Remember me
▼ Content

Potential Effects of Broadcast Induced REP on Climate Change



Page 8 of 8<<<678
13-12-2018 21:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6284)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
"This brief resume of the experiments carried out in 1946 shows clearly how a resonant effect did really exist in the interaction of the radiowaves and also that this resonance was much greater than that predicted by V.A.Bailey. In fact, the resonance has been generated by an electromagnetic power of only 400-500 watts and not the 1 or 2 kw as Bailey predicted."


https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GOVPUB-C13-e91acf36c60a5ac43b304a37a08506b9/pdf/GOVPUB-C13-e91acf36c60a5ac43b304a37a08506b9.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1oAV7eLWW8dFDfBInAmM3Arjt9Gac6gBbSGeW5Oq8z3X0SwSOBtmzhQOs


Cutting and pasting stuff again?

There is gyro. There is nothing to 'resonate'. This clown was simply noting the effects of interference waves inherent in combining any light, calling it 'resonance' and 'gyro effect'.

The GPO is not a proof. They just printed this tripe because that the time the government believed him (they believe a lot of things that just aren't true).


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 13-12-2018 21:14
13-12-2018 21:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6284)
James___ wrote:
The only real issue I have with anything is that heat (temperature)
Heat does not have a temperature, James.
James___ wrote:
in our atmosphere can be measured in wm^2. I know it's rather simplistic but when working with standards, that tends to be it.
Temperature is not measured in watts, James.
James___ wrote:
If we considered the wattage as a source of energy,
it can only matter if it can be focused on a specific region. Just basic science.
Watts is not a source of energy, James. It's a unit of measurement. It's like you are trying to make inches a source of length.
James___ wrote:
In our atmosphere heat is 3/2kT. That can be converted into j/s/m^2 which is the same as w/m^2. This is because j/s = w. This just goes with the territory.
Heat is not 3/2kT. Heat is not kinetic energy, James.
James___ wrote:
Mr. Carlson, I hope you understand that with these guys I try to get them to understand that work is more than W = MD. Entropy is work.
Entropy is not work. It is a measure of randomness, James.
James___ wrote:
And basically any function of e = hv is work.
e=hv is not work. Energy by itself is not work, James.
James___ wrote:
That's the basic expression of energy.

No, it isn't. This equation relates the energy of a photon to thermal energy, James.


The Parrot Killer
13-12-2018 21:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6284)
James___ wrote:
Mr. Carlson, when it comes to our atmosphere, basically N2O is the only NOx that's considered a GHG.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas, James. No gas or vapor can warm the Earth.
James___ wrote:
The rest are just air pollution.

Naturally occurring gasses in the atmosphere is not air pollution, James.
James___ wrote:
And what you haven't shown is what % of N2O emissions broadcast signals might be responsible for.
Because there is no relation.
James___ wrote:
I'll explain work. hv + N + N + O = N2O.
Not work, James.
James___ wrote:
hv would be a specific value.
Why would hv be a specific value?
James___ wrote:
u would be the value of the field that N2O is occurring in.
There is no 'u' in your equation, James.
James___ wrote:
w/m^2 would allow for rate of occurrence to be calculated (w/m^2) /hv.
Making up relations now? w/m^2 is equal to (w/m^2)/hv if hv is 1.
James___ wrote:
Then it needs to be shown that ep (electron precipitation) has sufficient KE = hv to cause the necessary reactions to occur.
EP does not involve hv, James. It is not a photon. It is an electron.
James___ wrote:
And since entropy is a part of any system then ep needs to have a lower value than the broadcast wattage causing it.

That is not entropy causing that. It is the 2nd law of thermodynamics causing that. The law of entropy is not entropy itself.


The Parrot Killer
13-12-2018 21:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6284)
James___ wrote:
What you might consider Mr. Carlson is if what you've been discussing impacts the hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica. N2O is a problem there.

No, it isn't. N2O does not cause the 'hole'. Lack of sunlight causes the 'hole'. See the Chapman cycle.
James___ wrote:
Some things you could consider:
area of Antarctica compared to mid latitudes (broadcast signal effect can be focused?)
ep above Antarctica
is it seasonal?

The 'hole' is only there during the winter of that pole. Both poles have 'holes'.
James___ wrote:
amount of N2O above Antarctica
how long can N2O remain in the atmosphere

N2O is very reactive in the presence of water, including the presence of water in the atmosphere.
James___ wrote:
damage to marine life caused by ozone depletion including phytoplankton and it's importance to the food chain.

UV rays don't penetrate seawater, even if there was no ozone layer at all. The ozone layer is not being depleted.


The Parrot Killer
17-12-2018 17:49
ansi2018
☆☆☆☆☆
(12)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Our climate is changing as many of us are aware and many have dedicated their lives and time to doing our best to set right the challenges we face so that our children and generations ahead may have a healthy ecosystem to grow in and thrive upon. About ten years ago I dove deep into the climate change issue and learned about many facets of this astronomical challenge we face, most importantly the problem that rising CO2 levels pose from man made sources.

In my process of learning about various climate forcing mechanisms I became aware of another mechanism and have wondered for years of its potential significance in climate change. Through discourse with friends and others it seems little are aware of this other factor that could potentially play a role in the dynamics we're seeing and I'm hoping to connect with you in hopes that you or one of your colleagues may be able to shed light on these curiosities should there be more to this other climate forcing mechanism, or good reasons to dismiss it. If we truly wish to solve this incredibly difficult task it seems to me that we should leave no stone unturned. So here I am doing my part and due diligence as best I know how. I hope it is well received with an open mind and an open heart.

In 2007 I learned of a phenomenon known as Relativistic Electron Precipitation - REP and that some of the leading researchers of ionospheric physics, such as Michal Parrot of CNRS France head of DEMETER micro-satellite mission and VERSIM (VLF/ELF Remote Sensing of Ionospheres and Magnetospheres 96' - 05') who said in a research paper that using scientific transmitters it was becoming clear that it stimulates REP and could have a potential impact on "the global warming of the earth".

"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. 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. Then the supplementary lightning discharges produce more magnetospheric whistlers which could produce heating and ionization in the lower ionosphere.

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. Second, precipitation of energetic electrons by man?made waves may trigger other lightning discharges. It explains the importance of the study of such man-made waves [7]. Ionospheric perturbations by natural geophysical activities have been made evident by two methods: the study of the electromagnetic waves, and the measurement of the electron density." http://wwwperso.lpc2e.cnrs.fr/www_experim/experim_espace_demeter_details_eng.php

Since learning of REP and its potential role in climate change we've seen more and more research coming out that could potentially support the possibility that REP, along with increasing CO2, play a significant role in the climate change we are seeing. For example REP is potentially linked to the most notable region of climate warming in the entire Southern Hemisphere. "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."

Peculiarities of Long-Term Trends of Surface Temperature in Antarctica and Their Possible Connections with Outer Belt Electron Precipitation https://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EMS2006/00027/EMS2006-A-00027.pdf?PHPSESSID=3

As you may well know the stratospheric ozone level is at an altitude above the carbon from man made sources and acts as a valve for UV rays coming into our atmosphere heating these greenhouse gasses. While most of the scientific community has been focused on rising CO2 levels, we've heard very little about how our potential use of broadcast energy on a global scale could be stimulating this REP ~ ozone depletion mechanism.

Though we hear more about the potential healing of the ozone holes in polar regions, we've heard little about how ozone levels over most populated areas are thinning increasing UV rays: "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." https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/science/2018/02/07/ozone-layer-continues-thin-over-earths-populated-areas/315405002/

A 2016 scientific report first coined the term Anthropogenic Space Weather and discussed the effect our output of electromagnetic energy specifically in the VLF range has been directly observed by NASA satellites to radically alter our magnetosphere creating an artificial bubble of energy around the planet capable of blocking high energy particles from space. This article frames the energetic bubble as being beneficial to blocking radiation from space, but could it also be playing a role in stimulating ozone depletion through Relativistic Electron Precipitation? https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-space-probes-detect-a-human-made-barrier-shrouding-earth

First-time evidence shows electrons precipitating or 'raining' from Earth's magnetosphere are destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center-- https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/12/001215082423.htm

In 2002 Bo Thide from the Swedish Institute of Space Physics wrote a paper titled, "Atmosphere-Ionosphere-Mission, an Elaborate Science Case" in which he put out a call for ideas regarding this REP climate forcing mechanism saying that the public should be concerned. Bo Thide is one of the world's leading ionospheric physicists. He wrote the book on Electromagnetic Field Theory and single handedly revolutionized our understanding of ionospheric research with multi channel ionospheric probing; awarding him the Edlund Prize of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in 1991. If he's saying "the public should be concerned".. why aren't we even aware of this?: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/25321698/atmosphere-ionosphere-mission-swedish-institute-of-space-

So after looking at all this I'm left wondering how significant our use of broadcast energy could be in climate change given these new findings? Are NASA and other scientists looking into this possibility and do they deem it potentially significant in climate change? If not.. Why not? Perhaps there is indeed a good reason I'm not aware of.

According the the IPCC, REP was discounted as a potential player in climate change because it's variability was too closely linked to solar proton events which are unpredictable and REP is seen as "natural", but if we've been outputting EM energy into the ionosphere longer than we've been able to measure it, then how can we know what is or isn't "natural"? "Nevertheless, VLF transmissions of anthropogenic origin may constitute a key space weather influence on pathways that fundamentally alter the storm-time radiation belt. Under these assumptions, it is interesting for the reader to consider what the terrestrial radiation belt environment might have been in the pre-transmitter, and pre-observation, era."
Anthropogenic Space Weather 2016 - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309854824_Anthropogenic_Space_Weather

It has taken our scientific community a long time to realize the dire effects man made CO2 plays as a climate forcing mechanism. I don't doubt its significance and am left wondering if it will take another 50 years before we see there's potentially another part in the wholistic equation of our complex climate system.

If we're truly dedicating our time, careers and lives to solving this monumental problem for generations ahead.. are we looking at the potential significance of how our global broadcast may be stimulating an ozone depletion mechanism allowing more UV rays to heat increasing levels of greenhouse gasses most of all CO2 from man made sources? How do we determine what is or isn't worth our time when looking for answers?

I really appreciate all the energy and effort you and others are dedicating to solving the issues of climate change and appreciate your time and consideration around this letter.


Thank you sincerely, Professor Lewis Carlson PhD ~ RelativisticElectronPrecipitation@protonmail.com


In my opinion, climate uses energy profiles of all objects and classes that we can think of as data -- therefore all forms of energies are directly linked to climate (not climate change). The "change" factor, however, works in a different way.
17-12-2018 17:49
ansi2018
☆☆☆☆☆
(12)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Our climate is changing as many of us are aware and many have dedicated their lives and time to doing our best to set right the challenges we face so that our children and generations ahead may have a healthy ecosystem to grow in and thrive upon. About ten years ago I dove deep into the climate change issue and learned about many facets of this astronomical challenge we face, most importantly the problem that rising CO2 levels pose from man made sources.

In my process of learning about various climate forcing mechanisms I became aware of another mechanism and have wondered for years of its potential significance in climate change. Through discourse with friends and others it seems little are aware of this other factor that could potentially play a role in the dynamics we're seeing and I'm hoping to connect with you in hopes that you or one of your colleagues may be able to shed light on these curiosities should there be more to this other climate forcing mechanism, or good reasons to dismiss it. If we truly wish to solve this incredibly difficult task it seems to me that we should leave no stone unturned. So here I am doing my part and due diligence as best I know how. I hope it is well received with an open mind and an open heart.

In 2007 I learned of a phenomenon known as Relativistic Electron Precipitation - REP and that some of the leading researchers of ionospheric physics, such as Michal Parrot of CNRS France head of DEMETER micro-satellite mission and VERSIM (VLF/ELF Remote Sensing of Ionospheres and Magnetospheres 96' - 05') who said in a research paper that using scientific transmitters it was becoming clear that it stimulates REP and could have a potential impact on "the global warming of the earth".

"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. 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. Then the supplementary lightning discharges produce more magnetospheric whistlers which could produce heating and ionization in the lower ionosphere.

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. Second, precipitation of energetic electrons by man?made waves may trigger other lightning discharges. It explains the importance of the study of such man-made waves [7]. Ionospheric perturbations by natural geophysical activities have been made evident by two methods: the study of the electromagnetic waves, and the measurement of the electron density." http://wwwperso.lpc2e.cnrs.fr/www_experim/experim_espace_demeter_details_eng.php

Since learning of REP and its potential role in climate change we've seen more and more research coming out that could potentially support the possibility that REP, along with increasing CO2, play a significant role in the climate change we are seeing. For example REP is potentially linked to the most notable region of climate warming in the entire Southern Hemisphere. "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."

Peculiarities of Long-Term Trends of Surface Temperature in Antarctica and Their Possible Connections with Outer Belt Electron Precipitation https://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EMS2006/00027/EMS2006-A-00027.pdf?PHPSESSID=3

As you may well know the stratospheric ozone level is at an altitude above the carbon from man made sources and acts as a valve for UV rays coming into our atmosphere heating these greenhouse gasses. While most of the scientific community has been focused on rising CO2 levels, we've heard very little about how our potential use of broadcast energy on a global scale could be stimulating this REP ~ ozone depletion mechanism.

Though we hear more about the potential healing of the ozone holes in polar regions, we've heard little about how ozone levels over most populated areas are thinning increasing UV rays: "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." https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/science/2018/02/07/ozone-layer-continues-thin-over-earths-populated-areas/315405002/

A 2016 scientific report first coined the term Anthropogenic Space Weather and discussed the effect our output of electromagnetic energy specifically in the VLF range has been directly observed by NASA satellites to radically alter our magnetosphere creating an artificial bubble of energy around the planet capable of blocking high energy particles from space. This article frames the energetic bubble as being beneficial to blocking radiation from space, but could it also be playing a role in stimulating ozone depletion through Relativistic Electron Precipitation? https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-space-probes-detect-a-human-made-barrier-shrouding-earth

First-time evidence shows electrons precipitating or 'raining' from Earth's magnetosphere are destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center-- https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/12/001215082423.htm

In 2002 Bo Thide from the Swedish Institute of Space Physics wrote a paper titled, "Atmosphere-Ionosphere-Mission, an Elaborate Science Case" in which he put out a call for ideas regarding this REP climate forcing mechanism saying that the public should be concerned. Bo Thide is one of the world's leading ionospheric physicists. He wrote the book on Electromagnetic Field Theory and single handedly revolutionized our understanding of ionospheric research with multi channel ionospheric probing; awarding him the Edlund Prize of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in 1991. If he's saying "the public should be concerned".. why aren't we even aware of this?: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/25321698/atmosphere-ionosphere-mission-swedish-institute-of-space-

So after looking at all this I'm left wondering how significant our use of broadcast energy could be in climate change given these new findings? Are NASA and other scientists looking into this possibility and do they deem it potentially significant in climate change? If not.. Why not? Perhaps there is indeed a good reason I'm not aware of.

According the the IPCC, REP was discounted as a potential player in climate change because it's variability was too closely linked to solar proton events which are unpredictable and REP is seen as "natural", but if we've been outputting EM energy into the ionosphere longer than we've been able to measure it, then how can we know what is or isn't "natural"? "Nevertheless, VLF transmissions of anthropogenic origin may constitute a key space weather influence on pathways that fundamentally alter the storm-time radiation belt. Under these assumptions, it is interesting for the reader to consider what the terrestrial radiation belt environment might have been in the pre-transmitter, and pre-observation, era."
Anthropogenic Space Weather 2016 - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309854824_Anthropogenic_Space_Weather

It has taken our scientific community a long time to realize the dire effects man made CO2 plays as a climate forcing mechanism. I don't doubt its significance and am left wondering if it will take another 50 years before we see there's potentially another part in the wholistic equation of our complex climate system.

If we're truly dedicating our time, careers and lives to solving this monumental problem for generations ahead.. are we looking at the potential significance of how our global broadcast may be stimulating an ozone depletion mechanism allowing more UV rays to heat increasing levels of greenhouse gasses most of all CO2 from man made sources? How do we determine what is or isn't worth our time when looking for answers?

I really appreciate all the energy and effort you and others are dedicating to solving the issues of climate change and appreciate your time and consideration around this letter.


Thank you sincerely, Professor Lewis Carlson PhD ~ RelativisticElectronPrecipitation@protonmail.com


In my opinion, climate uses energy profiles of all objects and classes that we can think of as data -- therefore all forms of energies are directly linked to climate (not climate change). The "change" factor, however, works in a different way.
17-12-2018 19:24
HarveyH55
★★☆☆☆
(218)
Doesn't seem that 'Climate Change' looks at anything seriously, unless it involves CO2 in some way, more specifically, man-made CO2. Anything that reduces temperature or CO2, are also down-played, or dismissed. I think the warming trend is entirely natural, and unrelated to CO2. Also believe a warmer climate, and much higher CO2 levels will workout to be highly beneficial to life on this planet, since vegetation will thrive, our most basic food source. All life is based on carbon molecules, and they don't get it from eating coal, or drinking petroleum, neither do plants. The carbon is mostly pulled out of the air, plants convert it, everything else consume the plants, on way or another. Really seems odd to me, that few people see the problem of reduce, eventually eliminating our contribution to the food chain.
17-12-2018 21:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6284)
ansi2018 wrote:
In my opinion, climate uses energy profiles of all objects and classes that we can think of as data -- therefore all forms of energies are directly linked to climate (not climate change). The "change" factor, however, works in a different way.


Data isn't a profile of an object or a class. Data is the result of any observation. Observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are not a proof. They are evidence only.

There are many kinds of energy. How does nuclear, chemical, electrical, or mechanical energy affect or 'change' climate?


The Parrot Killer
Page 8 of 8<<<678





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 change1211-10-2018 01:04
This is one of the reasons why I am skeptical of human-induced global warming5608-10-2018 19:56
20 Reasons To Be Skeptical Of Human-Induced Global Warming6927-09-2018 20:50
El Nino, La Nina Effects on Antarctic Ice Shelves312-01-2018 02:23
GWP (Global Warming Potential)6316-10-2017 20:57
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact