Potential Effects of Broadcast Induced REP on Climate Change

Tim the plumber 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 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?

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.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
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.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
If you search for Electromagnetic Field Theory, the first thing that comes up is Bo Thide. He wrote the book and the comments you are discounting above. He's seriously one of the smartest dudes in ionospheric physics, but you know better right?

You think Michel Parrot's research is BS and hooey.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Ozone layer isn't thinning.. when it is.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Radio waves don't cause Electron Precipitation instead they bounce off the ozone layer??? wtf?

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Electron Precipitation doesn't cause stratospheric ozone depletion through NOx formation.. but it does.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Do you have anything at all to back these wild claims up?

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Geez I'm sorry but YOU are sounding like the crazy nut there buddy. I'm sure that NASA video isn't real either

Lewis Carlson wrote:
and you a flat earther too?

Lewis Carlson wrote:
I'm sure you think all of this research is BS too and we can't alter our ionosphere?

Lewis Carlson wrote:
That radio waves only reflect off of it like a mirror?

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Ionosphere disturbances generated by different natural processes and by human activity in Earth plasma environment:
"We can observe parallel to direct radiation also in the emissions of ionos-pheric plasma triggered by transmitters of electromagnetic waves located around the world. Human activity can be seen on the recorded spectra as separated peaks, growing of the whole background of plasma emission or enhanced broadband emissions in the whole observed frequency range (fig. 17.4)."

Lewis Carlson wrote:
...deleted remaining buzzwords and Holy Quotes...

Lewis Carlson wrote:
More on how radio waves cause Electron Precipitation:

Phenomena in the ionosphere-magnetosphere system induced by injection of powerful HF radio waves into nightside auroral ionosphere

"However, some effects were observed only when the HF pump wave was reflected from the F2 layer. Among them are the generation of intense field-aligned ion outflows, and a strong increase in the electron temperature Te with altitude. A possible scenario for the substorm triggering due to HF pumping into an auroral ionosphere is discussed. The authors present their interpretation of the data as follows. It is suggested that two populations of charged particles are at play. One of them is the runaway population of electrons and ions from the ionosphere caused by the effects of the powerful HF radio wave. The other is the population of electrons that precipitate from the magnetosphere. It is shown that the hydrodynamical equilibrium was disrupted due to the effects of the HF pumping"

https://www.ann-geophys.net/23/87/2005/angeo-23-87-2005.pdf

The electron precipitation in the polar regions alters the hydrodynamic equilibrium which goes hand in hand with electronegativity, NOx and the Chapman cycle of ozone formation and destruction.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
How Electron Precipitation can affect ozone through NOx formation in the stratosphere:

Effect of relativistic electron precipitation on neutral atmospheric composition
E. Turunen, Th. Ulich, C.-F. Enell, A. Kero Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory, Sodankyla, Finland

"Recent theoretical results from the Sodankyla Ion-Chemistry Model show how nitric oxide is produced and sustained in the high-latitude ionosphere in response to energetic auroral electron precipitation. Dramatic local increases in nitric oxide above background levels seem to persist into the dayside after auroral activity, and the persistence of nitric oxide leads to elevated electron densities long after the activity has subsided."

http://cal-crete.physics.uoc.gr/Abstracts/D6_Esa_Turunen_Abstract.pdf

I'm sure 'Into The Night' thinks all of this research is just a big ball of BS!? Fake news right buddy?

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Here's a great one linking REP to NOx~~>O3 depletion and a change in tropospheric temperature:

PET: A Proton/Electron Telescope for Studies of Magnetospheric, Solar, and Galactic Particles

"Solar energetic particle events and relativistic electron precipitation events can lead to significant atmospheric production of odd nitrogen (NO, NO2, NO3, HNO4, N2O5, and ClONO2) and odd hydrogen (H, OH, HO2, H2O2). This occurs through ion chemistry initiated by the atmospheric ion pair production associated with these events. Both of these chemical families are important to the global O3 balance [10], and hence to the thermal structure of the middle atmosphere. Thorne [5,6] suggested that precipitating relativistic electrons, through the production of odd hydrogen and odd nitrogen, could lead to local O3 depletions in the 40-80 km region of the middle atmosphere. Callis et al. [8,9] have carried out simulations which suggest that the production of odd nitrogen species in this altitude region and in the fall, winter and early spring, may be carried by the normally descending advective motions to the lower stratosphere. During these seasons, the photodissociation rates of NO are small, and due to the long lifetime of NOy in the mid-to-lower stratosphere, accumulation may occur with attendant O3 destruction. Events occurring in these seasons and in the polar night would certainly lead to accumulations of NOy and HOx.

If relativistic electrons, when precipitated into the middle atmosphere, significantly modify O3 and NOy concentrations [6,7] they could leverage and modify a much larger energy supply, viz., solar UV radiation. Thorne [5] suggested that modulation of stratospheric O3 might affect the thermal structure and radiative processes of the atmosphere."

http://www.srl.caltech.edu/sampex/pet.html

Lewis Carlson wrote:
"You can quote one Holy Link after another. It's still BS."

This seems to be your go to method for convo domination 'Into The Night', discount anything and everything without anything real.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
You're like a puff of hot air blowing up your own ass still living in the age of Marconi when science has moved on.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Well you're fueling this thread as much as anybody and keeping it at the top of the thread here, so let's keep at it shall we and watch the audience grow and the audience can watch you discount more and more until you and Marconi are the only ones left.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
I'm not going to stick around as long as you will as I have better things to do with my life then bickering with you here.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
But I'm not done and will provide plenty more holy links and data. So let's keep it at the top of the thread shall we?

Lewis Carlson wrote:
The ozone layer is between 10 - 50km high, the E layer of the ionosphere is 85km. If 1.45MHz bounced off the ozone layer, it would never even make it to the ionosphere. I don't know which planet you live on, but it isn't this one 'Into The Night'. Go ahead tell me more of your radio wave reflecting ozone layer. Ozone content is actually measured more often from atmospheric NOx content because the two are so closely linked.

https://www.reference.com/science/layer-atmosphere-reflects-radio-waves-e2a247bee2e7323b

Lewis Carlson wrote:
So far it has been clearly demonstrated that broadcast can stimulate Relativistic Electron Precipitation REP and also shown that REP can interact with stratospheric nitrogen to form NOx compounds that play a role in the Chapman cycle and the depletion of the ozone layer which is still thinning in mid latitudes unlike the polar regions which are showing signs of recovery.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Though the Chapman cycle is the dominant process of ozone formation and depletion, we are still seeing additional thinning of the ozone layer.. scientists do not know why?

Lewis Carlson wrote:
However some of the worlds leading ionospheric physicists have pointed out that broadcast on a global scale could be contributing to this ozone depletion and have furthermore suggested that it could play a more significant role in climate change than previously thought.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Research article | 06 Feb 2018

Evidence for a continuous decline in lower stratospheric ozone offsetting ozone layer recovery

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

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

Into the Night wrote:
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.

Into the Night wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
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.

Yes. See the work of Marconi and literally thousands of amateur radio operators, as well as literally thousands of commercial broadcast radio operators.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
The ozone layer is between 10 - 50km high, the E layer of the ionosphere is 85km. If 1.45MHz bounced off the ozone layer, it would never even make it to the ionosphere. I don't know which planet you live on, but it isn't this one 'Into The Night'. Go ahead tell me more of your radio wave reflecting ozone layer. Ozone content is actually measured more often from atmospheric NOx content because the two are so closely linked.

https://www.reference.com/science/layer-atmosphere-reflects-radio-waves-e2a247bee2e7323b

Lewis Carlson wrote:
I am an amateur radio operator and NO radio waves don't bounce off the OZONE LAYER you dolt. You're just a troll.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
You're a bad troll Into the Night if you discount modern ionospheric physics calling it all BS. It's more complex than we used to think it was, adhering to old simplistic views seriously makes you look foolish.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
What is a gyrofrequency and why is it effective at stimulating a known ozone depletion mechanism through Electron Precipitation/NOx formation -->(EEP NOx)?

"1400 kHz Gyro Frequency - November 6th Fact-of-the-Day:

Earth's magnetic field passes through the ionosphere and exerts a force on ionospheric electrons that is proportional to their instantaneous velocities and to the component of the magnetic field at right angles to their directions of motion. The force direction is at right angles to the component of the magnetic field producing the deflecting force and also to electron motion directions caused by radio waves. The effect at high radio frequencies is to cause each electron to vibrate in an elliptical path and at low radio frequencies to vibrate in a loop. A crossover between elliptical and loop electron paths occurs at approximately 1400 kHz where each electron moves in a spiral path. That special frequency is called the gyro frequency." https://www.smeter.net/daily-facts/11/fact6.php

"Already in the mid 1970's it was discovered, somewhat unexpectedly, that electromagnetic radiation from ground-based HF radio transmitters can, if powerful enough, create irregularities in the otherwise smooth overhead ionosphere. These "artificial" irregularities have scale lengths ranging from meters to tens of kilometers and are the result of the nonlinear and turbulent interaction of the radiation with the ionospheric plasma (Robinson, 1989).

Since the power density required for the excitation of such irregularities are comparable to those emitted by today's major HF broadcasting stations, there is a growing concern about the possible harmful impact on the Earth's upper atmosphere by such human activities on the ground."

http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~fbriggs/LOFAR_SciApp_1.0.pdf

Into the Night wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
I am an amateur radio operator and NO radio waves don't bounce off the OZONE LAYER you dolt. You're just a troll.

I know they don't. I don't believe your claim that you are an amateur radio operator either.

Into the Night wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
You're a bad troll Into the Night if you discount modern ionospheric physics calling it all BS. It's more complex than we used to think it was, adhering to old simplistic views seriously makes you look foolish.

Nah. You're just ignoring physics and spewing buzzwords again.

Into the Night wrote:
No gyro. The ionosophere doesn't the ozone layer.