Remember me
▼ Content

Potential Effects of Broadcast Induced REP on Climate Change



Page 1 of 7123>>>
Potential Effects of Broadcast Induced REP on Climate Change29-10-2018 04:32
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(122)
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
29-10-2018 11:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Our climate is changing as many of us are aware
Define 'climate change'. There is no such thing as a global climate since there is no such thing as a global weather.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
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.

The old "It's for the children argument". Boring, and BS.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
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.

CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth from surface infrared.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
In my process of learning about various climate forcing mechanisms
There are none. There is no such thing as a global climate. No climate is forced. No weather is forced.
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". [/quote]None. REP is simply electrons leaving the Van Allen belts. That doesn't heat anything.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
"At VLF frequencies between 10 and 20 kHz, the ground-based transmitters are used for radio-navigation and communications.

WRONG. VLF is used for communications and beacons only. No navigation systems are currently using these frequencies.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
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.
HF does not heat the atmosphere. Lightning is not caused by a warmer atmosphere. Lightning does not heat the Earth.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
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

Tropospheric NOx (where lightning occurs) does not affect the ozone layer.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
which contributes to the greenhouse effect.
There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' effect. The ozone layer does not warm the Earth. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth using surface IR.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Second, precipitation of energetic electrons by man?made waves may trigger other lightning discharges.

Radio waves do not cause lightning.

The ozone layer is built by exposure of UV-B in sunlight acting on oxygen.
It is destroyed by exposure to UV-C sunlight acting on ozone.

Ozone is created at the bottom of the stratosphere and destroyed at the top. This why there is a temperature inversion in the stratosphere. REP does not affect it. Radio waves does not affect it. Lightning does not affect it. As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone.

We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to.


The Parrot Killer
29-10-2018 11:11
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(222)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
.....If we're truly dedicating our time, careers and lives....


Not here. Need another forum for those folks.

Try the 2018 AGU fall meeting in a few weeks.
(see https://fallmeeting.agu.org/2018/)
While a lot of the conference is about geology and oceanography and meteorology there's a lot of climate science too. Non-professionals can join and attend. Can't physically attend? A lot will be presented online. live or recorded.

After glancing through your post and following your links I'm not concerned about anthropogenic VLF emissions, but maybe somebody at the AGU meeting would be.
29-10-2018 12:26
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1260)
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


Google shows a professor of this name as a historian.

Are you him?

If so why are you talking about atmospheric physics?

Are you aware of how much radio energy there is wafting around in nature? How tiny our impact is upon that vast deluge?
29-10-2018 15:25
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
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


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



...Prof. Carlson,
..With the saturation of radiowaves in our atmosphere I usually wonder if that's why so many children are born autistic. I wouldn't be surprised if radiowaves could damage the developing brain in a fetus.
29-10-2018 21:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
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


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



...Prof. Carlson,
..With the saturation of radiowaves in our atmosphere I usually wonder if that's why so many children are born autistic. I wouldn't be surprised if radiowaves could damage the developing brain in a fetus.

Of course you wouldn't. You deny physics, history, and what is around you right now.

Lots of highly technical people. They grew up in the same radio wave environment you did. You call this overall brain damage???


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 29-10-2018 21:18
01-11-2018 00:48
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Lewis Carlson wrote:


Professor, please excuse my pomposity but you seem to have not the slightest grasp of scale. CO2 absorbs the entire available 3 major lines in the available energy spectrum of direct sunlight at levels of 200-250 ppm. Additional CO2 has no effect.

The radio waves striking the Earth from the Sun and Jupiter are large enough that ALL man-made radio sources are insignificant.

It isn't as if any of this is new information. It was published by the Department of Commerce science department - the forerunner to NOAA in 1905.

Pulling crazy theories out of the stars makes you sound like the flat earthists who have made a re-birth since the advent of social media. Or the CIA conspiracists who claim that the government blew up the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11 and the actual photographs of the aircraft striking the buildings is nothing more than photoshopping. Or the nut jobs that claim that we cannot cross the Van Allen Belts so there was no Moon Landing and that it was shot on a sound stage in Hollywood.

Believe it or not, the Earth is a large water planet. The ending of the Little Ice Age circa 1850 has yielded nothing more than normal warming back to what might be called "normal" temperatures. Indeed we are even slowly descending into another full Ice Age but that is probably 200,000 years in the future and I don't think that you or your children or grand-children will have to worry about it.
01-11-2018 11:44
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1260)
Wake wrote:
Lewis Carlson wrote:


Professor, please excuse my pomposity but you seem to have not the slightest grasp of scale. CO2 absorbs the entire available 3 major lines in the available energy spectrum of direct sunlight at levels of 200-250 ppm. Additional CO2 has no effect.

The radio waves striking the Earth from the Sun and Jupiter are large enough that ALL man-made radio sources are insignificant.

It isn't as if any of this is new information. It was published by the Department of Commerce science department - the forerunner to NOAA in 1905.

Pulling crazy theories out of the stars makes you sound like the flat earthists who have made a re-birth since the advent of social media. Or the CIA conspiracists who claim that the government blew up the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11 and the actual photographs of the aircraft striking the buildings is nothing more than photoshopping. Or the nut jobs that claim that we cannot cross the Van Allen Belts so there was no Moon Landing and that it was shot on a sound stage in Hollywood.

Believe it or not, the Earth is a large water planet. The ending of the Little Ice Age circa 1850 has yielded nothing more than normal warming back to what might be called "normal" temperatures. Indeed we are even slowly descending into another full Ice Age but that is probably 200,000 years in the future and I don't think that you or your children or grand-children will have to worry about it.


Wel said. I think the guy is not the professor quoted but simply a nut.
01-11-2018 16:35
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Lewis Carlson wrote:


Professor, please excuse my pomposity but you seem to have not the slightest grasp of scale. CO2 absorbs the entire available 3 major lines in the available energy spectrum of direct sunlight at levels of 200-250 ppm. Additional CO2 has no effect.

The radio waves striking the Earth from the Sun and Jupiter are large enough that ALL man-made radio sources are insignificant.

It isn't as if any of this is new information. It was published by the Department of Commerce science department - the forerunner to NOAA in 1905.

Pulling crazy theories out of the stars makes you sound like the flat earthists who have made a re-birth since the advent of social media. Or the CIA conspiracists who claim that the government blew up the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11 and the actual photographs of the aircraft striking the buildings is nothing more than photoshopping. Or the nut jobs that claim that we cannot cross the Van Allen Belts so there was no Moon Landing and that it was shot on a sound stage in Hollywood.

Believe it or not, the Earth is a large water planet. The ending of the Little Ice Age circa 1850 has yielded nothing more than normal warming back to what might be called "normal" temperatures. Indeed we are even slowly descending into another full Ice Age but that is probably 200,000 years in the future and I don't think that you or your children or grand-children will have to worry about it.


Wel said. I think the guy is not the professor quoted but simply a nut.



...Tim, "well" is spelled with 2 Ls and not one. Small detail but if a person can't get those right then how can they be trusted to get important details right? Science does require that everything be in agreement. This is why I am an advocate of more research. What we don't know could be important.
01-11-2018 16:50
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1260)
James___ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Lewis Carlson wrote:


Professor, please excuse my pomposity but you seem to have not the slightest grasp of scale. CO2 absorbs the entire available 3 major lines in the available energy spectrum of direct sunlight at levels of 200-250 ppm. Additional CO2 has no effect.

The radio waves striking the Earth from the Sun and Jupiter are large enough that ALL man-made radio sources are insignificant.

It isn't as if any of this is new information. It was published by the Department of Commerce science department - the forerunner to NOAA in 1905.

Pulling crazy theories out of the stars makes you sound like the flat earthists who have made a re-birth since the advent of social media. Or the CIA conspiracists who claim that the government blew up the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11 and the actual photographs of the aircraft striking the buildings is nothing more than photoshopping. Or the nut jobs that claim that we cannot cross the Van Allen Belts so there was no Moon Landing and that it was shot on a sound stage in Hollywood.

Believe it or not, the Earth is a large water planet. The ending of the Little Ice Age circa 1850 has yielded nothing more than normal warming back to what might be called "normal" temperatures. Indeed we are even slowly descending into another full Ice Age but that is probably 200,000 years in the future and I don't think that you or your children or grand-children will have to worry about it.


Wel said. I think the guy is not the professor quoted but simply a nut.



...Tim, "well" is spelled with 2 Ls and not one. Small detail but if a person can't get those right then how can they be trusted to get important details right? Science does require that everything be in agreement. This is why I am an advocate of more research. What we don't know could be important.


I always know when i have won the argument;

The other guy complains about spelling, or a single typo in this case, or my use of blue ink.

If you are told "don't go out at night because there are flesh eating monsters who consume their own body weight each day, they live at a pace vastly faster than us, reactions that we have no hope of matching, so foused on feeding that they are already hunting whilst still chewing the last victim!!!"

Would you change you life due to the threat of a stoat?
01-11-2018 18:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Lewis Carlson wrote:


Professor, please excuse my pomposity but you seem to have not the slightest grasp of scale. CO2 absorbs the entire available 3 major lines in the available energy spectrum of direct sunlight at levels of 200-250 ppm. Additional CO2 has no effect.

The radio waves striking the Earth from the Sun and Jupiter are large enough that ALL man-made radio sources are insignificant.

It isn't as if any of this is new information. It was published by the Department of Commerce science department - the forerunner to NOAA in 1905.

Pulling crazy theories out of the stars makes you sound like the flat earthists who have made a re-birth since the advent of social media. Or the CIA conspiracists who claim that the government blew up the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11 and the actual photographs of the aircraft striking the buildings is nothing more than photoshopping. Or the nut jobs that claim that we cannot cross the Van Allen Belts so there was no Moon Landing and that it was shot on a sound stage in Hollywood.

Believe it or not, the Earth is a large water planet. The ending of the Little Ice Age circa 1850 has yielded nothing more than normal warming back to what might be called "normal" temperatures. Indeed we are even slowly descending into another full Ice Age but that is probably 200,000 years in the future and I don't think that you or your children or grand-children will have to worry about it.


Wel said. I think the guy is not the professor quoted but simply a nut.



...Tim, "well" is spelled with 2 Ls and not one. Small detail but if a person can't get those right then how can they be trusted to get important details right?

Wrong, Mr. Spelling Cop. Typos occur all the time, even in research papers where more checking for them is done.
James___ wrote:
Science does require that everything be in agreement.

Nope. Science doesn't use consensus. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. No theory of science may conflict with any other theory of science without one or both theories becoming falsified.
James___ wrote:
This is why I am an advocate of more research. What we don't know could be important.

Science isn't a research or study. You first have to have a theory to begin testing it.


The Parrot Killer
02-11-2018 03:12
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(122)
Ok well let's just go down the list and clarify here, because some aren't getting the big point here and spelling errors, name calling and saying who am I to question is distracting from the main point that I'm merely the messenger here.. the scientists who I have mentioned in this post ie. Michal Parrot and Bo Thide are some of the leading scientists in the world of their field. So you can question me and say I'm a crazy nut, but I'm only saying.. what they are saying.

So to get on with the actual debate here:

1) No such thing as global climate change - The global climate can and will change hence ice ages.

2) For the children is a bs argument - It is because of my children that I've been so inclined to dedicate my time to looking into how to make the world a better place. It's not an argument.. it's a motivation.

3) CO2 hasn't the capability to warm the Earth from surface IR - Agreed, I'm not talking about surface IR, I'm talking about solar UV rays.

4) Climate isn't forced and the mechanisms aren't real - At any given point our planet's temperature is changing, it is never static and is either on a whole getting warmer or colder (ie ice ages). At any given time the leading mechanism is known as a climate forcing mechanism. Yes they are real.

5) REP is electrons leaving the earth it doesn't heat anything - Um You really are missing the point here.

^^^@Into The Night: Radio waves are known to stimulate Electron Precipitation which is an ozone depletion mechanism. When the ozone depletion occurs it allows more UV rays to heat the atmosphere regardless of what causes that depletion. Just look up the Wikipedia entry for Electron Precipitation and you will see all of this is clearly listed with all needed sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_precipitation

Hence Michal Parrot stated REP could lead to the global warming of Earth. Which leads me to the next one: vvv

6) VLF is used for communications and becons, not for navigation - Michal Parrot was the head of VERSIM (VLF/ELF Remote Sensing of Ionosphere and Magnetosphere) - With all due respect I think I'll take his word over yours. http://www.iugg.org/IAGA/iaga_ursi/versim/index.html

7) HF doesn't heat the ionosphere, 8) lightening isn't caused by warmer atmosphere 9)No such thing as a greenhouse effect.

7,8,9 - Go back to school, our scientific understanding of the ionosphere was radically updated from old school views when Bo Thide single handedly revolutionized the field with multi channel ionospheric probing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionospheric_heater

10) No gas or vapor can warm Earth from surface IR - Agreed, You're missing the path of energy entirely. This letter has nothing to do with this.. it's talking about UV heating of atmospheric gasses.

