Remember me
▼ Content

Potential Effects of Broadcast Induced REP on Climate Change



Page 3 of 8<12345>>>
05-11-2018 22:54
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
Here's the word from the previous moderator who outs YOU as a 3rd place troll:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
trafn
Moderator
★★★☆☆

Posts: 779
Location: Florida
Joined: 26.09.15 (author's note: I sent this to branner in a private message (PM) earlier today.)

branner,

It became evident to me earlier last week that you were not serious about having effective moderation on this website, so while I was still trying to appeal to you on correcting the current conflicting situation you have created with the Sharing Ideas sub-forum (SI), I have also been talking with other climate change websites about posting and moderating with them.

On the good side, several have expressed interest, and we are progressing toward an agreement. On the sad side, I have learned from them about this site's general reputation on the internet as being nothing more than a troll training ground, and your reputation as being nothing more than its ring leader. Of course, when I first came here, I was completely naive about all of this and saw your website as only a great opportunity to participate in making something great for the internet. Oh well.

Anyways, if you ever get tired of this troll shit-fest you've created and want to be taken seriously by the rest of the world, let me know and I'll try to help you. Otherwise, good bye.

trafn
Moderator of Sharing Ideas - Resigned

PS - I am posting this in SI so people will understand why I've stopped moderating. As it only contains my content and no one else's, it is not in violation of your quoting guidelines (i.e. - I give myself permission to use my own PM content).

The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
Edited on 02-11-2015 12:05
05-11-2018 23:01
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
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!!
05-11-2018 23:22
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
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.
Edited on 05-11-2018 23:29
06-11-2018 00:28
James___
★★★★★
(3169)
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.


..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 any dish is emitting gamma radiation. The Sun on the other hand might.
..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.
..I have checked it out but this seems to be to break the bond of O2 oxygen and not ozone.[url] https://www.quora.com/Calculate-the-average-bond-energy-of-one-O3-bond-And-what-wavelength-of-light-has-just-the-right-amount-of-energy-to-break-this-bond[/url]
..It's a starting point.
Edited on 06-11-2018 01:06
06-11-2018 01:11
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
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.


Hey James! In this particular case the radio waves aren't directly interacting with the ozone. Electron Precipitation reacts with stratospheric Nitrogen forming NOx compounds that deplete the ozone layer along side the Chapman cycle of ozone formation and destruction. It has been found that Electron Precipitation that's stimulated by broadcast transmitters can affect ozone just AS MUCH AS Solar Proton Events!!! That's kind of a big ****ing deal because although SPEs that significantly deplete the ozone layer don't happen very often. Broadcast is CONSTANT and ON ALL THE TIME!!!!! AND the ozone layer continues to thin over mid latitudes, but scientists don't know why. It's like they just haven't put two and two together yet.. though some have and have indeed spoken out about it. Those scientists are some of the worlds leading researchers in ionospheric physics.

"The energetic electron precipitation creates significant increases in NOx and HOx in the middle atmosphere.These increases have an insignificant influence on ozone in the northern hemisphere (late summer). Had the EEP struck the polar atmosphere during the winter, significant direct ozone losses are predicted. The calculations suggest that electron precipitation from the radiation belts can be as important to the middle atmosphere as (some) solar proton events!"

http://demeter.cnrs-orleans.fr/dmt/doc/workshop2011/45_Rodger2.pdf
Edited on 06-11-2018 01:44
06-11-2018 01:25
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
First-time evidence shows electrons precipitating or 'raining' from Earth's magnetosphere are destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere.

"Even though the magnetosphere protects Earth from solar processes, the field itself can be disturbed. Fluctuations in solar wind, for example, can interfere with the magnetosphere and cause electrons to descend into the atmosphere.

"It's important that we know what events affect ozone in the stratosphere, and until now this effect on ozone hasn't been considered important," said Linwood Callis, lead research scientist for this work at NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/12/001215082423.htm
Edited on 06-11-2018 01:27
06-11-2018 01:36
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
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
06-11-2018 02:10
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
Then consider that Electron Precipitation has been linked to the hottest spot in the 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
06-11-2018 02:25
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
Welcome to the world of Anthropogenic Space Weather! https://news.mit.edu/2017/anthropogenic-effects-of-space-weather-0531

This atmospheric game started with Marconi and the beginning of the broadcast band:
On Building the Broadcast Band : http://www.oldradio.com/archives/general/buildbcb.html

The old radio transmitters where hugely innefficient too and used a LOT of power compared to what we used today, because our recievers were less efficient than they are now. Some of the first broadcast signals out of the UK literally went around the world multiple times!
06-11-2018 02:28
James___
★★★★★
(3169)
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?
06-11-2018 02:37
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
In fact if you look at the temperature graph in the logo of this website, that's from the World Meteorological Organization. The first rise in temperature that hits the midpoint on that graph starts around 1909.. right when broadcast started. AND if you look at that graph the stall in the temperature according to that graph happened right when the government shut down all broadcast because of WW1. Only Westinghouse was allowd to broadcast at that time. And right when television hit the airwaves in 1945-47.. is right when you can see a major shift in global temperature.

