A level head is only as good as an open mind
I knew that it wasn’t going to be easy to find the answer to the difficult question of climate change, and there were many times I nearly gave up. I knew that if the answer was easy there wouldn't be such a debate and that it would likely be hiding in the background noise that we tune out of our other measurements. I followed a trail of clues beginning with the observation in the temperature graph, and then began to learn about the effects of radio frequencies on the ionosphere, which scientists have done many studies on. I remember one night before going to bed thinking about how certain frequencies caused an increase in electron activity much like in a microwave oven. I began to research microwave frequencies and learned that 2.45GHz is a gyrofrequency. A multiple of the cyclotron resonance at ~1.4MHz which also happens to fall in the AM broadcast band. This was another clue that led me to research done by HAARP and UK’s University of Leicester on these frequencies. These studies show that these RF are unlike others in that there threshold for Thermal Self-focusing Instability (TSI) is far lower than the normal radio frequencies. In fact they found no absolute minimum. This means that any calculation to determine cyclotron RF effect must be multiplied by a factor of 5-10 if not more according to the Solar Powered Satellite research. The FCC didn’t allocate radio frequency based on gyro frequency, because they knew nothing about it at the time. The foundations of AM radio go back 70 years and have never changed, there was no reason to. Most of the allocation of AM and FM radio was done by the usefulness of propagation characteristics and profitability while avoiding interference, not its effects in the space - earth environment.

I could see in the temperature graph that there was a major shift in 1946 and so I researched this through historic records. It turned out that in 1946, the largest shift in man made broadcast occurred through the ionosphere between the US and the UK after the war. I followed the clues once again learning as much as I could. I learned about sky wave propagation and the layers of the ionosphere and how they operate with RF. In the research done by HAARP they recognized the E and F layer as having unique properties to gyrofrequency stimulation due to its inhomogeneous nature. I wondered if it might be especially sensitive to cyclotron frequencies and found out that according to the HAARP experiments it did!

Since childhood I was gifted with a hyper learning condition known as 'hyperlexia' which is the opposite of dyslexia, this increases my problem solving capability (ie. in the 4th grade I was reading at a 12th grade level) and throughout this I have been careful in understanding this process.  I was determined and kept my mind open to possibility. I bounced ideas off of colleagues and other atmospheric physicist, and electrical engineers. Many of who helped me to understand what worked and what didn’t and shaped the path of my relentless research. Because climate change is such a hot topic everybody has their best research online, so I collected nearly every experiment I could get my hands on that might be a clue. I focused my mind like a laser, bouncing it on possible relevant paths and discarding irrelevant ones again and again. Slowly, piece-by-piece the big picture began to emerge. I found in my process of talking to others that if a scientist found any error in my process they would discount the whole thing all together. I realized that if I were going to get anybody to look into this seriously I was going to have it nearly all painted out in black and white.

In the final stages I could see not only the process, but I began to see how each and every bump in the temperature graph correlated to this process as it became very sensitive to it’s cause once it was brought out of it’s normal range. I realized that one radio station meant nothing to the ionosphere, but the frequency and policy shifts of the entire US and the UK due to WWII affected the electron density in the Polar Regions. As the technology spread it affected the propagation of these radio/plasma waves along magnetic field lines. By the end I knew that I had enough information on this process to turn the head of the most well studied scientists, as it was all pieced together with some of the greatest research available to modern science. The only worry is that most scientists didn’t keep up on the most recent developments in these fields and that because this process is complex and spanning several fields of study, it might take a committee of scientists to really do anything about it.

So here I am doing my best to share what I see, because in the end that is truly all we can do. My hope is that perhaps someone knowledgeable enough might see that and help me with this process. NASA has come together once before and helped shape and change world policy to rid our environment of aerosols. It was very effective and I believe we can do it again. So please if you are reading this, I encourage you above all to use your own judgment. The scientific community has had a great deal of pressure on them from politicians and the people to come to conclusions and have answers to the fate of humanity. And I believe that in a rush to win Nobel prizes we may have jumped to conclusions as to the true source of global warming, not realizing the complexity of the chain of reactions above our heads. Between political agendas and the fear of human demise we need to take a deep breath and have a deeper more thorough look into this most complex of problems that humanity faces. I honestly believe that we can learn a lot, not only about our own process, and ourselves, but a lot about the world that we live in. If it is true then we could change the fate of humanity in a single day and it would be the greatest day in the entire world. A day that would be remembered and meant that our children had a future.

Top 10 reasons to consider Broadcast over CO2 as the main driver for climate change

1.We have no proof for CO2 or CFC’s, these are theories that weakened in the last decade, but we have proof  that radio waves stimulate a known ozone depletion mechanism and we can test it again and again.  

2.Of the three major forms of ozone depletion the IPCC only bases policy on one of them…air pollution. Solar variance can’t be accurately measured and electron precipitation isn’t even mentioned.

3.Electron precipitation can cause as much ozone depletion as CFC’s, and even though CFC's have been declining since 2000, the ozone hole was the largest ever in October of 2006. This leaves us to consider that perhaps CFC’s aren’t the cause. Electron precipitation is not declining.

4.The path of energy can be verified by science and the input is there, AM broadcast 1.45 MHz : gyrofrequency. (See Broadcast Theory)

5.If you look at the effects that the frequencies we use have on the environment and match those effects with the historic dates in which that technology came on, you will see a pattern in the global temperature anomalies graph.

6.In the late 1940’s the temperature took a major down fall for about five years or so and at that time both CO2 and solar variance were on the rise. During this time the largest shift in human broadcast frequency propagation occurred, as television came on it suppressed the path of energy allowing the ozone layer to repair and the temperature dropped.

7.This shift in 1946/47 can also been seen in the weather patterns and ocean oscillation cycles as an increase in ocean level and precipitation/snow.
(See 'Winter of 1946/47')

8.I’ve found high power broadcast transmitters by reading NO2 signatures from NASAs OMI satellite map. There are three of them in little Walnut California in the same area with a total ERP of 30MW! This generates a perfectly round spot of NO2 that is clearly visible in the satellite map.

9.I predicted an ozone anomaly resulting from the October 17th UK digital switch ON, it did occur.
(See 'Watch It ! )

10.This theory answers many questions that scientists have pondered: 155 day boiling of the suns photosphere, NLC clouds forming in deposition areas of WEP, global temperature rise, La Nina persists, and more

What would you do if you woke up one day and discovered something amazing?

Everybody processes information in a different way giving rise to many different styles and  languages. It is important to have a perspective on the logic of the thinker to understand his thoughts.

It takes a super sleuth to dig out the truth so turn on your brain and listen...

Processing the Path
Next click here --
The Path of Energy
Click to go to the Path of Energy
Research Sections
What would you do? 
Comments :   
Next click here --
The Path of Energy
Click to go to the Path of Energy
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!


Frequently Asked Questions?