Potential Effects of Broadcast Induced REP on Climate Change

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Our climate is changing as many of us are aware

Lewis Carlson wrote:
and many have dedicated their lives and time to doing our best to set right the challenges we face so that our children and generations ahead may have a healthy ecosystem to grow in and thrive upon.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
About ten years ago I dove deep into the climate change issue and learned about many facets of this astronomical challenge we face, most importantly the problem that rising CO2 levels pose from man made sources.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
In my process of learning about various climate forcing mechanisms

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

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Their ionospheric perturbations include: the triggering of new waves, ionospheric heating, wave-electron interactions, and particle precipitation. At HF frequencies, the broadcasting stations utilise powerful transmitters which can heat the ionosphere and change the temperature and the density. All these wave dissipations in the ionosphere could participate to the global warming of the Earth because the change in global temperature increases the number of natural lightning discharges in the atmosphere. Then the supplementary lightning discharges produce more magnetospheric whistlers which could produce heating and ionization in the lower ionosphere.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Furthermore, it is a feedback mechanism because two different processes could be involved.
First, lightning is a source of NOx, and NOx affects the concentration of ozone in the atmosphere

Lewis Carlson wrote:
which contributes to the greenhouse effect.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Second, precipitation of energetic electrons by man?made waves may trigger other lightning discharges.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
.....If we're truly dedicating our time, careers and lives....

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

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

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:

Wake wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Tim the plumber wrote:

Wake wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

James___ wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Wake wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James___ wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Wake wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James___ wrote:
Science does require that everything be in agreement.

James___ wrote:
This is why I am an advocate of more research. What we don't know could be important.

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

So to get on with the actual debate here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14) Radio waves cause autism: Dunno

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

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

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

To review:

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

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

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Do they know what their talking about Tim?

VERSIM: VLF/ELF Remote Sensing of Ionosphere and Magnetosphere

Man-made phenomena

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

Terrestrial Electromagnetic Environment

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

Parrot: reviewed power line harmonic radiation; spectral lines spaced 50-60 Hz apart in the magnetosphere and generally observed to drift in frequency. The "Sunday effect" had been used confirm an anthropogenic source (no natural 7-day period).

He speculated on an atmospheric/ionospheric link between PLHR and the greenhouse effect (in addition to the usually quoted increase in CO2 emissions associated with power generation), which could increase in importance as electrical power consumption continued to increase."

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


Michal Parrot

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

His scientific contributions according to ResearchGate:

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

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

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

Lewis Carlson wrote:
The more UV rays there are to heat the greenhouse gasses..

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

So to get on with the actual debate here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lewis Carlson wrote:
When the ozone depletion occurs it allows more UV rays to heat the atmosphere regardless of what causes that depletion.

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

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

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

Lewis Carlson wrote:
7) HF doesn't heat the ionosphere,

Lewis Carlson wrote:
8) lightening isn't caused by warmer atmosphere

Lewis Carlson wrote:
9)No such thing as a greenhouse effect.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
7,8,9 - Go back to school, our scientific understanding of the ionosphere was radically updated from old school views when Bo Thide single handedly revolutionized the field with multi channel ionospheric probing: ...deleted redundant Holy Link...

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

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

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

Lewis Carlson wrote:
14) Radio waves cause autism: Dunno

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

Lewis Carlson wrote:
16) You sound like a crazy nut! - This is not contributing to the conversation at all in, it is not debate and it is unkind.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
This isn't my message or theory, I'm merely saying.. if the leading scientists in ionospheric physics

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

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

To review:

1) Radio waves stimulate Electron Precipitation - REP

Lewis Carlson wrote:
2) REP depletes stratospheric ozone

Lewis Carlson wrote:
3) Said reduction in ozone allows more UV rays (from the sun!)