I'm not saying they are linked. I'm asking? Could they be?? If powerful transmitters during the broadcast boom of the early 1020's stimulated a known ozone depletion mechanism {EEP NOx} Could it be that those broadcast transmitters were causing the ozone layer to thin?

I'm open to being wrong in asking here, but please do so with scientific research.
Edited on 06-11-2018 02:40
06-11-2018 02:47
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
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?


Climate science is at it's infancy right now. There's still a lot we don't know. The term Anthropogenic Space Weather was first coined 2 years ago and we're still learning how complex it all is.
06-11-2018 02:52
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
Not only VLF/ELF are effective at stimulating electron precipitation here. 1.45MHz is a gyrofrequency in the AM broadcast band. In fact VLF researchers in at Antarctica's Siple Station routinely hear AM broadcast in their VLF readings. This gyrofrequency has been shown using HAARP to stimulate electron precipitation more effectively than other broadcast frequencies. Higher multiples of the gyrofrequency actually cause a supression of Electrostatic Ion Cylotron waves that travel through the ionosphere that would normally result in electron precipitation.
Edited on 06-11-2018 03:01
06-11-2018 03:00
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
1.45MHz is ALSO the electron cyclotron gyrofrequency of the E layer of the ionosphere. This is why the frequency stimulates plasma turbulence so effectively. Stimulating the ionosphere with it's own resonant frequency causes turbulence in the plasma and secondary electrostatic 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.
Edited on 06-11-2018 03:04
06-11-2018 03:12
James___
★★★★★
(3169)
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.
06-11-2018 03:17
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
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
Edited on 06-11-2018 03:19
06-11-2018 03:54
James___
★★★★★
(3169)
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
Edited on 06-11-2018 04:15
06-11-2018 11:53
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
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.
06-11-2018 15:07
James___
★★★★★
(3169)
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.



..Tim,
.The stratosphere is 0° C. The tropopause below it is -50° C. (it's actually colder). The ozone layer is found where the atmosphere above the tropopause starts warming. Thermodynamics would require heat to move into the tropopause.
..At the same time the tropopause has slightly more air pressure than the stratosphere. Above the tropopause there is no relationship between altitude and air pressure or temperature.
.Thermodynamics requires an equilibrium to be sought. That just isn't happening. This requires work such as what insulation allows for. That's why homes stay warm in the winter. Without a barrier heat will flow to cold.
. There is a plausible explanation but this forum isn't the place to discuss theoretical physics. We don't know everything yet. If we did then there wouldn't be any debate over climate change.
06-11-2018 16:42
James___
★★★★★
(3169)
..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.
06-11-2018 20:47
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
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.


I can't say for sure, but I've been reading about how NOx has a cooling effect on the energy budget of the Mesosphere and Lower Thermosphere - MLT and how it's transport upward to the stratosphere through the Polar Vortex can cause ozone depletion and affect the thermal budget of the stratosphere. Seeing as how the stratospheric ozone absorbs UV and warms the stratosphere, it seems likely that as NOx cooling is moving upward, it would indeed balance the overall thermal budget by bringing the heat downward, albeit not fast enough to offset the more local radiant forces at play.

Here's an article discussing the topic to some degree:

Production and transport mechanisms of NO in the polar upper mesosphere and lower thermosphere in observations and models

"A reservoir of nitric oxide (NO) in the lower thermosphere efficiently cools the atmosphere after periods of enhanced geomagnetic activity. Transport from this reservoir to the stratosphere within the winter polar vortex allows NO to deplete ozone levels and thereby affect the middle atmospheric heat budget."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326049911_Production_and_transport_mechanisms_of_NO_in_the_polar_upper_mesosphere_and_lower_thermosphere_in_observations_and_models
Edited on 06-11-2018 20:48
06-11-2018 21:14
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
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.
Edited on 06-11-2018 21:30
06-11-2018 21:35
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
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!?


Edited on 06-11-2018 21:37
06-11-2018 22:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
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.


Still don't believe you.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
06-11-2018 22:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
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.

No gyro.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
06-11-2018 22:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
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!!


It is old news. It has not changed.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
06-11-2018 22:39
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
"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
Edited on 06-11-2018 22:41
06-11-2018 22:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
James___ wrote:
..Einstein said that science should be based on empirical evidence.

Nope. He never any such thing. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology
James___ wrote:
Most of the climate science today
There is no such thing as 'climate science'.
James___ wrote:
is based on mathematical modelling.
Modelling is neither science nor data.
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.
He is talking about the ionosphere, not the ozone layer. Pay attention.
James___ wrote:
..on the other hand because the Earth's rotation is slowing it's magnetic field could be weakening.
Earth's speed of rotation does not affect the magnetic field.
James___ wrote:
This in turn could allow for more high energy particles associated with solar radiation into our atmosphere.
The only way to get more high energy particles into our atmosphere is for the Sun to emit them.
James___ wrote:
But I kind of doubt any dish is emitting gamma radiation.
None are (unless the dish is made out of uranium!
)
James___ wrote:
The Sun on the other hand might.

The Sun does not emit gamma radiation. All of it is converted to lower energy photons even before it reaches the surface of the Sun.
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...

Radio waves do not affect ozone unless they are on one of the frequencies that ozone happens to absorb (such as UV light).


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 06-11-2018 22:51
06-11-2018 22:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
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.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
06-11-2018 23:02
James___
★★★★★
(3169)
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.


..And it was about 1910 that the Moon made it's closest approach to the Earth in over 1,000 years. Excessive calving of glaciers on Greenland's western side was observed. Also around 1920 the waters adjacent to Greenland's southern coast and you it's western coast close to the Arctic suddenly warmed causing white whales to move up around Hudson Bay.
..I don't think radiowaves caused all of that. In fact in the 1920's they started monitoring seismic activity around Greenland.
06-11-2018 23:06
James___
★★★★★
(3169)
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!?



..This might be where they need to relate the ozone column height to w/m^2 of reflected solar radiation. The column does vary but have seen conflicting reports on just how depleted the ozone layer is. I could go more into this based on what different agencies have said but will refrain for the time being.
06-11-2018 23:08
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
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
Edited on 06-11-2018 23:18
07-11-2018 03:50
James___
★★★★★
(3169)
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
07-11-2018 05:14
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
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?
Edited on 07-11-2018 05:30
07-11-2018 05:45
James___
★★★★★
(3169)
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?
07-11-2018 06:09
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
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?


I totally agree.
07-11-2018 07:55
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
The frequency does change.

"The ionosphere had only recently been discovered, and was not totally understood. It was previously supposed that the ionosphere was a linear medium, through which radio waves passively reflected. But the existence of the Luxembourg Effect showed that the ionosphere could be artificially "heated," to produce non-linear effects." - http://onetuberadio.com/2015/02/26/the-luxembourg-effect/
07-11-2018 09:13
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
If you look at this years HEPPA-Solaris Workshop, Electron Precipitation/EEP/REP/EPP and NOx is half the abstracts in the booklet. These guys are on it and I wonder if it's only a matter of time that Climate Science grows beyond it's current infancy into maturity where we look at more than just CO2. I'm not saying CO2 doesn't play a significant role, I just think we need to take a more holistic approach that's inclusive of the ways in which we affect the atmosphere electromagnetically too.. so do some of these ionospheric physicists. Especially now that we know that broadcast can cause ozone depletion through Electron Precipitation / NOx.

http://www.cpe.vt.edu/heppa.solaris.2018/index.html
Edited on 07-11-2018 09:59
07-11-2018 09:40
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
"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/
07-11-2018 14:56
James___
★★★★★
(3169)
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/



..What you haven't shown is what % of NOx emissions is caused by radiowaves. Without that information then you can say anything you want about radiowaves but you wouldn't be showing any research that supports your claims of radiowaves causing NOx to occur in any meaningful quantity.
.
Page 3 of 8<12345>>>





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
volcanic effects on acid rain324-09-2020 03:57
Doctors to study possible long-term effects on patients that died from COVID-19428-08-2020 06:09
Climate change - effects, impact and solutions601-06-2020 03:21
Will Warm Winters Balance Out The Effects Of Greenhouse Gases?1410-02-2020 18:23
Migrations induced by extreme climatic events7808-11-2019 19:33
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact