Potential Effects of Broadcast Induced REP on Climate Change

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Not only can broadcast transmitters stimulate Electron Precipitation (a known ozone depletion mechanism {see EEP NOx}), but specific broadcast transmitters in the UK [DHO, GQD, and GBZ transmitters operating at frequencies of 23.4 kHz, 22.1 kHz, and 19.6 kHz] are involved in the interaction and have been identified for doing so for over half a decade:

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

Conclusions

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

Altogether, 87 such events were identified in the available DEMETER data (about 6 years). The events occurred exclusively during the night, and they did not show any clear relation to the AE and Dst geomagnetic activity indices. We showed that the events are strongly localized, occurring either close to Great Britain or in the vicinity of its geomagnetically conjugated point. It was found that the events observed in the Northern Hemisphere generally have larger-frequency bandwidths than those observed in the Southern Hemisphere. We demonstrated that the events are linked to the signals from VLF transmitters in Europe. The bicoherence analysis was employed to demonstrate the wave-wave interactions taking place. Finally, we showed that the occurrence of these TILR events is associated with a significantly increased electron precipitation. Our results demonstrate that powerful VLF transmitters can significantly influence the wave activity in a given magnetic meridian, generating new emissions and resulting in energetic electron precipitation over a wide energy range."

https://physics.mff.cuni.cz/kfpp/dbupload/publ/2017/k14_Nemec_JGRs.pdf

________________________________________________________
[For the troll -->Into the Night]

This Parrot isn't going to die

And with every attempt to strike me down.. you're only making me stronger. So keep at it buddy and I'll just keep pwning you.

James___ wrote:
..Einstein said that science should be based on empirical evidence. Most of the climate science today is based on mathematical modelling. For radiowaves to have an effect on stratospheric ozone it's KE needs to be the same as gamma radiation from nuclear material.
..on the other hand because the Earth's rotation is slowing it's magnetic field could be weakening. This in turn could allow for more high energy particles associated with solar radiation into our atmosphere. But I kind of doubt and dish is emitting gamma radiation. The Sun on the other hand might.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Once we understand how broadcast transmitters on a global scale can deplete the ozone layer through EEP NOx and factor in that we've actually managed to create artificial bubble of radiation around our planet, we really have to begin asking ourselves how significant is broadcast in climate change?

Here's a cheesy video NASA put out about the bubble we've created around the planet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=cFYoYUBGw4s

James___ wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Once we understand how broadcast transmitters on a global scale can deplete the ozone layer through EEP NOx and factor in that we've actually managed to create artificial bubble of radiation around our planet, we really have to begin asking ourselves how significant is broadcast in climate change?

Here's a cheesy video NASA put out about the bubble we've created around the planet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=cFYoYUBGw4s

..Hi,
.What you refer to as VLF's the military calls ELF's. It's how the Navy communicates with it's submarines. And calculations are mathematical models. That would be considered a Null Hypothesis. When verified that data can then be extrapolated.
.This is why it seems that climate models are inaccurate. They won't verify their hypothesis before proceeding any further.
.When Einstein predicted that light from a distant star would move away from the Sun, astronomers had to prove him right. This is missing in science today. Nobody accepted any of his calculations. Everything he said has been rigoursly tested. Yet with climate change verification isn't a requirement. This supposes that scientists today are smarter than Einstein. Why else would their work be accepted without verification?

Lewis Carlson wrote:
1.45MHz is ALSO the electron cyclotron gyrofrequency of the E layer of the ionosphere. This is why the frequency stinmulates plasma turbulence so effectively. Stimulating the ionosphere with it's own resonant frequency causes turbulence in the plasma and secondary electatic emissions along with electron precipitation. If your transmitted frequency is lower it just bounces, if it's a bit higher it will go right through the E layer and go right up the the F layer of the ionosphere where it will bounce or couple if it's at the F layers resonant gyrofrequency which is approximately 2.45GHz.

This is also WiFi and microwave frequencies, but our use of those frequencies aren't strong enough to get even close to the ionosphere.

James___ wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
1.45MHz is ALSO the electron cyclotron gyrofrequency of the E layer of the ionosphere. This is why the frequency stinmulates plasma turbulence so effectively. Stimulating the ionosphere with it's own resonant frequency causes turbulence in the plasma and secondary electatic emissions along with electron precipitation. If your transmitted frequency is lower it just bounces, if it's a bit higher it will go right through the E layer and go right up the the F layer of the ionosphere where it will bounce or couple if it's at the F layers resonant gyrofrequency which is approximately 2.45GHz.

This is also WiFi and microwave frequencies, but our use of those frequencies aren't strong enough to get even close to the ionosphere.

..There might be more to it than that. That might only be a basic cause and effect while the underlying behavior is overlooked. This kind of goes back to Einstein's light moves away from the Sun while gravity is an attractive force. An attractive force doesn't repel something.
.This kind of goes to Mercury having precession while all diagrams show it as having postcession. Postcession is a decaying orbit while precession uses conserved energy to increase linear velocity.
.This seems to be something fundamental with a planet or star's gravitational field.

Lewis Carlson wrote:

James___ wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
1.45MHz is ALSO the electron cyclotron gyrofrequency of the E layer of the ionosphere. This is why the frequency stinmulates plasma turbulence so effectively. Stimulating the ionosphere with it's own resonant frequency causes turbulence in the plasma and secondary electatic emissions along with electron precipitation. If your transmitted frequency is lower it just bounces, if it's a bit higher it will go right through the E layer and go right up the the F layer of the ionosphere where it will bounce or couple if it's at the F layers resonant gyrofrequency which is approximately 2.45GHz.

This is also WiFi and microwave frequencies, but our use of those frequencies aren't strong enough to get even close to the ionosphere.

..There might be more to it than that. That might only be a basic cause and effect while the underlying behavior is overlooked. This kind of goes back to Einstein's light moves away from the Sun while gravity is an attractive force. An attractive force doesn't repel something.
.This kind of goes to Mercury having precession while all diagrams show it as having postcession. Postcession is a decaying orbit while precession uses conserved energy to increase linear velocity.
.This seems to be something fundamental with a planet or star's gravitational field.

Hmmmm

James___ wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:

James___ wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
1.45MHz is ALSO the electron cyclotron gyrofrequency of the E layer of the ionosphere. This is why the frequency stinmulates plasma turbulence so effectively. Stimulating the ionosphere with it's own resonant frequency causes turbulence in the plasma and secondary electatic emissions along with electron precipitation. If your transmitted frequency is lower it just bounces, if it's a bit higher it will go right through the E layer and go right up the the F layer of the ionosphere where it will bounce or couple if it's at the F layers resonant gyrofrequency which is approximately 2.45GHz.

This is also WiFi and microwave frequencies, but our use of those frequencies aren't strong enough to get even close to the ionosphere.

..There might be more to it than that. That might only be a basic cause and effect while the underlying behavior is overlooked. This kind of goes back to Einstein's light moves away from the Sun while gravity is an attractive force. An attractive force doesn't repel something.
.This kind of goes to Mercury having precession while all diagrams show it as having postcession. Postcession is a decaying orbit while precession uses conserved energy to increase linear velocity.
.This seems to be something fundamental with a planet or star's gravitational field.

Hmmmm

..All this suggests is that a planet that has precession has a circular motion while post cession would cause an elliptical orbit.
And if you notice, neither the mesopause or the tropopause try to reach an equilibrium with the layers of the atmosphere above or below them.
..Thermodynamics requires an equilibrium to be sought. Just isn't happening. One way of looking at this is when it's -50° C. in the tropopause heat is flowing from there to London so London can be +20° C. Thermodynamics does not allow for heat flowing from cold to warm. This means that something is going on that we don't understand yet.

https://goo.gl/images/TycNXK

Tim the plumber wrote:

James___ wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:

James___ wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
1.45MHz is ALSO the electron cyclotron gyrofrequency of the E layer of the ionosphere. This is why the frequency stinmulates plasma turbulence so effectively. Stimulating the ionosphere with it's own resonant frequency causes turbulence in the plasma and secondary electatic emissions along with electron precipitation. If your transmitted frequency is lower it just bounces, if it's a bit higher it will go right through the E layer and go right up the the F layer of the ionosphere where it will bounce or couple if it's at the F layers resonant gyrofrequency which is approximately 2.45GHz.

This is also WiFi and microwave frequencies, but our use of those frequencies aren't strong enough to get even close to the ionosphere.

..There might be more to it than that. That might only be a basic cause and effect while the underlying behavior is overlooked. This kind of goes back to Einstein's light moves away from the Sun while gravity is an attractive force. An attractive force doesn't repel something.
.This kind of goes to Mercury having precession while all diagrams show it as having postcession. Postcession is a decaying orbit while precession uses conserved energy to increase linear velocity.
.This seems to be something fundamental with a planet or star's gravitational field.

Hmmmm

..All this suggests is that a planet that has precession has a circular motion while post cession would cause an elliptical orbit.
And if you notice, neither the mesopause or the tropopause try to reach an equilibrium with the layers of the atmosphere above or below them.
..Thermodynamics requires an equilibrium to be sought. Just isn't happening. One way of looking at this is when it's -50° C. in the tropopause heat is flowing from there to London so London can be +20° C. Thermodynamics does not allow for heat flowing from cold to warm. This means that something is going on that we don't understand yet.

https://goo.gl/images/TycNXK

Understanding physics is like climbing a ladder. You cannot do run 50 untill you have done all the ones below.

Given that you don't understand kinetic energy/temperature or the gas laws you cannot even start to understand what is happening in the upper atmosphere. Unlucky. Just live with it.

Atmospheric physicists do fully understand how this all works and none of it breaks any laws of physical reality.

James___ wrote:
..By the way Tim, can you please post the explanation for the reason the ozone layer is between the tropopause at -56° C. And the stratosphere at 0° C.? And why no heat is being transferred from the stratosphere to the tropopause which has more atmospheric pressure? It's just that I haven't heard of it yet.

Lewis Carlson wrote:

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.

You seemed pretty sure they did when I even asked you a second time. You really just aren't paying attention Into the Night and I don't give a flying F' what you believe you bolt hole of a troll. Not only do I have a license, but I volunteered with local Law Enforcement and FEMA in auxiliary communications.

Lewis Carlson wrote:

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.

If you're whole point here is to tell me that radio waves bounce of the ionosphere..

-->duh numb nuts! AND they also modify the ionospheric plasma.
This is a FACT!!

"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

But tell me I'm ignoring physics again.. pwning you is music to my ears.. I'm glad you came back to get pwned again.. TROLL

I was getting bored without you.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
The problem here Into the Night is that you're WAY out of your depth on this subject and your swimming in your own ignorance. I spent years studying electron precipitation and ionospheric plasma physics. I've had correspondence with other scientists all over the world on the subject including our former president.

And all you have is.. "radio waves bounce off the ionosphere."

Seriously!? That's all you got? Old news bro.. catch up!!

James___ wrote:
..Einstein said that science should be based on empirical evidence.

James___ wrote:
Most of the climate science today

James___ wrote:
is based on mathematical modelling.

James___ wrote:
For radiowaves to have an effect on stratospheric ozone it's KE needs to be the same as gamma radiation from nuclear material.

James___ wrote:
..on the other hand because the Earth's rotation is slowing it's magnetic field could be weakening.

James___ wrote:
This in turn could allow for more high energy particles associated with solar radiation into our atmosphere.

James___ wrote:
But I kind of doubt any dish is emitting gamma radiation.

James___ wrote:
The Sun on the other hand might.

James___ wrote:
..If the amplitude of radiowaves is of sufficient strength they could be harmful to stratospheric ozone but this would be known in advance or should be obvious to a scientist.
...deleted false equivalence...

Lewis Carlson wrote:
"Almost every VLF researcher has observed some HF radio broadcasts in their recordings. Usually the phenomenon has been interpreted as due to demodulation by non-linearities in the receiver electronics. Identification of the detected broadcasts was done by an experienced radio amateur. Three different RF receivers were used, spanning the frequency range 30 kHz to 30 MHz; although these could receive all kind of transmissions (CW, SSB, FM, AM, etc.), only AM broadcasts seemed to be detected in the VLF frequency range."

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

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[For the troll --> Into the Night] I frankly give no Fducks what you believe. none you troll

Lewis Carlson wrote:
I've provided plenty of research from some of the worlds leading ionospheric physicists showing that broadcast can stimulate Electron Precipitation and that Electron Precipitation can deplete the ozone layer altering the thermal budget of the atmosphere. Those same ionospheric physicists say the public should be concerned at the role broadcast could play in climate change! Earlier in a post here I mentioned the possible link between our historic use of broadcast frequencies as broadcat technology evolved and spread across the globe AND various shifts in global temperature over the last 100+ years since the dawn of broadcast. Again if you look at the logo for this climate debate website, the temperature graph used is from the World Meteorological Organization. Here's a more detailed presentation of that graph with major changes in our broadcast pointed out.



I'm not saying there is a link. I'm asking? Once we understand that broadcast can deplete the ozone layer as previously shown. Could there be a link here?? Could it be that we've been stimulating this stratospheric ozone depletion mechanism since 1909? Especially seeing as how 1.45MHz in the AM broadcast band has been shown to stimulate Electron Precipitation quite efficiently.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
From the same temperature graph [WMO] we can also see that the later temperature rise has three distinct bumps which also happen to correspond to ozone depletion levels at that time. Again, just askng here!?

Into the Night wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
"Almost every VLF researcher has observed some HF radio broadcasts in their recordings. Usually the phenomenon has been interpreted as due to demodulation by non-linearities in the receiver electronics. Identification of the detected broadcasts was done by an experienced radio amateur. Three different RF receivers were used, spanning the frequency range 30 kHz to 30 MHz; although these could receive all kind of transmissions (CW, SSB, FM, AM, etc.), only AM broadcasts seemed to be detected in the VLF frequency range."

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

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[For the troll --> Into the Night] I frankly give no Fducks what you believe. none you troll

Detecting radio waves in VLF receivers simply means the receiver is not selective enough.

Lewis Carlson wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
"Almost every VLF researcher has observed some HF radio broadcasts in their recordings. Usually the phenomenon has been interpreted as due to demodulation by non-linearities in the receiver electronics. Identification of the detected broadcasts was done by an experienced radio amateur. Three different RF receivers were used, spanning the frequency range 30 kHz to 30 MHz; although these could receive all kind of transmissions (CW, SSB, FM, AM, etc.), only AM broadcasts seemed to be detected in the VLF frequency range."

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

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[For the troll --> Into the Night] I frankly give no Fducks what you believe. none you troll

Detecting radio waves in VLF receivers simply means the receiver is not selective enough.

Or it's a Luxembourg Effect in the ionospheric plasma.. aka, cross modulation



Historical overview of HF ionospheric modification research: "Radio waves have inadvertently modified the Earth's ionosphere since the Luxembourg observations of Tellegen in 1933 and perhaps since Marconi in 1901. The history of ionospheric modification by radio waves is reviewed, beginning with Marconi, describing the Luxembourg effect and its explanations, and its early use to deduce the properties of the lower ionosphere in the 1930s."

https://www.osti.gov/biblio/7012569-historical-overview-hf-ionospheric-modification-research

James___ wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
"Almost every VLF researcher has observed some HF radio broadcasts in their recordings. Usually the phenomenon has been interpreted as due to demodulation by non-linearities in the receiver electronics. Identification of the detected broadcasts was done by an experienced radio amateur. Three different RF receivers were used, spanning the frequency range 30 kHz to 30 MHz; although these could receive all kind of transmissions (CW, SSB, FM, AM, etc.), only AM broadcasts seemed to be detected in the VLF frequency range."

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

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[For the troll --> Into the Night] I frankly give no Fducks what you believe. none you troll

Detecting radio waves in VLF receivers simply means the receiver is not selective enough.

Or it's a Luxembourg Effect in the ionospheric plasma.. aka, cross modulation



Historical overview of HF ionospheric modification research: "Radio waves have inadvertently modified the Earth's ionosphere since the Luxembourg observations of Tellegen in 1933 and perhaps since Marconi in 1901. The history of ionospheric modification by radio waves is reviewed, beginning with Marconi, describing the Luxembourg effect and its explanations, and its early use to deduce the properties of the lower ionosphere in the 1930s."

https://www.osti.gov/biblio/7012569-historical-overview-hf-ionospheric-modification-research

..So the ionosphere can both reflect radiowaves while at the same time acting as a prism. Is there anything that states that if an ELF is made into 2 different waves that their frequency will not change?
..Then there's this, scientists came up with it. Your saying radiowaves is kind of ignoring everything else. http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/bronze/climate.htm

Lewis Carlson wrote:

James___ wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
"Almost every VLF researcher has observed some HF radio broadcasts in their recordings. Usually the phenomenon has been interpreted as due to demodulation by non-linearities in the receiver electronics. Identification of the detected broadcasts was done by an experienced radio amateur. Three different RF receivers were used, spanning the frequency range 30 kHz to 30 MHz; although these could receive all kind of transmissions (CW, SSB, FM, AM, etc.), only AM broadcasts seemed to be detected in the VLF frequency range."

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

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[For the troll --> Into the Night] I frankly give no Fducks what you believe. none you troll

Detecting radio waves in VLF receivers simply means the receiver is not selective enough.

Or it's a Luxembourg Effect in the ionospheric plasma.. aka, cross modulation



Historical overview of HF ionospheric modification research: "Radio waves have inadvertently modified the Earth's ionosphere since the Luxembourg observations of Tellegen in 1933 and perhaps since Marconi in 1901. The history of ionospheric modification by radio waves is reviewed, beginning with Marconi, describing the Luxembourg effect and its explanations, and its early use to deduce the properties of the lower ionosphere in the 1930s."

https://www.osti.gov/biblio/7012569-historical-overview-hf-ionospheric-modification-research

..So the ionosphere can both reflect radiowaves while at the same time acting as a prism. Is there anything that states that if an ELF is made into 2 different waves that their frequency will not change?
..Then there's this, scientists came up with it. Your saying radiowaves is kind of ignoring everything else. http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/bronze/climate.htm

Sweet James.. I'm not SAYING radio waves are the leading climate forcing mechanism of all time even before it existed.. lets be reasonable.

I'm ASKING, if some of the leading ionospheric scientists have since the birth of ionospheric research learned that broadcast can stimulate an ozone depletion mechanism.. then should we take it seriously? What do YOU think James? Or should we just write this off? If so .. why? How do we determine what is or isn't significant when looking at our climate system? What do we determine as worth our time?

I'm not discounting there's a natural cycle. Don't you get what I'm asking here?

James___ wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:

James___ wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
"Almost every VLF researcher has observed some HF radio broadcasts in their recordings. Usually the phenomenon has been interpreted as due to demodulation by non-linearities in the receiver electronics. Identification of the detected broadcasts was done by an experienced radio amateur. Three different RF receivers were used, spanning the frequency range 30 kHz to 30 MHz; although these could receive all kind of transmissions (CW, SSB, FM, AM, etc.), only AM broadcasts seemed to be detected in the VLF frequency range."

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

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[For the troll --> Into the Night] I frankly give no Fducks what you believe. none you troll

Detecting radio waves in VLF receivers simply means the receiver is not selective enough.

Or it's a Luxembourg Effect in the ionospheric plasma.. aka, cross modulation



Historical overview of HF ionospheric modification research: "Radio waves have inadvertently modified the Earth's ionosphere since the Luxembourg observations of Tellegen in 1933 and perhaps since Marconi in 1901. The history of ionospheric modification by radio waves is reviewed, beginning with Marconi, describing the Luxembourg effect and its explanations, and its early use to deduce the properties of the lower ionosphere in the 1930s."

https://www.osti.gov/biblio/7012569-historical-overview-hf-ionospheric-modification-research

..So the ionosphere can both reflect radiowaves while at the same time acting as a prism. Is there anything that states that if an ELF is made into 2 different waves that their frequency will not change?
..Then there's this, scientists came up with it. Your saying radiowaves is kind of ignoring everything else. http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/bronze/climate.htm

Sweet James.. I'm not SAYING radio waves are the leading climate forcing mechanism of all time even before it existed.. lets be reasonable.

I'm ASKING, if some of the leading ionospheric scientists have since the birth of ionospheric research learned that broadcast can stimulate an ozone depletion mechanism.. then should we take it seriously? What do YOU think James? Or should we just write this off? If so .. why? How do we determine what is or isn't significant when looking at our climate system? What do we determine as worth our time?

I'm not discounting there's a natural cycle. Don't you get what I'm asking here?

..I think my concern would be who would stop using radiowaves? Since I don't think anyone would stop using radiowaves then the question becomes how can we compensate for it's effect on our environment?

Lewis Carlson wrote:
"Energetic particle precipitation (EPP) refers to highly energetic electrons, protons, neutrons, and ions that are accelerated into the atmosphere through various heliophysical and geomagnetic processes. They enter the atmosphere mainly in the geomagnetic polar regions. When energetic particles enter the atmosphere they ionize and dissociate atmospheric constituents, resulting in the formation of reactive odd nitrogen (NOx = NO + NO2). EPP has been shown to contribute up to 10% of the stratospheric NOx budget and up to 40% of the polar stratospheric NOx budget. Once in the stratosphere, NOx produced by EPP (EPP-NOx) interferes with catalytic cycles involving ozone (O3). Theoretically, changes in O3 can lead to changes in temperature and winds, which means that EPP has the potential to impact climate as well.

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

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