11) Radio waves don't cause lightening: I'm glad you have that all figured out for us. Do you think that putting electromagnetic energy into the electrical circuit could at least maybe possibly contribute to there being more energy in the electrical circuit that could maybe even remotely possible in contributing atmospheric electricity .. such as lightening? Honestly.. I'm asking, because these guys study it.. and they are saying it does.. soooooo?

12) REP has no effect on ozone: See Wikipedia entry on Electron Precipitation above and this: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/12/001215082423.htm

13) Who are you to talk? I'm merely the messenger pointing out the words of the leading scientists in ionospheric research. They are the ones talking.. are you listening?

14) Radio waves cause autism: Dunno

15) Radio waves from distant planets make ours here on Earth insignificant: Well, OURs can deplete OUR ozone through REP, so what is or isn't significant requires quantifying all radio waves and determining significance. If indeed OUR radio waves can deplete OUR ozone.. would you call this POTENTIALLY significant?

16) You sound like a crazy nut! - This is not contributing to the conversation at all in, it is not debate and it is unkind. This isn't my message or theory, I'm merely saying.. if the leading scientists in ionospheric physics are seeing this interplay of mechanisms in our atmosphere and saying the public should pay attention.. If you think they are nutty cranks.. well I'm going to consider their word over the word of yours.. no offense.

Ok .. what else you got cause honestly there's very little good informed thoughts or questions being posed or discussed in this forum.

To review:

1) Radio waves stimulate Electron Precipitation - REP
2) REP depletes stratospheric ozone
3) Said reduction in ozone allows more UV rays (from the sun!)
4) UV rays heat the atmosphere

Not radio waves heating CO2 or ozone, if this was you're take away.. you missed the point here.. go back to the beginning and try again.
Edited on 02-11-2018 03:55
02-11-2018 13:35
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1260)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Ok well let's just go down the list and clarify here, because some aren't getting the big point here and spelling errors, name calling and saying who am I to question is distracting from the main point that I'm merely the messenger here.. the scientists who I have mentioned in this post ie. Michal Parrot and Bo Thide are some of the leading scientists in the world of their field. So you can question me and say I'm a crazy nut, but I'm only saying.. what they are saying.

So to get on with the actual debate here:

1) No such thing as global climate change - The global climate can and will change hence ice ages.

2) For the children is a bs argument - It is because of my children that I've been so inclined to dedicate my time to looking into how to make the world a better place. It's not an argument.. it's a motivation.

3) CO2 hasn't the capability to warm the Earth from surface IR - Agreed, I'm not talking about surface IR, I'm talking about solar UV rays.

4) Climate isn't forced and the mechanisms aren't real - At any given point our planet's temperature is changing, it is never static and is either on a whole getting warmer or colder (ie ice ages). At any given time the leading mechanism is known as a climate forcing mechanism. Yes they are real.

5) REP is electrons leaving the earth it doesn't heat anything - Um You really are missing the point here.

^^^@Into The Night: Radio waves are known to stimulate Electron Precipitation which is an ozone depletion mechanism. When the ozone depletion occurs it allows more UV rays to heat the atmosphere regardless of what causes that depletion. Just look up the Wikipedia entry for Electron Precipitation and you will see all of this is clearly listed with all needed sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_precipitation

Hence Michal Parrot stated REP could lead to the global warming of Earth. Which leads me to the next one: vvv

6) VLF is used for communications and becons, not for navigation - Michal Parrot was the head of VERSIM (VLF/ELF Remote Sensing of Ionosphere and Magnetosphere) - With all due respect I think I'll take his word over yours. http://www.iugg.org/IAGA/iaga_ursi/versim/index.html

7) HF doesn't heat the ionosphere, 8) lightening isn't caused by warmer atmosphere 9)No such thing as a greenhouse effect.

7,8,9 - Go back to school, our scientific understanding of the ionosphere was radically updated from old school views when Bo Thide single handedly revolutionized the field with multi channel ionospheric probing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionospheric_heater

10) No gas or vapor can warm Earth from surface IR - Agreed, You're missing the path of energy entirely. This letter has nothing to do with this.. it's talking about UV heating of atmospheric gasses.

11) Radio waves don't cause lightening: I'm glad you have that all figured out for us. Do you think that putting electromagnetic energy into the electrical circuit could at least maybe possibly contribute to there being more energy in the electrical circuit that could maybe even remotely possible in contributing atmospheric electricity .. such as lightening? Honestly.. I'm asking, because these guys study it.. and they are saying it does.. soooooo?

12) REP has no effect on ozone: See Wikipedia entry on Electron Precipitation above and this: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/12/001215082423.htm

13) Who are you to talk? I'm merely the messenger pointing out the words of the leading scientists in ionospheric research. They are the ones talking.. are you listening?

14) Radio waves cause autism: Dunno

15) Radio waves from distant planets make ours here on Earth insignificant: Well, OURs can deplete OUR ozone through REP, so what is or isn't significant requires quantifying all radio waves and determining significance. If indeed OUR radio waves can deplete OUR ozone.. would you call this POTENTIALLY significant?

16) You sound like a crazy nut! - This is not contributing to the conversation at all in, it is not debate and it is unkind. This isn't my message or theory, I'm merely saying.. if the leading scientists in ionospheric physics are seeing this interplay of mechanisms in our atmosphere and saying the public should pay attention.. If you think they are nutty cranks.. well I'm going to consider their word over the word of yours.. no offense.

Ok .. what else you got cause honestly there's very little good informed thoughts or questions being posed or discussed in this forum.

To review:

1) Radio waves stimulate Electron Precipitation - REP
2) REP depletes stratospheric ozone
3) Said reduction in ozone allows more UV rays (from the sun!)
4) UV rays heat the atmosphere

Not radio waves heating CO2 or ozone, if this was you're take away.. you missed the point here.. go back to the beginning and try again.


1, Are you the professor that comes up when I put your name into google? The historia?

2, Whilst there are people here who spout drivel and call it science a lot, ITN in particular, do you know what you are talking about? Do you have any understanding of physics?
02-11-2018 18:44
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(122)
Do they know what their talking about Tim?

VERSIM: VLF/ELF Remote Sensing of Ionosphere and Magnetosphere

Man-made phenomena

"The observed broadcast in the VLF band is not necessarily the strongest station in the AM band. Periodicity, selectivity and long distances from the transmitters, together with lack of a clear relation to magnetic activity, do not favour the well-known explanation in which ionospheric current is modulated by powerful RF waves causing electron temperature variations."

Terrestrial Electromagnetic Environment

"Fraser-Smith reviewed seasonal variations in ELF/VLF noise statistics from the eight-station Stanford radiometer network (only Stanford and Arrival Heights are still operating). He also reiterated how difficult it is becoming all over the world to make meaningful measurements of the natural noise background because of contamination from anthropogenic sources...

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


Michal Parrot

International Union of Radio Science - URSI CoChair 1996-2005  M. Parrot

His scientific contributions according to ResearchGate:

https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/17905078_M_Parrot

In the book Handbook of Atmospheic Electrodynamics 1995, he wrote chapter 4 on Electromagnetic Noise Due to Earthquakes.

Do you think M. Parrot knows what he's talking about?
02-11-2018 18:58
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1260)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Do they know what their talking about Tim?

VERSIM: VLF/ELF Remote Sensing of Ionosphere and Magnetosphere

Man-made phenomena

"The observed broadcast in the VLF band is not necessarily the strongest station in the AM band. Periodicity, selectivity and long distances from the transmitters, together with lack of a clear relation to magnetic activity, do not favour the well-known explanation in which ionospheric current is modulated by powerful RF waves causing electron temperature variations."

Terrestrial Electromagnetic Environment

"Fraser-Smith reviewed seasonal variations in ELF/VLF noise statistics from the eight-station Stanford radiometer network (only Stanford and Arrival Heights are still operating). He also reiterated how difficult it is becoming all over the world to make meaningful measurements of the natural noise background because of contamination from anthropogenic sources...

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


Michal Parrot

International Union of Radio Science - URSI CoChair 1996-2005  M. Parrot

His scientific contributions according to ResearchGate:

https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/17905078_M_Parrot

In the book Handbook of Atmospheic Electrodynamics 1995, he wrote chapter 4 on Electromagnetic Noise Due to Earthquakes.

Do you think M. Parrot knows what he's talking about?


Given that clearly the electrical engineering world knows about it and they are not raising the alarm I am not going to panic about it.

Also it is clear you have no clue.

If I am mystaken please explain why v=fl (l for lambda)
02-11-2018 19:06
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(122)
CNRS --> The French National Center for Scientific Research was founded in 1939 and is the largest governmental research organisation in France and the largest fundamental science agency in Europe. http://www.cnrs.fr/en/aboutcnrs/overview.htm

These guys aren't crazy nuts AND they have a lovely video about the research they do on their website!


Together CNRS France and CNES (French National Space Agency) launched the DEMETER Micro Satellite mission designed specifically to measure man made electromagnetic sources. Check this website:

"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." Michel Parrot

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


CNRS -The French National Center for Scientific Research and CNES-French National Space Agency
02-11-2018 19:12
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(122)
I'm not saying you or anybody needs to panic.. I'm not saying CO2 isn't significant.. I'm merely pointing out that there is this whole other ozone depletion mechanism that is stimulated by global broadcast transmitters. I don't know how significant or insignificant it is or isn't, but it good to know when looking at anthropogenic effects we have on our atmosphere. Wouldn't you say?
02-11-2018 19:33
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(122)
I'm not an alarmist, I don't think radio waves are necessarily the cause of climate change.. so if you really are interested on commenting further in some constructive way then why don't we dig into the real science of this REP ozone depletion mechanism!? This is exciting!!
What part of this ozone depletion mechanism isn't clear for you?

If you broadcast energy along this 1.45MHz frequency, the ionosphere will act as a receiver and receive the energy through the gyro-frequency and transfer it through the cyclotron frequency (1.5MHz) into ion acoustic turbulence along the magnetic field line as ion cyclotron plasma waves.

These cyclotron plasma waves travel along magnetic field ducts as TID's Traveling Ionospheric Disturbances. Once they reach the polar regions it causes runaway populations of particle outflow part of which is called Electron Precipitation - REP. The raining electrons interact with stratospheric Nitrogen to form NOx compounds which is the leading chemical in the ozone cycle. The imbalance of the electronegativity causes ozone molecules to break apart, thus the depletion.

Read here: "When broadband very low frequency (VLF) waves propagate the radiation belts, the electrons exit the radiation belt and "precipitate" (or travel) into the ionosphere (a region of Earth's atmosphere) where the electrons will collide with ions.[2] Electron precipitation is regularly linked to ozone depletion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_precipitation
02-11-2018 19:47
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(122)
Once we accept that UV rays heats greenhouse gasses, then there are two parts to the over all equation here: [+CO2] + [UV] = Global Temperature Increase ie. Climate Change

The difference in consensus is that most people don't acknowledge that UV is increasing because our ozone layer is thinning everywhere but the poles. Which would change the equation to: [+CO2] + [+UV] = UV rays isn't static you see. The more UV rays there are to heat the greenhouse gasses.. the more the greenhouse gasses significantly affect climate.

1) Increase in CO2 - From Anthropogenic Sources
2) Increase in UV rays - From ozone depletion

I'm not saying that this ozone depletion is from broadcast.. I'm saying that from what I'm reading from these scientists.. I'm ASKING <-- Could it be significant? I'm not saying it does.. I'm ASKING?

So if you have actual scientific research in any form that can shed light on this then I welcome it. If you are just going to tell me your not concerned.. I fully accept that. Good for you.

Now let's get back to the science shall we?
02-11-2018 20:09
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(122)
The energy transferred through the gyro frequency rides two major instabilities that occur as you move up the electromagnetic frequency spectrum. The first is the cyclotron instability at ~1.45MHz and the second the cyclotron maser instability at 2.45 GHz which happens to be the same frequency that WiFi and microwave ovens run on. Microwaves or Wifi aren't strong enough to make it to the ionosphere so they really play no role at all in the Electron Precipitation ozone depletion mechanism.

~1.45MHz The Cyclotron Instability - AM broadcast band - Also the very frequency of the E layer of the ionosphere. Simulating the E layer with it's own resonant frequency causes a forced oscillation and subsequent cyclotron plasma waves.

Gyro frequency stimulation leads to SEE -Stimulated Electromagnetic Emission [Bo Thide discovered SEE and won an award for this, se OP]

During SEE the 1.45MHz electromagnetic wave can jump in what's called the Luxembourg effect from the E layer to the F layer of the ionosphere which causes the frequency to shift to 2.45GHz.

~2.45 GHz The Cyclotron MASER Instability - Wifi & microwave oven
(microwave amplification by stimulation emission of radiation)

the cyclotron maser instability may also be regarded simply as a growing space-charge wave in a relativistic beam which is in synchronism with the surrounding structure, or as due to current bunching, or even as an instability of the shear flow of a rotating relativistic electron fluid spiraling along the magnetic field lines with O+ and H+ ions that flow to precipitate as electron showers into the lower atmosphere and also act as a secondary form of ionization, and subsequently lightning.
02-11-2018 20:23
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1260)
Given you don't know what v=fl is all about you have no clue at all about physics.

Don't go there.

I don't comment when the discussion gets technical about the various absorption spetrums of whatever. It is beyond me. I am a spectator. I don't know.

Deal only with stuff you have a grasp of.

Edited on 02-11-2018 20:23
02-11-2018 20:25
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(222)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
The more UV rays there are to heat the greenhouse gasses..


I don't understand how that works.

If you examine the absorbance curves of the different greenhouse gasses as shown in the second figure of the wikipedia entry on greenhouse gasses ozone is the only strong absorber of ultraviolet.
(here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#/media/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png)

Seems to me that depletion of ozone results in transmission to ground level where most will be absorbed with the electromagnetic energy becoming thermal energy.

Looks to me like most UV is either absorbed by ozone becoming mostly thermal energy in the atmosphere or is absorbed by the surface also becoming thermal energy.


Regarding the Demeter mission that you linked to, looks like the data collection part ended in 2010. See http://demeter.cnrs-orleans.fr/

Any published results that support you concerns?
02-11-2018 20:31
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(122)
Not all radio waves are considered equal here!!

"Unfortunately medium frequencies fall within or very near the electron gyro-frequency which is in the approximate range of 630 to 1630 kHz and of course the AM broadcast band and 160 meter band is very close to these electron gyro frequencies. There is a direct correlation between the strength of Earth's magnetic field lines and electron gyro frequencies.

Basically, the electron gyro frequency is a measure of the interaction between an electron in the Earth's atmosphere and the Earth's magnetic field. The closer a transmitted medium frequency carrier or sideband wave frequency is to the electron gyro frequency, the more energy that is absorbed by the gyro (spinning) electrons from that carrier wave frequency. This is especially true for medium frequency signals traveling perpendicular to the Earth's magnetic field, meaning high latitude NW and NE propagation paths. Unfortunately this form of medium frequency signal absorption is ALWAYS present."

The 160-Meter Band: An Enigma Shrouded in Mystery - http://solar.spacew.com/cq/cqmar98.pdf

Scientists using the HAARP transmitter found that stimulation specifically around this gyrofrequency was extra effective at causing REP - Relativistic Electron Precipitation
02-11-2018 21:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Ok well let's just go down the list and clarify here, because some aren't getting the big point here and spelling errors, name calling and saying who am I to question is distracting from the main point that I'm merely the messenger here.. the scientists who I have mentioned in this post ie. Michal Parrot and Bo Thide are some of the leading scientists in the world of their field. So you can question me and say I'm a crazy nut, but I'm only saying.. what they are saying.

So to get on with the actual debate here:

This is the problem. You listen to some guy that says he is a scientist and call that 'science'. Science is not any scientist or group of scientists. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
1) No such thing as global climate change - The global climate can and will change hence ice ages.

So you consider ice a global weather? I don't think you understand what 'climate' itself means. An ice age is not a climate.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
2) For the children is a bs argument - It is because of my children that I've been so inclined to dedicate my time to looking into how to make the world a better place. It's not an argument.. it's a motivation.

Fine. You might start by critically analyzing arguments presented to you, instead of just taking somebody's word for it, even if they call themselves a 'scientist'.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
3) CO2 hasn't the capability to warm the Earth from surface IR - Agreed, I'm not talking about surface IR, I'm talking about solar UV rays.

UV light doesn't warm anything. Absorption of UV generally causes chemical reactions instead. For example, UV-B light reacting with oxygen creates ozone, which is an endothermic reaction, cooling the gas.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
4) Climate isn't forced and the mechanisms aren't real - At any given point our planet's temperature is changing, it is never static and is either on a whole getting warmer or colder (ie ice ages). At any given time the leading mechanism is known as a climate forcing mechanism. Yes they are real.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. The only thing of any significant source of energy for the Earth is the Sun. The Sun's output does not change much.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
5) REP is electrons leaving the earth it doesn't heat anything - Um You really are missing the point here.

^^^@Into The Night: Radio waves are known to stimulate Electron Precipitation which is an ozone depletion mechanism.

Electrons do not deplete ozone. The ozone is not being depleted.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
When the ozone depletion occurs it allows more UV rays to heat the atmosphere regardless of what causes that depletion.

Nope. UV-B light creates ozone.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Just look up the Wikipedia entry for Electron Precipitation and you will see all of this is clearly listed with all needed sources: ...deleted redundant Holy Link...

Wikipedia is discarded on sight. They are not usable as a reference with me. Too many of their articles are biased, incomplete, badly written, or just plain wrong.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Hence Michal Parrot stated REP could lead to the global warming of Earth. Which leads me to the next one: vvv

I really could care less what Michal Parrot says. He is wrong for the same reason you are wrong.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
6) VLF is used for communications and becons, not for navigation - Michal Parrot was the head of VERSIM (VLF/ELF Remote Sensing of Ionosphere and Magnetosphere) - With all due respect I think I'll take his word over yours. http://www.iugg.org/IAGA/iaga_ursi/versim/index.html

This project uses a beacon. It is not a communications system and it is not a navigation system.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
7) HF doesn't heat the ionosphere,

Since you discarded this, you should now that the Sun puts out a hell of a lot more energy than our weak little radio signals. The ionosphere is primarily heated by chemical reactions with oxygen and ozone, and by conduction and convection.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
8) lightening isn't caused by warmer atmosphere

You discarded this too. Lightning is not affected by temperature. Storms are caused by a temperature difference, not a higher temperature. Only large differences can create enough convection to generate lightning.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
9)No such thing as a greenhouse effect.

You discarded this too. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. No REP electrons can warm the Earth. There is no such thing as 'greenhouse' gas. The 'greenhouse effect' denies the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It also create paradoxes.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
7,8,9 - Go back to school, our scientific understanding of the ionosphere was radically updated from old school views when Bo Thide single handedly revolutionized the field with multi channel ionospheric probing: ...deleted redundant Holy Link...

Nothing has changed. There is no 'old school' or 'new school' view.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
10) No gas or vapor can warm Earth from surface IR - Agreed, You're missing the path of energy entirely. This letter has nothing to do with this.. it's talking about UV heating of atmospheric gasses.

Absorption of UV light does not cause heating. It causes chemical reactions.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
11) Radio waves don't cause lightening: I'm glad you have that all figured out for us. Do you think that putting electromagnetic energy into the electrical circuit could at least maybe possibly contribute to there being more energy in the electrical circuit that could maybe even remotely possible in contributing atmospheric electricity .. such as lightening? Honestly.. I'm asking, because these guys study it.. and they are saying it does.. soooooo?

There is no 'electrical circuit' in the atmosphere. Radio waves are light. They do not cause lightning. They are not electricity.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
12) REP has no effect on ozone: See Wikipedia entry on Electron Precipitation above and this: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/12/001215082423.htm

Wikipedia is discarded on sight. You cannot use is as a reference or Holy Link with me. Learn to think for yourself instead of parroting the arguments of others.
13) Who are you to talk? I'm merely the messenger pointing out the words of the leading scientists in ionospheric research. They are the ones talking.. are you listening? [/quote]
No. I don't believe the message you are trying to convey. No theory of science may conflict with any other theory of science. You have not falsified the chemistry, the physics surrounding electromagnetic energy, the physics surrounding electrical energy, or the physics surrounding thermodynamics that you are depending on doing to make your (their) argument.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
14) Radio waves cause autism: Dunno

It doesn't. Autism has been around long before we even had the first radio station.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
15) Radio waves from distant planets make ours here on Earth insignificant: Well, OURs can deplete OUR ozone through REP, so what is or isn't significant requires quantifying all radio waves and determining significance. If indeed OUR radio waves can deplete OUR ozone.. would you call this POTENTIALLY significant?

Our ozone is not being depleted. It never was. REP does nothing to ozone. Radio does not deplete ozone.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
16) You sound like a crazy nut! - This is not contributing to the conversation at all in, it is not debate and it is unkind.

Science isn't a debate. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Consensus is not used in science.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
This isn't my message or theory, I'm merely saying.. if the leading scientists in ionospheric physics

I question your 'leading scientist' for the reasons already stated.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
are seeing this interplay of mechanisms in our atmosphere and saying the public should pay attention.. If you think they are nutty cranks.. well I'm going to consider their word over the word of yours.. no offense.

No offense? You want to shut down radio stations because they are destroying the ozone layer???
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Ok .. what else you got cause honestly there's very little good informed thoughts or questions being posed or discussed in this forum.

To review:

1) Radio waves stimulate Electron Precipitation - REP

No, they don't. REP just happens.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
2) REP depletes stratospheric ozone

No it doesn't. Sunlight and oxygen create ozone. As long as you have sunlight and oxygen you WILL have ozone. We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
3) Said reduction in ozone allows more UV rays (from the sun!)

UV-B creates ozone.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
4) UV rays heat the atmosphere

UV absorption causes chemical reactions, not heating. You have to drop to just above infrared frequencies to get heating out of light absorption.
Not radio waves heating CO2 or ozone, if this was you're take away.. you missed the point here.. go back to the beginning and try again.
[/quote]
A radio wave can heat both. Radio is light. Both CO2 and ozone can absorb certain frequencies of light. CO2 can absorb infrared light. You can heat CO2 with infrared light.


The Parrot Killer
02-11-2018 21:07
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(122)
Thanks for the input Tim.. I'll take that into consideration. This forum as I understand it is for anybody to discuss climate dynamics. So .. no .. I'm not going away. I'm keeping this discussion science based and within the rules of this forum. If you don't get it then heed your own advice "Deal only with stuff you have a grasp of" and have a great day
I'm not going to play your games, though you're welcome to continue playing them without further constructive input on this topic. If you'd like to start another thread and ask physics questions go ahead. As for this thread.. your off topic bro and your being pushy. If your questions are off topic they will be ignored henceforth.

Still learning: Thank you for contributing to the conversation in a constructive way. Let me see if I can find any results on that. M. Parrot the head of the mission has clearly stated there can be this interplay of atmospheric mechanisms involving REP ~ ozone depletion. He is credible so in all honesty this is enough to support my concerns.. however I still do not know how significant it could be.
02-11-2018 21:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
CNRS --> The French National Center for Scientific Research was founded in 1939 and is the largest governmental research organisation in France and the largest fundamental science agency in Europe. http://www.cnrs.fr/en/aboutcnrs/overview.htm

These guys aren't crazy nuts AND they have a lovely video about the research they do on their website!


Together CNRS France and CNES (French National Space Agency) launched the DEMETER Micro Satellite mission designed specifically to measure man made electromagnetic sources. Check this website:

"At VLF frequencies between 10 and 20 kHz, the ground-based transmitters are used for radio-navigation and communications.

They need to get updated. VLF is no longer used for navigation. Hasn't been for decades now.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
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.

All BS. I have already described why.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
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.

More BS. The ozone layer is not being depleted. NOx created by lightning takes place in the troposphere, not the ionosphere. They break down like usual by exposure to UV light. The higher they go, the more UV light they get that breaks them down.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Second, precipitation of energetic electrons by man?made waves may trigger other lightning discharges.

Not how lightning occurs. Lightning occurs due to stripping massive numbers of electrons from atoms. Radio waves do not do that.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
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." Michel Parrot

CNRS -The French National Center for Scientific Research and CNES-French National Space Agency

I think he's full of hooey with this theory.


The Parrot Killer
02-11-2018 21:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
I'm not saying you or anybody needs to panic.. I'm not saying CO2 isn't significant.. I'm merely pointing out that there is this whole other ozone depletion mechanism that is stimulated by global broadcast transmitters. I don't know how significant or insignificant it is or isn't, but it good to know when looking at anthropogenic effects we have on our atmosphere. Wouldn't you say?


Ozone is not being depleted.


The Parrot Killer
02-11-2018 21:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
I'm not an alarmist, I don't think radio waves are necessarily the cause of climate change.. so if you really are interested on commenting further in some constructive way then why don't we dig into the real science of this REP ozone depletion mechanism!? This is exciting!!
What part of this ozone depletion mechanism isn't clear for you?

You are an alarmist. Ozone is not being depleted.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
If you broadcast energy along this 1.45MHz frequency, the ionosphere will act as a receiver and receive the energy through the gyro-frequency and transfer it through the cyclotron frequency (1.5MHz) into ion acoustic turbulence along the magnetic field line as ion cyclotron plasma waves.

Buzzword fallacy. 1.45Mhz is simply reflected off the ozone layer. See information about the propagation of radio, including the monitoring beacons used for measuring it.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
These cyclotron plasma waves travel along magnetic field ducts as TID's Traveling Ionospheric Disturbances. Once they reach the polar regions it causes runaway populations of particle outflow part of which is called Electron Precipitation - REP. The raining electrons interact with stratospheric Nitrogen to form NOx compounds which is the leading chemical in the ozone cycle. The imbalance of the electronegativity causes ozone molecules to break apart, thus the depletion.
The ionosphere is not a cyclotron, it is not a magnetic field, it is not a 'duct', it is not involved in REP, it does not cause lightning, it does not have any significant lightning, it does not cause REP.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Read here: "When broadband very low frequency (VLF) waves propagate the radiation belts, the electrons exit the radiation belt and "precipitate" (or travel) into the ionosphere (a region of Earth's atmosphere) where the electrons will collide with ions.[2] Electron precipitation is regularly linked to ozone depletion."

...deleted Holy Wikipedia Link...

The ozone layer is not being depleted.


The Parrot Killer
02-11-2018 21:41
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(122)
The ozone layer is not being depleted?

"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/
02-11-2018 21:56
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(122)
"Buzzword fallacy. 1.45Mhz is simply reflected off the ozone layer."

Do you mean ionosphere or ozone layer?

There's tons of research using the HAARP transmitter to study the ionosphere including this frequency. It couples with the E layer of the ionosphere and causes a forced oscillation ~> cyclotron plasma waves, electron precipitation.. including artificial Northern Lights. All of this is well documented and yes, this is the new school:

"Recently we have demonstrated experimentally that radio waves from modern radio stations are strong enough that the interaction in the reflecting region of the ionosphere is such that the plasma no longer can be thought of as a passive, reflecting mirror. A more accurate description of the ionospheric plasma is that it self-modifies weakly its reflecting properties more or less in synchronism with the radio waves that propagate through and reflect from it. The fact that the "mirror" so to speak takes an active part in the reflection process is due to weak, complicated, but important non-linear (non-proportional) properties which can lead to turbulence and perhaps even chaos in the plasma. We call this phenomenon ionospheric modification and its manifestation shows that the old, simplistic picture, based on linear models of the physical processes in plasma, is no longer adequate. Like all plasmas in nature, the ionosphere is a complex physical system and not just a passive mirror of radio signals. We have only just begun to understand this complexity and much more basic research is needed before we have an adequate knowledge of the true behavior of the ionosphere and other space plasma."

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/25321698/atmosphere-ionosphere-mission-swedish-institute-of-space-
Edited on 02-11-2018 22:09
03-11-2018 00:02
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(122)
Also from the above link:

"From below, the ionosphere is continually being irradiated with thousands of megawatts of radio waves generated by lightning strokes associated with the thunderstorms which occur in the Earth's lower atmosphere at a rate of about one hundred per second. It is also irradiated by the electromagnetic waves from the tens of thousands of broadcast, TV, utility and radar stations that are in use on the surface on the Earth. The radiated powers from the more powerful of these stations range from a few hundred kilowatts to a few megawatts. The handful of research radio facilities that use radio waves for studying the environment use the same type of transmitters with the same powers, but are so few that they contribute negligibly to the total man-made radiation. However, they are absolutely indispensable when it comes to monitoring the atmosphere and space surroundings of our planet, and for developing better tools for such investigations.

This dependence of the motion of the plasma particles on the direction of the external magnetic field causes what is called symmetry breaking. As a consequence of this, a magnetised plasma will, when being is subjected to external perturbations such as powerful radio waves, structure itself into long, "cigar shaped" structures orientated along the Earth's magnetic field from which a few percent of the plasma will be "snow-ploughed" away.

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 of the magnetosphere."
03-11-2018 00:03
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(122)
Here's a -->NASA<-- video explaining how our VLF is creating a bubble around Earth:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=cFYoYUBGw4s
Edited on 03-11-2018 00:06
03-11-2018 00:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Once we accept that UV rays heats greenhouse gasses, then there are two parts to the over all equation here: [+CO2] + [UV] = Global Temperature Increase ie. Climate Change

UV does absorption does not heat anything. You can't add apples and diamonds and get giraffes.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
The difference in consensus is that most people don't acknowledge that UV is increasing because our ozone layer is thinning everywhere but the poles.

It isn't. UV comes from the Sun. We know what the is putting out some eight minutes and twenty seconds after the sun puts it out.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Which would change the equation to: [+CO2] + [+UV] = UV rays isn't static you see. The more UV rays there are to heat the greenhouse gasses.. the more the greenhouse gasses significantly affect climate.

UV varies with Sun output. The Sun is a pretty stable star.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
1) Increase in CO2 - From Anthropogenic Sources

It is not possible to measure where any bit of CO2 comes from. It is also not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
2) Increase in UV rays - From ozone depletion

UV-B creates ozone.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
I'm not saying that this ozone depletion is from broadcast.. I'm saying that from what I'm reading from these scientists.. I'm ASKING <-- Could it be significant? I'm not saying it does.. I'm ASKING?

No.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
So if you have actual scientific research in any form that can shed light on this then I welcome it. If you are just going to tell me your not concerned.. I fully accept that. Good for you.

Science isn't a research or a study. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You need to study the theories surrounding radio propagation, the actual measured radio propagation as measured by various radio beacons (including those at 1.45Mhz), the theories about light from Maxwell, Faraday, Marconi, and others that have contributed to radio, and remember that you cannot have any theory of science conflict with any other theory of science without one or both theories becoming falsified.

Maxwell's equations are not falsified. Neither is Marconi's theories concerning radio propagation, neither is Faraday's work on electromagnetism and electricity.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Now let's get back to the science shall we?

Already there. It is YOU that has left these and other existing theories of science.


The Parrot Killer
03-11-2018 00:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
The energy transferred through the gyro frequency rides two major instabilities that occur as you move up the electromagnetic frequency spectrum. The first is the cyclotron instability at ~1.45MHz and the second the cyclotron maser instability at 2.45 GHz which happens to be the same frequency that WiFi and microwave ovens run on. Microwaves or Wifi aren't strong enough to make it to the ionosphere so they really play no role at all in the Electron Precipitation ozone depletion mechanism.

~1.45MHz The Cyclotron Instability - AM broadcast band - Also the very frequency of the E layer of the ionosphere. Simulating the E layer with it's own resonant frequency causes a forced oscillation and subsequent cyclotron plasma waves.

Gyro frequency stimulation leads to SEE -Stimulated Electromagnetic Emission [Bo Thide discovered SEE and won an award for this, se OP]

During SEE the 1.45MHz electromagnetic wave can jump in what's called the Luxembourg effect from the E layer to the F layer of the ionosphere which causes the frequency to shift to 2.45GHz.

~2.45 GHz The Cyclotron MASER Instability - Wifi & microwave oven
(microwave amplification by stimulation emission of radiation)

the cyclotron maser instability may also be regarded simply as a growing space-charge wave in a relativistic beam which is in synchronism with the surrounding structure, or as due to current bunching, or even as an instability of the shear flow of a rotating relativistic electron fluid spiraling along the magnetic field lines with O+ and H+ ions that flow to precipitate as electron showers into the lower atmosphere and also act as a secondary form of ionization, and subsequently lightning.


No cyclotron. No gyro. No instability.


The Parrot Killer
03-11-2018 00:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
still learning wrote:
Lewis Carlson wrote:
The more UV rays there are to heat the greenhouse gasses..


I don't understand how that works.

If you examine the absorbance curves of the different greenhouse gasses as shown in the second figure of the wikipedia entry on greenhouse gasses ozone is the only strong absorber of ultraviolet.
(here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#/media/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png)

Seems to me that depletion of ozone results in transmission to ground level where most will be absorbed with the electromagnetic energy becoming thermal energy.

Looks to me like most UV is either absorbed by ozone becoming mostly thermal energy in the atmosphere or is absorbed by the surface also becoming thermal energy.


Regarding the Demeter mission that you linked to, looks like the data collection part ended in 2010. See http://demeter.cnrs-orleans.fr/

Any published results that support you concerns?


UV-B is absorbed by oxygen. That creates ozone. It does not cause heating. It penetrates the atmosphere down to the bottom of the stratosphere, where it is mostly absorbed (a small amount reaches the surface).

UV-C is absorbed by ozone. That creates oxygen. It does not cause direct heating. It penetrates only into the upper stratosphere. It does not reach any further into the atmosphere.

UV-A reaches the ground. It does not heat the ground. It causes chemical reactions, such as suntans, breaking down most plastics, hardening rubber (such as on tires and windshield wipers, etc. Most of it is blocked by buildup of ozone (which also absorbs some of it) as the day progresses.


The Parrot Killer
03-11-2018 00:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Not all radio waves are considered equal here!!

True. They vary by total energy, which is determined by frequency and intensity, just like any light.
Lewis Carlson wrote:
"Unfortunately medium frequencies fall within or very near the electron gyro-frequency which is in the approximate range of 630 to 1630 kHz and of course the AM broadcast band and 160 meter band is very close to these electron gyro frequencies. There is a direct correlation between the strength of Earth's magnetic field lines and electron gyro frequencies.

No gyro. Electrons don't spin like little Newtonian spheres. A gyro does not have a frequency. Magnetic fields lines do not oscillate at any frequency faster than thousands of years.

Buzzword fallacy.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
The 160-Meter Band: An Enigma Shrouded in Mystery - http://solar.spacew.com/cq/cqmar98.pdf

The160 meter band is one of the most studied bands in radio. Not any real mystery here!
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Scientists using the HAARP transmitter found that stimulation specifically around this gyrofrequency was extra effective at causing REP - Relativistic Electron Precipitation

No gyrofrequency.

HAARP was slated to be shut down due to lack of use. It's current use is to simulate (not stimulate) the ionospheric interference to determine how satellites are affected by it.


The Parrot Killer
03-11-2018 00:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Thanks for the input Tim.. I'll take that into consideration. This forum as I understand it is for anybody to discuss climate dynamics. So .. no .. I'm not going away. I'm keeping this discussion science based and within the rules of this forum. If you don't get it then heed your own advice "Deal only with stuff you have a grasp of" and have a great day
I'm not going to play your games, though you're welcome to continue playing them without further constructive input on this topic. If you'd like to start another thread and ask physics questions go ahead. As for this thread.. your off topic bro and your being pushy. If your questions are off topic they will be ignored henceforth.

Still learning: Thank you for contributing to the conversation in a constructive way. Let me see if I can find any results on that. M. Parrot the head of the mission has clearly stated there can be this interplay of atmospheric mechanisms involving REP ~ ozone depletion. He is credible so in all honesty this is enough to support my concerns.. however I still do not know how significant it could be.


You are not using science, but you are on topic. This board discusses 'global warming' and 'climate change' (whatever they actually are) and their causes; and also to discuss conflicting information concerning such.


The Parrot Killer
03-11-2018 00:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
The ozone layer is not being depleted?

"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."

...discarded Holy Link...USA Today is not a source of science....


I will answer the Holy Quote you provided this time:

The ozone layer is not being depleted. Ozone is created by the action of sunlight on oxygen in the atmosphere. As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to.

You should lookup the Chapman cycle. It describes how ozone tends to be created at the bottom of the stratosphere (an endothermic reaction), and how it is destroyed again at the top by higher frequency UV light (UV-C) that is available there (an exothermic reaction). It is why there is a temperature inversion in the stratosphere (but not an energy density inversion).

Hole open at the poles in the winters. The reason is simple: No Sun! No problem! The hole will vary in size depending on the upper air winds at the time, which stem from Hadley cell flow. The holes are natural phenomena.

If you fill a tank with ozone and put CFC's in it, nothing happeens. The CFC's are inert to ozone.

The whole business with the 'ozone layer scare' was caused by DuPont losing it's patents for R-12 refrigerant. The scare was manufactured by DuPont to force everyone onto it's new patented R-134a refrigerant. Both refrigerants are fluoroethanes. R-12 uses chlorine, while R-134a uses extra fluorine to complete the molecule instead. This makes R-134a less effective and more expensive as a refrigerant, but it is patented, which was all DuPont wanted.


The Parrot Killer
03-11-2018 00:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Also from the above link:

"From below, the ionosphere is continually being irradiated with thousands of megawatts of radio waves generated by lightning strokes associated with the thunderstorms which occur in the Earth's lower atmosphere at a rate of about one hundred per second. It is also irradiated by the electromagnetic waves from the tens of thousands of broadcast, TV, utility and radar stations that are in use on the surface on the Earth. The radiated powers from the more powerful of these stations range from a few hundred kilowatts to a few megawatts. The handful of research radio facilities that use radio waves for studying the environment use the same type of transmitters with the same powers, but are so few that they contribute negligibly to the total man-made radiation. However, they are absolutely indispensable when it comes to monitoring the atmosphere and space surroundings of our planet, and for developing better tools for such investigations.

This dependence of the motion of the plasma particles on the direction of the external magnetic field causes what is called symmetry breaking. As a consequence of this, a magnetised plasma will, when being is subjected to external perturbations such as powerful radio waves, structure itself into long, "cigar shaped" structures orientated along the Earth's magnetic field from which a few percent of the plasma will be "snow-ploughed" away.

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 of the magnetosphere."


Lightning occurs in the troposphere, not the ionosophere. Radio signals from Earth do not combine into a 'superwatt' signal.

The rest is buzzwords.


The Parrot Killer
03-11-2018 00:57
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(122)
Do you think 1.45MHz signals bounce off of the ozone layer as you say? And you you have any scientific research or links to back any of what you are saying up. I've provided plenty.
Page 1 of 7123>>>





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 © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact