequencies, the broadcasting stations utilise powerful transmitters which can heat the ionosphere and change the temperature and the density. All these wave dissipations in the ionosphere could participate to the global warming of the Earth because the change in global temperature increases the number of natural lightning discharges in the atmosphere.

Furthermore, it is a feedback mechanism because two different processes could be involved. First, lightning is a source of NOx, and NOx affects the concentration of ozone in the atmosphere which contributes to the greenhouse effect."<--NOx

http://wwwperso.lpc2e.cnrs.fr/www_experim/experim_espace_demeter_details_eng.php

"Parrot reviewed power line harmonic radiation; spectral lines spaced 50-60 Hz apart in the magnetosphere and generally observed to drift in frequency. The "Sunday effect" had been used confirm an anthropogenic source (no natural 7-day period). He speculated on an atmospheric/ionospheric link between PLHR and the greenhouse effect (in addition to the usually quoted increase in CO2 emissions associated with power generation), which could increase in importance as electrical power consumption continued to increase."

http://www.physics.otago.ac.nz/versim/versim04.html#manmadepdf


To be clear here, I don't think Michel Parrot is saying that ozone IS the greenhouse gas involved directly as a greenhouse gas that heats the Earth per se. But as we've come to understand is that EEP-NOx results in ozone depletion allowing more UV to heat geenhouse gases and the troposphere. We can argue how that works as a seperate point here, but it was already understood because of previous research done in the mid 70's that EEP-NOx could deplete ozone.. it's just that at that time they didn't know much about what could drive the EEP and now they know that broadcast can and does do this.

Climate Science wasn't as mainstream when Michel Parrot's research came out. Parrot knew the basic theory at that time, but I don't think he elaborated on the mechanism in detail because that's not really what his research was about. I think he saw that there was more to the equation than just greenhouse gases, it also involved the UV getting to them and the troposphere, and ozone was the valve for that, being influenced by what he was seeing as broadcast induced EEP-NOx. He didn't know how significant it was, he was just reporting what he saw.

How significant is it? ..is the question we're currently trying to figure out. We didn't used to think broadcast energy could do much to the climate, but now we've discovered we've generated a whole VLF bubble around the planet and are seeing that transmitters can and do stimulate an ozone depletion mechanism. Climate Science is in it's infancy right now, we have a long way to go here, but the simple more CO2 = more heat is likely going to have to face the fact that our world is simply way more complex than that. UV isn't static in this equation.

"The potential for harm in lower latitudes may actually be worse than at the poles..The decreases in ozone are less than we saw at the poles before the Montreal Protocol was enacted, but UV radiation is more intense in these regions and more people live there."
Edited on 09-11-2018 09:33
09-11-2018 10:48
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1250)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Radiation belt electron precipitation due to VLF transmitters: Satellite observations

"In the Earth's inner magnetosphere, the distribution of energetic electrons is controlled by pitch‐angle scattering by waves. A category of Whistler waves originates from powerful ground‐based VLF transmitter signals in the frequency range 10–25 kHz. These transmissions are observed in space as waves of very narrow bandwidth. Here we examine the significance of the VLF transmitter NWC on the inner radiation belt using DEMETER satellite global observations at low altitudes. We find that enhancements in the ∼100–600 keV drift‐loss cone electron fluxes at L values between 1.4 and 1.7 are linked to NWC operation and to ionospheric absorption. Waves and particles interact in the vicinity of the magnetic equatorial plane. Using Demeter passes across the drifting cloud of electrons caused by the transmitter; we find that ∼300 times more 200 keV electrons are driven into the drift‐loss cone during NWC transmission periods than during non‐transmission periods."

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL033194


And?

So 200keV is more active?

What does that do way way up in the very top of the atmposphere do down here?


The Electron Precipitation reacts with stratospheric Nitrogen forming NOx which depletes the ozone layer.

If you aren't getting this yet then your really not paying attention here as I've had to repeat this many times and have backed all this up with tons of research as it is already well established.

And will continue to do so until you get it.. so here.. read it again:

"When energetic particles enter the atmosphere they ionize and dissociate atmospheric constituents, resulting in the formation of reactive odd nitrogen (NOx = NO + NO2). EPP has been shown to contribute up to 10% of the stratospheric NOx budget and up to 40% of the polar stratospheric NOx budget. Once in the stratosphere, NOx produced by EPP (EPP-NOx) interferes with catalytic cycles involving ozone (O3). Theoretically, changes in O3 can lead to changes in temperature and winds, which means that EPP has the potential to impact climate as well.

Plentiful observational evidence of the EPP IE has been obtained since LIMS, along with observational evidence for the destruction of O3 by EPP-NOx."

http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/mag/research/energetic-particle-precipitation/

Go to the link ^^^ seriously Tim!



I have indeed not been paying attention.

I have no intention of paying attention to people who have no clue.

Given you have no clue about physics I will not be paying attention to your psudo-physics.

The amount of energy put out by human radio equipment is microscopically trivial compared to the natural stuff out there.

You are simply a deluded liar.
09-11-2018 14:14
James___
★★★☆☆
(736)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:
[quote]Lewis Carlson wrote:
I understand your concerns that nobody is going to want to stop using radio, but what we have to understand here, that there are only specific frequencies that are super effective and generating EIC waves in the ionospheric plasma, specifically those close to the ionospheres resonant gyrofrequency. So if we enacted policy that limited use on those specific frequencies it's likely we'd alter the whole EEP-NOx-ozone depletion mechanism. The system is too big to estimate what that would look like though, because we don't actually know what natural background ionosphere-magnetosphere coupling looks like. So when you asked me for exact numbers on that, it's just not a reasonable request without doing further testing to understand what it's like without broadcast induce gyrofrequency stimulation.

You're starting to ask much better]


Mr. Carlson, while itn might be a troll, you're spamming which is just as bad. You've presented an argument for electron precipitation being the cause of global warming which you've disproven yourself. You don't consider what you're posting.
Some things you have said :
In 1910 warming started, Am broadcast started in 1909, Vlf around 1917.
About 1942 until 1978 global temperatures were fairly constant.
Why wasn't electron precipitation a problem during those years? You haven't explained this or why suddenly in 1978 when global temperatures started climbing again, we're there new sources of AM broadcast as in 1909 or if it was because of Vlf transmission, can new transmitters and their broadcast wattage be shown?
You keep wanting us to know that when VLF waves enter certain parts of the upper atmosphere that according to dispersion theory there will be electron precipitation in a cone at one of the poles causing NOx to occur.
How does this influence ozone in the temperate and tropical regions? You haven't shown that or how decreasing or increasing Vlf transmitted wattage effects the amount of electron precipitation or the increase or decrease of NOx.
Instead you want us to understand how dispersion theory is applied to VLFs and electron precipitation.
If you're not going to pursue having Vlf transmissions lowered or stopped then why spend a lot of time on something that will change nothing?
Edited on 09-11-2018 14:17
09-11-2018 16:29
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
James___ wrote:
Lewis Carlson wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:
[quote]Lewis Carlson wrote:
I understand your concerns that nobody is going to want to stop using radio, but what we have to understand here, that there are only specific frequencies that are super effective and generating EIC waves in the ionospheric plasma, specifically those close to the ionospheres resonant gyrofrequency. So if we enacted policy that limited use on those specific frequencies it's likely we'd alter the whole EEP-NOx-ozone depletion mechanism. The system is too big to estimate what that would look like though, because we don't actually know what natural background ionosphere-magnetosphere coupling looks like. So when you asked me for exact numbers on that, it's just not a reasonable request without doing further testing to understand what it's like without broadcast induce gyrofrequency stimulation.

You're starting to ask much better]


Mr. Carlson, while itn might be a troll, you're spamming which is just as bad. You've presented an argument for electron precipitation being the cause of global warming which you've disproven yourself. You don't consider what you're posting.
Some things you have said :
In 1910 warming started, Am broadcast started in 1909, Vlf around 1917.
About 1942 until 1978 global temperatures were fairly constant.
Why wasn't electron precipitation a problem during those years? You haven't explained this or why suddenly in 1978 when global temperatures started climbing again, we're there new sources of AM broadcast as in 1909 or if it was because of Vlf transmission, can new transmitters and their broadcast wattage be shown?
You keep wanting us to know that when VLF waves enter certain parts of the upper atmosphere that according to dispersion theory there will be electron precipitation in a cone at one of the poles causing NOx to occur.
How does this influence ozone in the temperate and tropical regions? You haven't shown that or how decreasing or increasing Vlf transmitted wattage effects the amount of electron precipitation or the increase or decrease of NOx.
Instead you want us to understand how dispersion theory is applied to VLFs and electron precipitation.
If you're not going to pursue having Vlf transmissions lowered or stopped then why spend a lot of time on something that will change nothing?


I'm not spamming, I'm presenting the research to answer your questions. If you don't want me to do that.. don't ask. Now do you or don't you want me to answer your question. So far all that I've posted and argued is relevant to the topic. Every time that 15 year old troll comes on here and says nope to everything I need to argue my position.

1) Do you or don't you want me to answer these questions?
2) I haven't disproven myself and yes I am considering what I'm posting.
3) I suggest before you throw more questions at me that you at least even slightly acknowledge the points I just made. So we are clear on where we are here.

Do you understand that EEP-NOx can and does occur at more than the polar regions?

Do you have any more information on your claims that the ozone layer isn't thinning?

You my friend aren't answering my questions and berating me for answering yours without even acknowledging my answer. That behavior is just as bad as the 15 year old troll and counterproductive to having well understood and even discourse. Let's have intelligent debate here like grown ups please, not just shut it down. Cause I'm not going away.

So .. please continue.. I have plenty of time.. and can argue for years.
Edited on 09-11-2018 16:35
09-11-2018 17:00
James___
★★★☆☆
(736)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
James___ wrote:
Lewis Carlson wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:
[quote]Lewis Carlson wrote:
I understand your concerns that nobody is going to want to stop using radio, but what we have to understand here, that there are only specific frequencies that are super effective and generating EIC waves in the ionospheric plasma, specifically those close to the ionospheres resonant gyrofrequency. So if we enacted policy that limited use on those specific frequencies it's likely we'd alter the whole EEP-NOx-ozone depletion mechanism. The system is too big to estimate what that would look like though, because we don't actually know what natural background ionosphere-magnetosphere coupling looks like. So when you asked me for exact numbers on that, it's just not a reasonable request without doing further testing to understand what it's like without broadcast induce gyrofrequency stimulation.

You're starting to ask much better]


Mr. Carlson, while itn might be a troll, you're spamming which is just as bad. You've presented an argument for electron precipitation being the cause of global warming which you've disproven yourself. You don't consider what you're posting.
Some things you have said :
In 1910 warming started, Am broadcast started in 1909, Vlf around 1917.
About 1942 until 1978 global temperatures were fairly constant.
Why wasn't electron precipitation a problem during those years? You haven't explained this or why suddenly in 1978 when global temperatures started climbing again, we're there new sources of AM broadcast as in 1909 or if it was because of Vlf transmission, can new transmitters and their broadcast wattage be shown?
You keep wanting us to know that when VLF waves enter certain parts of the upper atmosphere that according to dispersion theory there will be electron precipitation in a cone at one of the poles causing NOx to occur.
How does this influence ozone in the temperate and tropical regions? You haven't shown that or how decreasing or increasing Vlf transmitted wattage effects the amount of electron precipitation or the increase or decrease of NOx.
Instead you want us to understand how dispersion theory is applied to VLFs and electron precipitation.
If you're not going to pursue having Vlf transmissions lowered or stopped then why spend a lot of time on something that will change nothing?


I'm not spamming, I'm presenting the research to answer your questions. If you don't want me to do that.. don't ask. Now do you or don't you want me to answer your question. So far all that I've posted and argued is relevant to the topic. Every time that 15 year old troll comes on here and says nope to everything I need to argue my position.

1) Do you or don't you want me to answer these questions?
2) I haven't disproven myself and yes I am considering what I'm posting.
3) I suggest before you throw more questions at me that you at least even slightly acknowledge the points I just made. So we are clear on where we are here.

Do you understand that EEP-NOx can and does occur at more than the polar regions?

Do you have any more information on your claims that the ozone layer isn't thinning?

You my friend aren't answering my questions and berating me for answering yours without even acknowledging my answer. That behavior is just as bad as the 15 year old troll and counterproductive to having well understood and even discourse. Let's have intelligent debate here like grown ups please, not just shut it down. Cause I'm not going away.

So .. please continue.. I have plenty of time.. and can argue for years.



..I posted a link that showed the ozone layer is recovering. That you missed it is because you don't seem to care what anyone else says. You've referred to your first post a couple of times where you say it's not known if the electron participation is a concern, only that it's happening and is believed to be linked to ELF waves.
You haven't shown the relationship between broadcast wattage of ELFs, electron precipitation and the occurrence of NOx. Simply has not been shown in a clear and concise manner. If this were done then we would have some idea of the amount of NOx being generated by ELfs if that is in fact happening.
You did show where AM radio waves were broadcast in 1909 and that global warming started in 1910. Are AM radio waves ELFs? ELFs were first used during WW I. That's after warming started in 1910. No relationship to be observed by data you presented as evidence.
Other evidence you made known is that when UHF/VHF started being broadcast around 1942 that from that time until 1978 the global average temperature was stable.
Because of that I am having trouble understanding what point you wish to make. And the link you ignored. The IPCC is the group that is most prominent. I am not saying that I agree with them but they are the 600 lb. Gorilla when it comes to climate change.

Maybe this time you won't miss it?

The hole in the Earth's ozone layer is expected to fully heal within 50 years, climate change experts predict in a new UN report.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/06/health/ozone-healing-scli-intl/index.html

Edited on 09-11-2018 17:02
09-11-2018 17:07
James___
★★★☆☆
(736)
@Tim, it's always possible that electron precipitation in Antarctica during the winter is caused by a thinner ozone layer. Since the ozone layer helps to warm the troposphere a thinner ozone layer could possibly draw electrons from the radiation belt to try and establish a thermal equilibrium.
In this instance it would be suggested that -v = fl is influencing the upper atmosphere.
Someone once said there is an equal but opposite effect in science.
If you consider what they say about gravity, molecules and electrons can be matter and both have a specific gravity,

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class05/notes05_force.html

https://molwick.com/en/matter/035-gravity.html
Edited on 09-11-2018 17:14
09-11-2018 18:27
James___
★★★☆☆
(736)
Any of you guys hate it when the pc is automatically correcting you like if you say precipitation it changes it to participation? Whoever came up with that should show it clearly rather than requiring the individual to verify every word you type.

also, ozone warms the stratosphere. This in turn helps to cool the troposphere. I haven't been able to find the w/m^2 of solar radiation that is reflected back out into space.

Mr. Carlson, we might seem like a dysfunctional group but that's because we all have our own thoughts.
Edited on 09-11-2018 18:45
09-11-2018 18:33
Wake
★★★★★
(3417)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
VLF Transmitter Induced Effects in the Ionosphere and Magnetosphere

"Given ambient terrestrial ionosphere and magnetosphere magnetic field and electron density values, VLF fixed frequency transmissions can not only pass through the medium but can under certain conditions trigger a variety of natural stimulated wave emissions, often interacting with existing particle populations in these regions.

Observations exploring these physical mechanisms have been and continue to be conducted both from the ground and in-situ within the ionosphere and magnetosphere. Section 3 of Parrot and Zaslavski (1996) provides a mid 1990s snapshot review of observations and mechanisms.

Work in the 1960s and 1970s found that during sufficiently long keydown transmitter periods, triggered electron precipitation and stimulated wave events could occur, known as Trimpi effects [(Helliwell et al., 1973); see also the observational and theoretical reviews by Helliwell (1988) and Omura et al. (1991)]. These findings, other electron precipitation observations (Imhof et al.,
1986; Inan et al., 1982, 1984, 1985; Sauvaud et al., 2006; Vampola, 1987, 1990) and later theoretical work (e.g. Abel and Thorne, 1998) led to the realization that VLF waves of sufficient amplitude might be useful in modifying the radiation belt electron populations through so-called Radiation Belt Remediation (Inan et al., 2003; Rodger et al., 2006), consisting of precipitation by alteration of particle pitch angle and therefore lowering of the minimum bounce altitude (2nd adiabatic invariant)."

Anthropogenic Space Weather - https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.03390.pdf

This is possibly true. But the levels are small percentages of that caused by solar emissions. I don't think you have a handle on just how small these emissions are.

I1/ I2 = D2^2/ D1^2

I1=Intensity 1 at D1
I2=Intensity 2 at D2
D1=Distance 1 from source
D2=Distance 2 from source

Or for every doubling of distance from the source the radiation is 1/4th the value. The most powerful radio sources on the planet make hardly a wrinkle at orbital distances.
09-11-2018 18:44
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
James___ wrote:
Lewis Carlson wrote:
James___ wrote:
Lewis Carlson wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:
[quote]Lewis Carlson wrote:
I understand your concerns that nobody is going to want to stop using radio, but what we have to understand here, that there are only specific frequencies that are super effective and generating EIC waves in the ionospheric plasma, specifically those close to the ionospheres resonant gyrofrequency. So if we enacted policy that limited use on those specific frequencies it's likely we'd alter the whole EEP-NOx-ozone depletion mechanism. The system is too big to estimate what that would look like though, because we don't actually know what natural background ionosphere-magnetosphere coupling looks like. So when you asked me for exact numbers on that, it's just not a reasonable request without doing further testing to understand what it's like without broadcast induce gyrofrequency stimulation.

You're starting to ask much better]


Mr. Carlson, while itn might be a troll, you're spamming which is just as bad. You've presented an argument for electron precipitation being the cause of global warming which you've disproven yourself. You don't consider what you're posting.
Some things you have said :
In 1910 warming started, Am broadcast started in 1909, Vlf around 1917.
About 1942 until 1978 global temperatures were fairly constant.
Why wasn't electron precipitation a problem during those years? You haven't explained this or why suddenly in 1978 when global temperatures started climbing again, we're there new sources of AM broadcast as in 1909 or if it was because of Vlf transmission, can new transmitters and their broadcast wattage be shown?
You keep wanting us to know that when VLF waves enter certain parts of the upper atmosphere that according to dispersion theory there will be electron precipitation in a cone at one of the poles causing NOx to occur.
How does this influence ozone in the temperate and tropical regions? You haven't shown that or how decreasing or increasing Vlf transmitted wattage effects the amount of electron precipitation or the increase or decrease of NOx.
Instead you want us to understand how dispersion theory is applied to VLFs and electron precipitation.
If you're not going to pursue having Vlf transmissions lowered or stopped then why spend a lot of time on something that will change nothing?


I'm not spamming, I'm presenting the research to answer your questions. If you don't want me to do that.. don't ask. Now do you or don't you want me to answer your question. So far all that I've posted and argued is relevant to the topic. Every time that 15 year old troll comes on here and says nope to everything I need to argue my position.

1) Do you or don't you want me to answer these questions?
2) I haven't disproven myself and yes I am considering what I'm posting.
3) I suggest before you throw more questions at me that you at least even slightly acknowledge the points I just made. So we are clear on where we are here.

Do you understand that EEP-NOx can and does occur at more than the polar regions?

Do you have any more information on your claims that the ozone layer isn't thinning?

You my friend aren't answering my questions and berating me for answering yours without even acknowledging my answer. That behavior is just as bad as the 15 year old troll and counterproductive to having well understood and even discourse. Let's have intelligent debate here like grown ups please, not just shut it down. Cause I'm not going away.

So .. please continue.. I have plenty of time.. and can argue for years.



..I posted a link that showed the ozone layer is recovering. That you missed it is because you don't seem to care what anyone else says. You've referred to your first post a couple of times where you say it's not known if the electron participation is a concern, only that it's happening and is believed to be linked to ELF waves.
You haven't shown the relationship between broadcast wattage of ELFs, electron precipitation and the occurrence of NOx. Simply has not been shown in a clear and concise manner. If this were done then we would have some idea of the amount of NOx being generated by ELfs if that is in fact happening.
You did show where AM radio waves were broadcast in 1909 and that global warming started in 1910. Are AM radio waves ELFs? ELFs were first used during WW I. That's after warming started in 1910. No relationship to be observed by data you presented as evidence.
Other evidence you made known is that when UHF/VHF started being broadcast around 1942 that from that time until 1978 the global average temperature was stable.
Because of that I am having trouble understanding what point you wish to make. And the link you ignored. The IPCC is the group that is most prominent. I am not saying that I agree with them but they are the 600 lb. Gorilla when it comes to climate change.

Maybe this time you won't miss it?

The hole in the Earth's ozone layer is expected to fully heal within 50 years, climate change experts predict in a new UN report.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/06/health/ozone-healing-scli-intl/index.html



So what I'm seeing here and correct me if I'm wrong.. satellites show a decrease (~ -8DU O3) in total stratospheric ozone from 1985 - 2015 according to this report,



https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/1379/2018/

And this latest report you shared says shows in figure 1:

1960 @ 294DU total global ozone
2017 @ 283~285DU total global ozone

http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/mop/mop30/presession/Background-Documents/SAP-2018-Assessment-ES-October2018.pdf

Doesn't that mean the total ozone layer according to both these reports indicate over all depletion? By roughly -9~11DU total global ozone content according to the research you shared?
Edited on 09-11-2018 19:01
09-11-2018 19:03
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Before we even get into what those future climate models look like.. let's just get clear on what we're looking at here. So far .. I'm seeing .. ozone depletion .. ? Would this appear to be so from these two reports?

I get that there's an increase in topside ozone layer, but with a decrease in the lower ozone layer basically means the altitude is changing yes? It's getting higher?

So we want to go by total ozone content?
Edited on 09-11-2018 19:08
09-11-2018 19:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
James___ wrote:
Lewis Carlson wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:
[quote]Lewis Carlson wrote:
I understand your concerns that nobody is going to want to stop using radio, but what we have to understand here, that there are only specific frequencies that are super effective and generating EIC waves in the ionospheric plasma, specifically those close to the ionospheres resonant gyrofrequency. So if we enacted policy that limited use on those specific frequencies it's likely we'd alter the whole EEP-NOx-ozone depletion mechanism. The system is too big to estimate what that would look like though, because we don't actually know what natural background ionosphere-magnetosphere coupling looks like. So when you asked me for exact numbers on that, it's just not a reasonable request without doing further testing to understand what it's like without broadcast induce gyrofrequency stimulation.

You're starting to ask much better]


Mr. Carlson, while itn might be a troll, you're spamming which is just as bad. You've presented an argument for electron precipitation being the cause of global warming which you've disproven yourself. You don't consider what you're posting.
Some things you have said :
In 1910 warming started, Am broadcast started in 1909, Vlf around 1917.
About 1942 until 1978 global temperatures were fairly constant.
Why wasn't electron precipitation a problem during those years? You haven't explained this or why suddenly in 1978 when global temperatures started climbing again, we're there new sources of AM broadcast as in 1909 or if it was because of Vlf transmission, can new transmitters and their broadcast wattage be shown?
You keep wanting us to know that when VLF waves enter certain parts of the upper atmosphere that according to dispersion theory there will be electron precipitation in a cone at one of the poles causing NOx to occur.
How does this influence ozone in the temperate and tropical regions? You haven't shown that or how decreasing or increasing Vlf transmitted wattage effects the amount of electron precipitation or the increase or decrease of NOx.
Instead you want us to understand how dispersion theory is applied to VLFs and electron precipitation.
If you're not going to pursue having Vlf transmissions lowered or stopped then why spend a lot of time on something that will change nothing?


I'm not spamming, I'm presenting the research to answer your questions.

No, you're spamming.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
If you don't want me to do that.. don't ask.

Nobody asked you to spam. You just spam.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Now do you or don't you want me to answer your question. So far all that I've posted and argued is relevant to the topic. Every time that 15 year old troll comes on here and says nope to everything I need to argue my position.

You aren't arguing. You are spamming.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
1) Do you or don't you want me to answer these questions?
2) I haven't disproven myself and yes I am considering what I'm posting.
3) I suggest before you throw more questions at me that you at least even slightly acknowledge the points I just made. So we are clear on where we are here.

Do you understand that EEP-NOx can and does occur at more than the polar regions?

It does not occur at all. EEP has insufficient energy to produce NO.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Do you have any more information on your claims that the ozone layer isn't thinning?

Ozone in the ozone layer is produced by UV-B light. As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
You my friend aren't answering my questions and berating me for answering yours without even acknowledging my answer. That behavior is just as bad as the 15 year old troll and counterproductive to having well understood and even discourse. Let's have intelligent debate here like grown ups please, not just shut it down. Cause I'm not going away.

So .. please continue.. I have plenty of time.. and can argue for years.

You are not arguing. You are mostly spamming.


The Parrot Killer
09-11-2018 19:32
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Ah the return of the 15 year old troll.. glad you could join us Into the Night.

Edited on 09-11-2018 19:33
09-11-2018 19:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
James___ wrote:
..I posted a link that showed the ozone layer is recovering.

Yeah. I saw that too. Trouble is, it was never depleted to begin with. There is nothing to 'recover'.
James___ wrote:
That you missed it is because you don't seem to care what anyone else says. You've referred to your first post a couple of times where you say it's not known if the electron participation is a concern, only that it's happening and is believed to be linked to ELF waves.
You haven't shown the relationship between broadcast wattage of ELFs, electron precipitation and the occurrence of NOx. Simply has not been shown in a clear and concise manner. If this were done then we would have some idea of the amount of NOx being generated by ELfs if that is in fact happening.

I think he's too busy spamming to notice lately. He did try to link it earlier in the thread though.
James___ wrote:
You did show where AM radio waves were broadcast in 1909 and that global warming started in 1910.

It was not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth in 1910 or even today.
James___ wrote:
Are AM radio waves ELFs?

No. ELF is a frequency, not a mode of transmission. ELF radio can be CW, AM, FM, SSB, or any other mode one chooses to use.
James___ wrote:
ELFs were first used during WW I.

Experimentally, true. These were lower power devices to analyze the propagation paths of ELF.
James___ wrote:
That's after warming started in 1910.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
James___ wrote:
No relationship to be observed by data you presented as evidence.
Other evidence you made known is that when UHF/VHF started being broadcast around 1942 that from that time until 1978 the global average temperature was stable.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
James___ wrote:
Because of that I am having trouble understanding what point you wish to make. And the link you ignored. The IPCC is the group that is most prominent. I am not saying that I agree with them but they are the 600 lb. Gorilla when it comes to climate change.

The IPCC is neither a science organization nor a gorilla. Most gorillas weigh around 375 lbs. The largest measured weighed 440 lbs. (Ever try to get a gorilla to stand on a scale?
)
James___ wrote:
Maybe this time you won't miss it?
The hole in the Earth's ozone layer is expected to fully heal within 50 years, climate change experts predict in a new UN report.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/06/health/ozone-healing-scli-intl/index.html

It will not 'heal'. The reason the hole exists at a pole in winter is because there is no Sun. It's the land of the Noontime Dark. It varies in size somewhat due to variations in the upper air winds (driven by Hadley cell flow and the rotation of the Earth). It's a natural phenomenon.


The Parrot Killer
09-11-2018 19:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
James___ wrote:
@Tim, it's always possible that electron precipitation in Antarctica during the winter is caused by a thinner ozone layer. Since the ozone layer helps to warm the troposphere a thinner ozone layer could possibly draw electrons from the radiation belt to try and establish a thermal equilibrium.
In this instance it would be suggested that -v = fl is influencing the upper atmosphere.
Someone once said there is an equal but opposite effect in science.
If you consider what they say about gravity, molecules and electrons can be matter and both have a specific gravity,

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class05/notes05_force.html

https://molwick.com/en/matter/035-gravity.html


v=fl has nothing to do with any atmosphere, upper or lower.


The Parrot Killer
09-11-2018 19:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
James___ wrote:
Any of you guys hate it when the pc is automatically correcting you like if you say precipitation it changes it to participation?

Ewww. I hate spelling checkers.
James___ wrote:
Whoever came up with that should show it clearly rather than requiring the individual to verify every word you type.

I find it easier just to turn the thing off and leave it off.
James___ wrote:
also, ozone warms the stratosphere.

Not quite. Ozone formation by UV-B cools the lower stratosphere (making the tropopause the coldest place in the atmosphere). Ozone destruction by UV-C warms the upper stratosphere. Thermal energy density is still decreasing with altitude in the stratosphere, due to thinning air (less mass to contain thermal energy). The 2nd law of thermodynamics effects energy density, not temperature by itself. Under the same pressure, temperature can be used as an indication of thermal energy density.
James___ wrote:
This in turn helps to cool the troposphere.
True. The troposphere is cooled by the stratosphere, as well as direct radiance to space.
James___ wrote:
I haven't been able to find the w/m^2 of solar radiation that is reflected back out into space.
That's because the emissivity of Earth is unknown. It is not possible to measure it.
James___ wrote:
Mr. Carlson, we might seem like a dysfunctional group but that's because we all have our own thoughts.

That does not make a dysfunctional group. Neither is the forum a dysfunctional group. Disunity of opinion does not make a group dysfunctional.


The Parrot Killer
09-11-2018 20:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Wake wrote:
Lewis Carlson wrote:
VLF Transmitter Induced Effects in the Ionosphere and Magnetosphere

"Given ambient terrestrial ionosphere and magnetosphere magnetic field and electron density values, VLF fixed frequency transmissions can not only pass through the medium but can under certain conditions trigger a variety of natural stimulated wave emissions, often interacting with existing particle populations in these regions.

Observations exploring these physical mechanisms have been and continue to be conducted both from the ground and in-situ within the ionosphere and magnetosphere. Section 3 of Parrot and Zaslavski (1996) provides a mid 1990s snapshot review of observations and mechanisms.

Work in the 1960s and 1970s found that during sufficiently long keydown transmitter periods, triggered electron precipitation and stimulated wave events could occur, known as Trimpi effects [(Helliwell et al., 1973); see also the observational and theoretical reviews by Helliwell (1988) and Omura et al. (1991)]. These findings, other electron precipitation observations (Imhof et al.,
1986; Inan et al., 1982, 1984, 1985; Sauvaud et al., 2006; Vampola, 1987, 1990) and later theoretical work (e.g. Abel and Thorne, 1998) led to the realization that VLF waves of sufficient amplitude might be useful in modifying the radiation belt electron populations through so-called Radiation Belt Remediation (Inan et al., 2003; Rodger et al., 2006), consisting of precipitation by alteration of particle pitch angle and therefore lowering of the minimum bounce altitude (2nd adiabatic invariant)."

Anthropogenic Space Weather - https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.03390.pdf

This is possibly true. But the levels are small percentages of that caused by solar emissions. I don't think you have a handle on just how small these emissions are.

I1/ I2 = D2^2/ D1^2

I1=Intensity 1 at D1
I2=Intensity 2 at D2
D1=Distance 1 from source
D2=Distance 2 from source

Or for every doubling of distance from the source the radiation is 1/4th the value. The most powerful radio sources on the planet make hardly a wrinkle at orbital distances.


Quite true. If you view ten 100w light bulbs from space (1000w total), you won't even see them with the naked eye. You have to use some pretty sensitive instruments to detect they are even there.

The beam of light from the Luxor casino in Las Vegas is directly entirely skyward, and is 315,000 watts producing some 42 billion candela using an array of xenon lamps and mirrors. It is barely visible from space using the naked eye. You can stare directly at it. Indeed, you have to actually look for it. It's not very noticeable.


The Parrot Killer
09-11-2018 20:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
James___ wrote:
Lewis Carlson wrote:
James___ wrote:
Lewis Carlson wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:
[quote]Lewis Carlson wrote:
I understand your concerns that nobody is going to want to stop using radio, but what we have to understand here, that there are only specific frequencies that are super effective and generating EIC waves in the ionospheric plasma, specifically those close to the ionospheres resonant gyrofrequency. So if we enacted policy that limited use on those specific frequencies it's likely we'd alter the whole EEP-NOx-ozone depletion mechanism. The system is too big to estimate what that would look like though, because we don't actually know what natural background ionosphere-magnetosphere coupling looks like. So when you asked me for exact numbers on that, it's just not a reasonable request without doing further testing to understand what it's like without broadcast induce gyrofrequency stimulation.

You're starting to ask much better]


Mr. Carlson, while itn might be a troll, you're spamming which is just as bad. You've presented an argument for electron precipitation being the cause of global warming which you've disproven yourself. You don't consider what you're posting.
Some things you have said :
In 1910 warming started, Am broadcast started in 1909, Vlf around 1917.
About 1942 until 1978 global temperatures were fairly constant.
Why wasn't electron precipitation a problem during those years? You haven't explained this or why suddenly in 1978 when global temperatures started climbing again, we're there new sources of AM broadcast as in 1909 or if it was because of Vlf transmission, can new transmitters and their broadcast wattage be shown?
You keep wanting us to know that when VLF waves enter certain parts of the upper atmosphere that according to dispersion theory there will be electron precipitation in a cone at one of the poles causing NOx to occur.
How does this influence ozone in the temperate and tropical regions? You haven't shown that or how decreasing or increasing Vlf transmitted wattage effects the amount of electron precipitation or the increase or decrease of NOx.
Instead you want us to understand how dispersion theory is applied to VLFs and electron precipitation.
If you're not going to pursue having Vlf transmissions lowered or stopped then why spend a lot of time on something that will change nothing?


I'm not spamming, I'm presenting the research to answer your questions. If you don't want me to do that.. don't ask. Now do you or don't you want me to answer your question. So far all that I've posted and argued is relevant to the topic. Every time that 15 year old troll comes on here and says nope to everything I need to argue my position.

1) Do you or don't you want me to answer these questions?
2) I haven't disproven myself and yes I am considering what I'm posting.
3) I suggest before you throw more questions at me that you at least even slightly acknowledge the points I just made. So we are clear on where we are here.

Do you understand that EEP-NOx can and does occur at more than the polar regions?

Do you have any more information on your claims that the ozone layer isn't thinning?

You my friend aren't answering my questions and berating me for answering yours without even acknowledging my answer. That behavior is just as bad as the 15 year old troll and counterproductive to having well understood and even discourse. Let's have intelligent debate here like grown ups please, not just shut it down. Cause I'm not going away.

So .. please continue.. I have plenty of time.. and can argue for years.



..I posted a link that showed the ozone layer is recovering. That you missed it is because you don't seem to care what anyone else says. You've referred to your first post a couple of times where you say it's not known if the electron participation is a concern, only that it's happening and is believed to be linked to ELF waves.
You haven't shown the relationship between broadcast wattage of ELFs, electron precipitation and the occurrence of NOx. Simply has not been shown in a clear and concise manner. If this were done then we would have some idea of the amount of NOx being generated by ELfs if that is in fact happening.
You did show where AM radio waves were broadcast in 1909 and that global warming started in 1910. Are AM radio waves ELFs? ELFs were first used during WW I. That's after warming started in 1910. No relationship to be observed by data you presented as evidence.
Other evidence you made known is that when UHF/VHF started being broadcast around 1942 that from that time until 1978 the global average temperature was stable.
Because of that I am having trouble understanding what point you wish to make. And the link you ignored. The IPCC is the group that is most prominent. I am not saying that I agree with them but they are the 600 lb. Gorilla when it comes to climate change.

Maybe this time you won't miss it?

The hole in the Earth's ozone layer is expected to fully heal within 50 years, climate change experts predict in a new UN report.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/06/health/ozone-healing-scli-intl/index.html



So what I'm seeing here and correct me if I'm wrong.. satellites show a decrease (~ -8DU O3) in total stratospheric ozone from 1985 - 2015 according to this report,



https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/1379/2018/

And this latest report you shared says shows in figure 1:

1960 @ 294DU total global ozone
2017 @ 283~285DU total global ozone

http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/mop/mop30/presession/Background-Documents/SAP-2018-Assessment-ES-October2018.pdf

Doesn't that mean the total ozone layer according to both these reports indicate over all depletion? By roughly -9~11DU total global ozone content according to the research you shared?

No.


The Parrot Killer
09-11-2018 20:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Before we even get into what those future climate models look like.. let's just get clear on what we're looking at here. So far .. I'm seeing .. ozone depletion .. ? Would this appear to be so from these two reports?

I get that there's an increase in topside ozone layer, but with a decrease in the lower ozone layer basically means the altitude is changing yes? It's getting higher?

No.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
So we want to go by total ozone content?

What's the point?


The Parrot Killer
09-11-2018 20:09
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
James___ wrote:

Mr. Carlson, we might seem like a dysfunctional group but that's because we all have our own thoughts.


I appreciate your candor James and I appreciate your attempts to understand my point of view here, though the way you go about shifting from one set of questions about what currently going on with regards to EEP-NOx to questions about points discussed about the history of radio without really seeing the first set of questions through is a bit frustrating in all honesty. You really could word your questions in a more graceful manor.

Instead of switching topics, then saying I fail to show A,B and C on different points. You could just ask me to do so to the best of my ability from my perspective.. after I've had a chance to be clearly understood on your first set of questions. I would really appreciate it.
Edited on 09-11-2018 20:13
09-11-2018 20:26
James___
★★★☆☆
(736)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Before we even get into what those future climate models look like.. let's just get clear on what we're looking at here. So far .. I'm seeing .. ozone depletion .. ? Would this appear to be so from these two reports?

I get that there's an increase in topside ozone layer, but with a decrease in the lower ozone layer basically means the altitude is changing yes? It's getting higher?

So we want to go by total ozone content?


You'll have to download the pdf file. It disagrees with you. You seem like an a$$hole when you're that aggressive.
And please remember, you haven't shown where ELFs have had an impact on anything that's meaningful. I think CFCs were banned because some scientists said they caused ozone depletion. It's on you to show what % of NOx emissions are caused by ELFs. We could agree with everything you say but then they might find out that ELFs are responsible for less than 1% of NOx emissions. Would that even be worth worrying about?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JAS-D-13-052.1&ved=2ahUKEwiL7eXwgMjeAhXl64MKHUxrAFkQFjAJegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw2jUizGVRoKZuUclDep71cK
09-11-2018 20:37
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Wake wrote:
Lewis Carlson wrote:
VLF Transmitter Induced Effects in the Ionosphere and Magnetosphere

"Given ambient terrestrial ionosphere and magnetosphere magnetic field and electron density values, VLF fixed frequency transmissions can not only pass through the medium but can under certain conditions trigger a variety of natural stimulated wave emissions, often interacting with existing particle populations in these regions.

Observations exploring these physical mechanisms have been and continue to be conducted both from the ground and in-situ within the ionosphere and magnetosphere. Section 3 of Parrot and Zaslavski (1996) provides a mid 1990s snapshot review of observations and mechanisms.

Work in the 1960s and 1970s found that during sufficiently long keydown transmitter periods, triggered electron precipitation and stimulated wave events could occur, known as Trimpi effects [(Helliwell et al., 1973); see also the observational and theoretical reviews by Helliwell (1988) and Omura et al. (1991)]. These findings, other electron precipitation observations (Imhof et al.,
1986; Inan et al., 1982, 1984, 1985; Sauvaud et al., 2006; Vampola, 1987, 1990) and later theoretical work (e.g. Abel and Thorne, 1998) led to the realization that VLF waves of sufficient amplitude might be useful in modifying the radiation belt electron populations through so-called Radiation Belt Remediation (Inan et al., 2003; Rodger et al., 2006), consisting of precipitation by alteration of particle pitch angle and therefore lowering of the minimum bounce altitude (2nd adiabatic invariant)."

Anthropogenic Space Weather - https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.03390.pdf

This is possibly true. But the levels are small percentages of that caused by solar emissions. I don't think you have a handle on just how small these emissions are.

I1/ I2 = D2^2/ D1^2

I1=Intensity 1 at D1
I2=Intensity 2 at D2
D1=Distance 1 from source
D2=Distance 2 from source

Or for every doubling of distance from the source the radiation is 1/4th the value. The most powerful radio sources on the planet make hardly a wrinkle at orbital distances.


I appreciate this point Wake, it's a much better point to argue. We aren't talking about single radio sources.. we're talking total global output though. When you say solar emissions are you talking Solar Proton Events? Because it has been shown that transmitter induces EEP can affect NOx levels as much as SPEs.
09-11-2018 20:38
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
James___ wrote:
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Before we even get into what those future climate models look like.. let's just get clear on what we're looking at here. So far .. I'm seeing .. ozone depletion .. ? Would this appear to be so from these two reports?

I get that there's an increase in topside ozone layer, but with a decrease in the lower ozone layer basically means the altitude is changing yes? It's getting higher?

So we want to go by total ozone content?


You'll have to download the pdf file. It disagrees with you. You seem like an a$$hole when you're that aggressive.


I'm not trying to be an a$$hole or aggressive James, you're projecting into my tone dude. I'm actually a super chill guy albeit passionate about this topic. I did download the pdf, that's data I'm referencing.

I'm asking you a genuine questions with regards to these reports and you're not really answering my question. You're just saying the report disagrees with me without actually looking at the data they are presenting.

If we are going to debate here, let's take this one step at a time instead of throwing more questions at me.

Given the data in both those charts.. don't you see that the stratospheric ozone levels are decreasing from 1960 to 2017?
Edited on 09-11-2018 20:56
09-11-2018 20:42
James___
★★★☆☆
(736)
Everyone, here's a link that claims that ozone depletion was much greater in the Southern Hemisphere and that it's recovering because of agreements between countries. You'll need to scroll down a ways to find it. If this information is correct then ozone depletion might not be a significant concern anymore because solutions were found.

https://ourworldindata.org/ozone-layer
09-11-2018 20:45
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
James___ wrote:
Everyone, here's a link that claims that ozone depletion was much greater in the Southern Hemisphere and that it's recovering because of agreements between countries. You'll need to scroll down a ways to find it. If this information is correct then ozone depletion might not be a significant concern anymore because solutions were found.

https://ourworldindata.org/ozone-layer


Are you going to ignore my question James?

Given the data in both those charts.. don't you see that the stratospheric ozone levels are decreasing from 1960 to 2017?
Edited on 09-11-2018 20:46
09-11-2018 21:07
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
I truly hope the ozone layer heals up. I hope your right. I just can't look at that data and not see overall ozone depletion.. the numbers just don't seem to show it, regardless of how they forecast the future. I get that there is a small uptick in 2017, but this doesn't account for the over all ozone loss since 1960.

"No statistically significant trend has been detected in global (60°S–60°N) total column ozone over the 1997–2016 period (Figure ES-1). Average global total column ozone in the years since the last Assessment remain roughly 2.2% below the 1964–1980 average."

That last sentence says global total column ozone are lower, thus decrease yes?

No attitude, not trying to be an a$$hole.. this is a legit question for clarification sake. Please don't ignore though.. I want to understand this.
Edited on 09-11-2018 21:28
09-11-2018 21:48
James___
★★★☆☆
(736)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
James___ wrote:
Everyone, here's a link that claims that ozone depletion was much greater in the Southern Hemisphere and that it's recovering because of agreements between countries. You'll need to scroll down a ways to find it. If this information is correct then ozone depletion might not be a significant concern anymore because solutions were found.

https://ourworldindata.org/ozone-layer


Are you going to ignore my question James?

Given the data in both those charts.. don't you see that the stratospheric ozone levels are decreasing from 1960 to 2017?


What I posted doesn't agree with what you posted,. What makes you right?
Since all you care to discuss are ELFs and electron precipitation you should find people who find that interesting. Nothing you've posted shows where it's relevant. You've said yourself they don't know enough about it to know if it matters. Yet according to you it does.
Page 5 of 7<<<34567>





Join the debate Potential Effects of Broadcast Induced REP on Climate Change:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Just a blog post about the effects of climate change1210-10-2018 23:04
This is one of the reasons why I am skeptical of human-induced global warming5608-10-2018 17:56
20 Reasons To Be Skeptical Of Human-Induced Global Warming6927-09-2018 18:50
El Nino, La Nina Effects on Antarctic Ice Shelves312-01-2018 01:23
GWP (Global Warming Potential)6316-10-2017 18:57
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact