Gyrofrequency and sun - the cause is one and the same
When AM broadcast first began in 1909, the effects of broadcast and electron precipitation may have had little effect before the broadcast boom in 1920. When AM really took off, the energy sent through the ionosphere caused electron precipitation and the production of NO2 to deplete the ozone layer in the northern polar region causing the temperature to rise through the greenhouse effect. This took place up until the mid 40's when television came on which clamped the energy flow and allowed the electron precipitation to calm. As the ozone layer repaired it' self in the north the temperature dropped back down for five years until the early 50's when the interaction between ozone depletion and creation found equilibrium. Yet along with electron outflows came ions that flow up the 'closed' magnetic field lines connecting the magnetosphere to the conjugate hemisphere. Up 'open' magnetic lines cyclotron maser heating of solar particles works it's way up the solar wind. It takes 11-12 years or so for syclotron maser heating of particles to reach the sun. This in turn forms sunspots and throws more solar particles back at earth causing a SPE (Solar Proton Event) which also depletes ozone. The rise and fall of the sunspot cycle can be seen to follow the same rise and fall in temperature ending in the late 50's just 11 years earlier, because the cause is one and the same. This gyro energy is observed heating particles in the solar wind and boiling the photosphere of the sun. If AM broadcast had no effect on the sun, you would have been likely to see a flat line from the early 50's to the mid 70's when FM radio came over the airwaves.
The Final Rise
As FM came over the airwaves it filled the frequency gap between AM 1.5MHz and Television which increases the electron density in the ionosphere. The increase of electron density creates an electrical path allowing the gyro energy a conductive bridge to the F layer of the ionosphere were it flows over any block of the ion acoustic turbulence. And because we can see the link between ozone depletion and the temperature it narrows it down to broadcast (electron precipitation), CFC's or solar variance. Of these 3 ozone depletion mechanisms only broadcast continues to rise unregulated for it's effects on the environment. And although our global temperature is not much higher than the Medieval Warm Period, because it is man made it is no less dangerous. Unless we stop the root of the cause, it may continue. The reason why it has caused so much debate is because climate scientists knew little about the effects of broadcast on the environment. While scientists argue from a perspective they study and know, the complexity of this process crosses scientific disciplines, making it difficult to see how they all fit together.
Why haven't we noticed this before?
Electron precipitation has been observed as a constant flow of energy that trickles down from the ionosphere since the 70's, and has been thought of as an unknown 'natural' ozone depletion mechanism, but to this day nobody knows for sure what causes electron precipitation. Keep in mind that 'unknown' and 'natural' are two different things, 'natural' implies that we know nature is causing it, while unknown means we have no idea. With the transmitter experiments in the 80's scientists realized that radio waves could stimulate electron precipitation. Because all of our measurements of electron precipitation had been conducted in the thick of radio pollution, which has been nonstop since1909 when AM stations first came over the airwaves, a few scientists began to speculate that broadcast may play a role in anomalous electron precipitation, a phenomena previously thought of as natural. You can 'google' and find lots of scientific research about how radio waves can cause electron precipitation, and you can find lots of research about how electron precipitation can increase atmospheric NO2 which depletes ozone, but you find very little that makes the larger connection. The Swedish Institute for Space Physics and other atmospheric physicists have raised concerns about the role that global broadcast plays on the climate, but nothing has made it through to the media or the scientific community.
So for decades text books have been written and sold as science based its development on the assumption that electron precipitation is ‘natural’ and the assumption that broadcast is not powerful enough to affect the thermal structure of the lower atmosphere. This ‘hiccup’ in scientific knowledge occurred because the dissemination of knowledge is slow between disciplines on a global scale, due to the process of the scientific community, where funding is competitive and political. Since the beginning of time new and great ideas have been cast aside for the familiar. Great minds like Nicola Tesla who gave us electricity or Galileo who said that the earth revolves around the sun were brilliant people who were persecuted for being ahead of their time. One would think the scientific community would see a good or promising idea and latch onto it, but often the opposite happens -- because it upsets careers or it competes with the interests of others. Scientists tend to know their niches but not make connections outside them and the proprietary nature of knowledge through funding slows interdisciplinary collaboration and realization. It takes time and money to create and replace text books and train the teachers of tomorrow. This does not discount good verifiable scientists and projects. After all we are all learning here and we don’t know everything, these things take time.