Lewis Carlson wrote:
4) UV rays heat the atmosphere

Lewis Carlson wrote:
CNRS --> The French National Center for Scientific Research was founded in 1939 and is the largest governmental research organisation in France and the largest fundamental science agency in Europe. http://www.cnrs.fr/en/aboutcnrs/overview.htm

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

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

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

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Their ionospheric perturbations include: the triggering of new waves, ionospheric heating, wave-electron interactions, and particle precipitation. At HF frequencies, the broadcasting stations utilise powerful transmitters which can heat the ionosphere and change the temperature and the density. All these wave dissipations in the ionosphere could participate to the global warming of the Earth because the change in global temperature increases the number of natural lightning discharges in the atmosphere. Then the supplementary lightning discharges produce more magnetospheric whistlers which could produce heating and ionization in the lower ionosphere.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Furthermore, it is a feedback mechanism because two different processes could be involved. First, lightning is a source of NOx, and NOx affects the concentration of ozone in the atmosphere which contributes to the greenhouse effect.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Second, precipitation of energetic electrons by man?made waves may trigger other lightning discharges.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
It explains the importance of the study of such man-made waves [7]. Ionospheric perturbations by natural geophysical activities have been made evident by two methods: the study of the electromagnetic waves, and the measurement of the electron density." Michel Parrot

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

Lewis Carlson wrote:
I'm not saying you or anybody needs to panic.. I'm not saying CO2 isn't significant.. I'm merely pointing out that there is this whole other ozone depletion mechanism that is stimulated by global broadcast transmitters. I don't know how significant or insignificant it is or isn't, but it good to know when looking at anthropogenic effects we have on our atmosphere. Wouldn't you say?

Lewis Carlson wrote:
I'm not an alarmist, I don't think radio waves are necessarily the cause of climate change.. so if you really are interested on commenting further in some constructive way then why don't we dig into the real science of this REP ozone depletion mechanism!? This is exciting!!

What part of this ozone depletion mechanism isn't clear for you?

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

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

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

...deleted Holy Wikipedia Link...

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Once we accept that UV rays heats greenhouse gasses, then there are two parts to the over all equation here: [+CO2] + [UV] = Global Temperature Increase ie. Climate Change

Lewis Carlson wrote:
The difference in consensus is that most people don't acknowledge that UV is increasing because our ozone layer is thinning everywhere but the poles.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Which would change the equation to: [+CO2] + [+UV] = UV rays isn't static you see. The more UV rays there are to heat the greenhouse gasses.. the more the greenhouse gasses significantly affect climate.

Lewis Carlson wrote:
1) Increase in CO2 - From Anthropogenic Sources

Lewis Carlson wrote:
2) Increase in UV rays - From ozone depletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

still learning wrote:

Lewis Carlson wrote:
The more UV rays there are to heat the greenhouse gasses..

I don't understand how that works.

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

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

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


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

Any published results that support you concerns?

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Not all radio waves are considered equal here!!

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

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

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Scientists using the HAARP transmitter found that stimulation specifically around this gyrofrequency was extra effective at causing REP - Relativistic Electron Precipitation

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Thanks for the input Tim.. I'll take that into consideration. This forum as I understand it is for anybody to discuss climate dynamics. So .. no .. I'm not going away. I'm keeping this discussion science based and within the rules of this forum. If you don't get it then heed your own advice "Deal only with stuff you have a grasp of" and have a great day

I'm not going to play your games, though you're welcome to continue playing them without further constructive input on this topic. If you'd like to start another thread and ask physics questions go ahead. As for this thread.. your off topic bro and your being pushy. If your questions are off topic they will be ignored henceforth.

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

Lewis Carlson wrote:
The ozone layer is not being depleted?

"The potential for harm in lower latitudes may actually be worse than at the poles..The decreases in ozone are less than we saw at the poles before the Montreal Protocol was enacted, but UV radiation is more intense in these regions and more people live there."

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

Lewis Carlson wrote:
Also from the above link:

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

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

Our research has demonstrated that not only natural perturbations but also radio waves from modern high-power radio stations can have such a "modifying" effect... from 5 earth radii away and from conjugate hemispheres. The signals that bounce off the polar cusp are clearer than those that bounce of the magnetosphere."