Conclusion No. 1: The effectiveness of the base-funded space physics research program has decreased over the past decade.
Conclusion No. 2: Factors such as planning, marketing, the funding process, and project management have become as responsible for the increased delays, costs, and frustration levels in space physics as technical complications related to increasing project size and complexity.
Conclusion No. 3: The long-term trend that has led to an ever-increasing reliance on large programs has decreased the productivity of space physics research.
Conclusion No. 4: The funding agencies and the space physics community have not clearly articulated priorities and developed strategies for achieving them, despite the fact that the rapid growth of the field has exceeded available resources.
Recommendation No. 1: The scientific community and the funding agencies must work together to increase the proportionate size and stability of the base-funded research program.
Recommendation No. 2: The funding agencies should ensure the availability of many more experimental opportunities by shifting the balance toward smaller programs, even if this necessitates a reduction in the number of future large programs.
Recommendation No. 3: In anticipation of an era of limited resources, the space physics community must establish realistic priorities across the full spectrum of its scientific interests, encompassing both large-and small-scale activities.
Are there other websites about how radio waves cause ozone depletion and climate change?
Although there are not many resources about this topic you can find it on the webpages above,
You can also find radio wave stimulation of cyclotron plasma waves in Wikipedia under:
"HIPAS has several diverse experimental facilities: a 1-megawatt rf transmitter to produce ELF/VLF (Extremely Low Frequency and Very Low Frequency) electromagnetic (EM) generation by the absorption of radio frequency (rf) power in the arctic ionosphere including ion cyclotron excitation"
Listeners of Earth with Frequently Asked Questions
The listeners of Earth is essentially a look at experiments that can be done to address the issue of broadcast energy and it's effect on the environment and things the public can do. Everything from a global movement of broadcast silence to taking satellite NO2 observations in regions of powerful broadcast transmitters to identify possible electron precipitation induced ozone depletion. It also takes a profound look at the telecom industry and how we can take a solution based approach to the problem of radio pollution. It goes on to talk about taking a break periodically from the constant radiation as a message of global connection that supports the growing green trend. It is an amazingly thought provoking approach to a modern way of living with earth instead of just on it, while teaching our children that we as the human race are still learning too... The dissemination of new and advanced knowledge travels slowly in the modern world despite the innovations of the internet and mass media which can actually cloud the real science with politics and speculation. Since the beginning of time new and brilliant 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.
Have we learned from our lessons?
The scientific community is disconnected in the modern age. One would think they would see a good or promising idea and latch onto it, but often the opposite happens -- because it upsets careers, or doesn't fit anyone's interests. Scientists tend to know their niches but not make connections outside them. This does not discount good scientists and projects, after all we are all still learning here. These things take time. Spread the word! Send somebody else to this site! Mention this interesting idea to a colleague or at a cocktail party, get people thinking. Tell them: "Scientists have discovered that global broadcast may cause ozone depletion and be a threat to climate change." Fascinating!!
Discuss the future of the green economy and the environment?
It really is an amazing scientific process happening in the atmosphere above us as radio waves creates bursts of beautiful color in the northern lights, ahh the dance of electromagnetic energy. If you are afraid of what people might think, then say it is simply another danger that coexists with CO2, after all the ozone layer can use all the help it can get. If we live our life in fear of what others think, we will never push forward with the advancements that could save a species from extinction. This is no better than putting Galileo on house arrest for fear of paradigm shift and ridicule. If we don't listen to the latest developments and have an open mind humanity will get left in the dust. Science is making advancements faster than the community at large can keep up. It takes time and money to replace text books and train the teachers of tomorrow. The most brilliant researchers have a lot to say. Click here to find out:
How do I know there is really something to this?
Radio Frequency Effects on the Environment
To understand the effects that global broadcast has on the environment we have to understand it's natural state. This would require controlled experiments of shutting down broadcast frequencies to observe it's effects on ozone depletion. Fortunately there is only a few frequencies that are suspect and we can measure ozone levels and electron precipitation accurately. Recent observations of NO2 signatures from specific broadcast towers which can be seen in the Tall Tower Report lead us to consider more focused experiments in which we target specific high power transmitters and take NO2 readings during operation and after the transmitter is shut down. As NO2 is one of the most significant regulators of ozone O3, this can lead to further implications in the effects of global broadcast on ozone production. Also, as we make the switch from analog to digital broadcast there will be many opportunities to observe ozone depletion anomalies similar to the one that was predicted would occur on October 17th 2007.
The next anomaly should occur November 6 2008!
If we are paying attention I have no doubt the same ozone depletion mechanism would be triggered.
So if we already know this then what else can we do?
Food for thought: If it takes 6 years to get a Ph.D and we make 3 discoveries in two years, then by the time you finish your education and become a professor your textbooks are already obsolete...sounds like your computer?
In fact if the discoveries in the information age is really moving as fast as we say then scientists are bound to get left behind due to the slow dissemination of knowledge. This is a scientific hiccup similar to what has led many to believe that electron precipitation is a natural phenomena, in the wake of AM broadcast since 1909.
To this day nobody knows what causes electron precipitation for sure it has been there since we can measure it, but in the last few decades we have learned that intentional radio waves can cause it... ...isn't broadcast intentional?
Think about that!
Unknown and natural are two different things, natural implies that we know nature is causing it, while unknown means we have no idea.
Isn't lightening more powerful than radio waves?
Actually broadcasting electromagnetic energy into the earth - ionosphere region increases global lightening activity.
It's called lightening induced electron 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."
Demeter Micro-Satellite - M.Parrot
Radio Frequency Effects on the Environment
Did you say that radio waves cause ozone depletion and drive climate change ?
Feeling like you missed something?
What about CFC's ?
The antarctic "ozone hole" has reached record sizes in recent years, DESPITE the abolition of CFCs. The latest reading is not as big as the record 28 million sq km holes that developed during 2000, 2003 and 2006 but is close to it. As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, experimental data that threatens to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change. NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California has discovered new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere - almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate.
What does this mean?
"The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism."
Has Broadcast Theory been peer reviewed?
Broadcast Theory has been reviewed by a climate scientist who has years of experience building CO2 climate models and is familliar with climate change and radio waves. It is also under review by the Council on Wireless Technology Impacts and International Commission on Electromagnetic Safety. Broadcast Theory was considered highly plausable, however this research crosses scientific disciplines and would require a committee of scientists including those more familiar with plasma waves and space physics to validate it with more certainty. So if you or anyone you know is familiar in these areas and want to be apart of what may be the greatest discovery, then please contact us.
Do you have a Question that you would like to see here?
What about CO2?
In the late 1990s, this was the evidence suggesting that carbon emissions caused global warming:
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, proved in a laboratory a century ago.
Global warming has been occurring for a century and concentrations of atmospheric carbon have been rising for a century. Correlation is not causation, but in a rough sense it looked like a fit.
Ice core data, starting with the first cores from Vostok in 1985, allowed us to measure temperature and atmospheric carbon going back hundreds of thousands of years, through several dramatic global warming and cooling events. To the temporal resolution then available (data points more than a thousand years apart), atmospheric carbon and temperature moved in lockstep: they rose and fell together. Talk about a smoking gun!
There were no other credible causes of global warming.
But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence above fell away. Using the same point numbers as above:
Better data shows that from 1940 to 1975 the earth cooled while atmospheric carbon increased. That 35 year non-correlation might eventually be explained by global dimming, only discovered in about 2003.
The temporal resolution of the ice core data improved. By 2004 we knew that in past warming events, the temperature increases generally started about 800 years before the rises in atmospheric carbon. Causality does not run in the direction we had assumed in 1999 — it runs the opposite way!
What about the Sun?
The sun plays one of the most important roles in our climate and before 1909 it followed the solar cycles closely. However during the temperature drop from the late 40s to the late 50s sunspots were on the rise. This leads us to consider that there is a variable with more climate forcing capability at play. see:
Isn't Antarctic getting colder?
Both experimental and model studies of long-term climate changes above Antarctica continent indicate presence of strong climate warming at the region around the Antarctic peninsula which differs significantly from the climate tendency in other parts of Antarctica. This warming is the most intense on the Earth together with similar regions of warming located in Alaska and in North-East Siberia. Another climatic anomaly in this region is a giant spot of the open water (polynya) which does not freeze in wintertime. Up to now all attempts to explain these phenomena by the traditional meteorological factors turned out to be inadequate.
2. It is shown in this paper that the region of intense global warming around Antarctic peninsula precisely coincides with a stable maximum of energetic electron precipitation (E > 1 MeV) from the Earth radiation belt. Depth of penetration of these particles into atmosphere could be as low as 20-40 km.
3. Energetic resources of this phenomenon are quite sufficient in order to supply input of thermal energy capable to warm atmosphere in this region. see:
Top 10 reasons to consider Broadcast over CO2 as the main driver of climate change
A Space Physics Paradox:
Why Has Increased Funding Been Accompanied by Decreased Effectiveness in the Conduct of Space Physics Research?
? Good Question ?
Do we have any experimental observations that link electron precipitation to climate change?
Yes: See Below
Experiments that can be done
First it is important to understand the experiments that have already been done, so we don't reinvent the wheel and understand what we can do next.
Scientists have already run experiments and discovered:
1. That radio waves can stimulate an ozone depletion mechanism known as electron precipitation.
2. That the gyrofrequency 1.45MHz is exceptionally efficient at stimulating this process.
3. Satellites have observed areas of the ionosphere that are highly disturbed over areas of powerful television and radio broadcast transmitters.
We also know that the entire globe is covered in man made broadcast energy and it has been ON non-stop since 1909.
(see RF effects)
Is electron precipitation natural ?
Although many believe that it is, nobody could actually tell you HOW nature causes it. So 'natural' is a misnomer and it would be more accurately classified as unknown. However it is important to consider the fact that as long as we have been able to measure this phenomenon in the 70's, AM broadcast (1.45MHz) has blanketed the globe in RF energy since 1909. And 1.45MHz is very efficient at stimulating electron precipitation from experiments done with scientific transmitters. So by the time we could measure electron precipitation AM broadcast was well established at maximum capacity while avoiding interference. If AM were to cause this, it could have easily been mistaken as a natural part of the microwave background radiation because at that time nobody knew that radio waves could stimulate this phenomenon. That discovery would not come until the 80's.
What kind of evidence shows us that broadcast transmitters are powerful enough ?
To understand this more clearly I highly recommend:
Ionospheric disturbances generated by different natural processes and by human activity in Earth plasma environment
This one of the most informative research papers I have come across regarding this phenomena. It is not a light read, but very informative. For just the highlights:
You also mention the effects of broadcast on the solar photosphere and that O+ ions take 11 years to get to the sun via the solar wind, but do we have any observations of this taking place ?
I know this is a very new idea to science, but it is first important to understand that through transmitter experiments we can cause two populations of particles to flow out of the polar ionosphere, electrons and O+ ions. We have direct observations of these O+ ions flowing up 'open' interplanetary magnetic field lines as well as observations of O+ ions coming out the other side of these flux tubes as O+ ion gas injections into the convective region of the sun. I recommend viewing:
'Polar Regions & Solar Variable'