Friday, 30 December 2011

More life

Green plants evolved 650,000,000 years ago air. So in the Jurassic the major for or were fearns. Which had it not metabolise carbon dioxide as efficiently. So is twice the present level of carbon dioxide in the air.
But the Jurassic age some three natural ice ages. Sea levels were 60 metres lower in the warm periods. This is caused by a extra 65% of life on earth tang of rain fall in their bulk.
When that life died with the dinosaurs formed the fossil fuels: which is why field dates to 65,000,000 years ago air. We saw a world wide forest, so all called dates to the end of the Jurassic too.
So more life, drastically lower sea levels a natural ice ages. When all the fossil fuels were circulating around the environment: as if we have burned all fossil fuels today. We would expect to see more life are more seats.
The Jurassic was a cold and time of the earth’s history. Burning the fossil fuels is the easiest way to return to that time. Allowing more nuclear fission plants to be constructed is a guaranteed way to remove all life from on earth quickly.
Which will result in sea level rise. All it took to get academics writing fictitious papers on the non existent warming effect of carbon dioxide was nuclear power to invest 10 million pounds a year.
They did not worry about the total lack of historical backing up of their technical papers, they just wanted the money.
I am very pleased to say that while Will Zimmerman was ambivalent towards the well funded science of global warming, he did not write any papers on this ‘science’. He only lakes factually correct stuff.
Having said that, he was not prepared to rule it out. As he did not understand the carbon sinks in the natural environment. And he did not know their history of prehistoric earth.
The science of money nuclear power invested to get tame academics writing absolute rubbish to the science magazines is a serious issue.
The funding agencies need to be a lot more careful about accepting financial contributions. They should insist that industry invests in academic papers directly. And not do it using their good name.
IO neither a biologist nor a historian. I am an engineer. If I found this stuff out in about three years, then every scientist on this planet should know these facts.

Jonathan Thomason JonThm9@aol.com

Wednesday, 28 December 2011

GW Sorted

In 2001 I was asked to sort out Global Warming for you: this was actually three years after the world climate would have started cooling naturally. All the climate scientists were desperate to stop that coming out!
It wasn’t until 2010 100 leading American scientists were than on record. Certainly from 2005 it was obvious in the UK that the world was cooling. 2010 was the most severe winter in 200 years in England.
High school biology teaches that photosynthesis takes in all available carbon dioxide: at university you learn that was down to 4ppm in the Jurassic, there are now more than photosynthesis is only 2ppm carbon dioxide in the air.
A static level since the little ice age ended. Carbon dioxide can only rise in an ice ages. So can the little ice age we are back to 4ppm.
No carbon dioxide levels reflect a period of global cooling. Certainly there was no data set on an increase in average global carbon dioxide due to mankind’s machines.

So all the scientists are earning a living from global warming had no data set two backup their fictitious claims about carbon dioxide on the weather. Even today, they have renamed their studies climate change and nobody has noticed average global carbon dioxide levels are static.
I see nobody: Harvard University put it on record in New Scientist August 2010. I have now got a contact at Harvard interested in space travel.
A venting plasma chamber will drive a space rocket at hypersonic speed within the solar system. Setting up a shuttle service to a telescope on the far side of the Moon was seen to be a good idea.
All the academics who have written fictitious papers on man made global warming and climate change are nuclear stooges; and so obviously should not be in education.

Jonathan Thomason JonThm9@aol.com

New phantom Science

By JonThm9@aol.com
New Scientist magazine knows is since the evolution of photosynthesis 650,000 years ago, the only factor which determines the level of carbon dioxide in the air is the efficiency of photosynthesis to take this gas in.
Extra carbon emissions translates the same day into extra life on earth. Mankind has released 0.0000175% extra carbon dioxide a day since the industrial revolution. This is 1000 times less important than a local forest fire. Nature has an even noticed.
They can have been no global warming due to man, before 1998 when the natural climate started cooling anyway. Man made climate change is us an oxymoron: man can not increase the level of carbon dioxide in the air.
All he can do is increase the life on earth. Man made climate change is PR fiction by nuclear power. So apparently New Scientist magazine is a stooge.

Tuesday, 27 December 2011

Basic biology

Climate stooges are desperate for there to be an increase in carbon dioxide in the air. With green plants doing photosynthesis, and the vast bulk of air in the air for two enature photosynthesis this is not possible.
60% of the area of the globe is covered by sea water. With trillions of algae and aquatic plants and bacteria doing photosynthesis.
Then we get to the land: 99.8 per cent is a level countryside. Though some of this is covered by an ice or deserts. The area devoted to towns and cities is minuscule.
In cities man uses chemical engines to release more carbon dioxide. That is plant food. Once the air travels over the countryside it becomes carbohydrates and oxygen.
There has been no increase of carbon dioxide in the air due to man. Ever. Interestingly enough, during an ice age global carbon dioxide does rise naturally.
So it follows global cooling. If it caused global warming, they could never have an ice age!
In the Jurassic sea levels were 60 metres lower. And there was 65% more life on earth. When the comet hit in Mexico, there was carbohydrates ended up forming the hydrocarbons that we know as oil, gas and coal.
Pumping steam down across shales which contain carbohydrates produces methane, helium and oxygen. It does chemical molecular nuclear fusion.
If we ensure the plant cannot generate sparks before e call the gas, we can extract them methane and oxygen: oxygen has massive technological uses.
There are massive reserves of such shales around the world. So fission had to supply 1000 years or gas to the world.
A better idea is molecular nuclear fusion: we use a steam plasma tube to turn regular water into helium, oxygen and heat. We can vent these gases to the air, safe and knowledge that the helium will be lost to space within the day.
It is how nature gets and heat: using the turbulent flow of high pressure water or steam. Nature does not do toxic nuclear fission.
I got an e-mail today, asking if I believed in greenhouse gases. Yes I do. A increase plant growth in the greenhouse. Usually they also have a flame of natural gas to heat the greenhouse.
The greenhouse gases are solely concerned with increase in crop yields. Global warming was seized upon by nuclear power after Chernobyl: they failed to realise that greenhouse gases are concerned with biology. Not physics or engineering.
They have no impact on the weather systems. Nuclear power badly needs to reset high school biology. Though apparently, so do a lot of people! Who have been commenced that green is gases warm the air. Nor the big gas flame does that job.

Jonathan Thomason JonThm9@aol.com

Real science

New Scientist barely covers or sciences. Including biology. It is well versed in prehistory and chemistry.
In the Jurassic all the carbon fuels were circulating round the ecosystem, alternating between carbon dioxide and carbohydrates. There were ice ages. So if they burned all fossil fuels tomorrow, it will make more life on earth, but not changed the level of carbon dioxide in the air.
So obviously no effect on the weather. New Scientist knows he’s are for a fact. Why then does he talk as if man made climate change was her thing other than fiction from nuclear power?
When there comet hit in Mexico it wiped out 65% of life on earth; including the dinosaurs. There carbohydrates abducted down to the deep, and were exposed some liquid platinum in anaerobic conditions.
Nurse the carbohydrates of life were transformed into the hydrocarbons been no known as oil. The global forests formed all the coal around the earth. The oil and coal carbon dates to 65,000,000 years ago.
But just happens to be in the air of the Jurassic! Man can not affect the level of carbon dioxide in the air. Photosynthesis converts carbon dioxide into carbohydrates-life.
All readings them on to parts per 1,000,000 are spurious. The air circulates so within the day we are back to the global average of 2ppm all over the earth. That is a number which affects the weather.
As carbon dioxide has been static for 200 years it obviously has no impact on the weather. Burning the fossil fuels returns the fossilised life back to the surface of the earth and ecology.
Carbon dioxide is us the ultimate green gas. New Scientist know all this. They pretended global warming was real science, even five years after the world started cooling in 1998.
Now there is no possibility that mankind can affect the level of carbon dioxide in the air: that is controlled exclusively by photosynthesis. Levels over cities is too minuscule to affect the weather. They are just too small an area of the earth’s surface!
So of course New Scientist will published the fact they have helped to the world for ¼ century. Or rather they won’t.

Jonathan Thomason JonThm9@aol.com

Monday, 26 December 2011

Photosynthesis eats carbon dioxide

By JonThm9@aol.com

The early earth have a similar atmosphere to Mars: 40% carbon dioxide. Life evolved to metabolise carbon dioxide. So bacteria first started taking in this gas 3.8 billion years ago.
Green plants evolved 650,000 years ago. They took in carbon dioxide to do photosynthesis. So they all carbohydrates and excreted the surplus oxygen: oxygen gas is the greatest pollutant in earth history. 20% of the air is now the waste gas of plants.
In the cretaceous plants excelled in metabolising carbon dioxide. So much so, they could only take in during the day the gas they had released as they metabolise oxygen and limate. Combining it with their carbohydrates. 90% of life on earth died. The biggest mass extinction of prehistory.
Life only recover as animals evolved to metabolise the waste gas of plants, the oxygen; and combine it with heating carbohydrates. To do no time oxygen metabolism all day. You plants free to do photosynthesis.
That is what animals are: waste gas reprocessing units. That eat plants to get a carbohydrates, and they and combine them with the waste gas they breathe in from the air. When man started using the system to drive machines, he became a super animal.
Harvard University has found that crop yields have increased by 15% since the industrial revolution. 20% of the carbon dioxide produced every day is from man is chemical engines: so 80% it is still breeder by animals.
There can never be a build up of carbon dioxide in the air. Photosynthesis converts it into life on earth. Mankind has increased life on earth. More plants and animals. No possible effect on the weather.
This is called the ‘carbon cycle’. It is such basic science meeting teaches schoolchildren at high school. Every day plants grow until they have used up all the carbon dioxide, down to the lower limit for photosynthesis.
More carbon dioxide, more plant growth. There is a massive over sufficiency of green plants on earth day the converting carbon dioxide into plant bulk. New Scientist magazine covers biology. So is well aware of this fact.
All the media and higher education know this fact: 14 old schoolchildren no this fact! Why does the media insists of printing articles about increasing level of carbon dioxide in the air? That is not biologically possible. And why does science of global warming is having more is fiction from nuclear power?
Even after the world started cooling in 1998, academics’ just renamed it to be ‘climate change’. Doesn’t mean a thing. It is just a name for natural weather. As outlined above there could never have been any effect of carbon dioxide on the weather.
It is A static trace gas. That was last higher in the little ice age, when there was less plant growth. That’s right. The only time carbon dioxide rises is during an ice ages! So it obviously never coals global warming.
All this fiction is paid fiction by nuclear power: the most toxic industry on earth. That started propagating global warming after Chernobyl did massive damage in Russian. Two years ago we can start eating Scottish Lanigan!
Now we have had Fukushima: this time the radioactivity has gone down into the groundwater. Tokyo will depopulate over the next 10 years. Japan will never recover. That is what nuclear power does.
Carbon dioxide stimulates plant growth. No builder of this gas in the air is possible due to photosynthesis. Every academic who has written fictitious papers on global warming or climate change should so obviously not be in education.
Any science magazine who has published the fiction from nuclear power as if it was fact does not deserve to be in business.

Sunday, 25 December 2011

Climate change not!


The global climate started cooling 13 years ear. So global warming was obviously wrong. Nice simple prediction: more carbon dioxide in the air, higher temperature.
Totally wrong. Photosynthesis has converted fossil fuels back into carbohydrates: this is where all the fossil fuels came from. As 65% of life on earth died and the dinosaurs, the hydrocarbons adopted to the depths and again the hydrocarbons.
So burning all fossil fuels will increase life back to hire was in the Jurassic. When there were natural ice ages. The temperature range of the earth was lower, and most have a sound more oxygen in the air.
The poles were warmer and equator was cooler. Seas were 60 metres lower. So burning the fossil fuels is a blessing for life man could ever do.
Oxygen is the waste gas of plants. Animals evolved to metabolise, by combining it with plant carbohydrates. Go and read up on the biology carbon cycle. To man. And 50 years old, and still the basis for life on earth.
2005 nuclear power gave up on global warming: though there is still some academics trying to flog it. Light East Sussex university. Can’t see any reason why any money was study there.
They came up with climate change. Unfortunate based on the same mis-assumption that man could affect the level of carbon dioxide in the air.
That is controlled exclusively by photosynthesis. So what does climate change is predicts? More hurricanes and plants. 2004 was a bad hurricane year. That was eight years ago.
Free carbon dioxide in the air fell after the little ice age, and has remained static at two parts per 1,000,000.
So who cares for climate change predicts! It is so obviously a load of nuclear power inspired rubbish. But about by their paid stooges: you know who you are!
Every biologist in the world knows their climate change is rubbish. Interestingly enough, academics don’t tend to comment on page research by other academics.
Right until it looks like your date are more toxic nuclear fission plants built: don’t spend any money on the proposals! Once it is enough as state of boiling biologists will demolish climate change as idea.

Jonathan Thomason JonThm9@aol.com

Thursday, 22 December 2011

Gas samples

Sheffield University has a world wide reputation for gas analysis. 2007 New Scientist published a gas reading of 3.7 parts per 1,000,000. I pointed out that this was a low number: comparable to the preindustrial level of two parts per 1,000,000.
Suddenly the climate people published a number of 370 ppm. This was unsubstantiated. There was no location, date or time. Not even who did the reading.
Compare and contrast with high school biology, that teaches the global average level of carbon dioxide in the air is fixed by photosynthesis: at 2ppm.
Local readings in cities near diesel exhaust have no impact on the global weather systems. Citizen cells are too minuscule to have any bearing.
Harvard University published 2010 in New Scientist that the average global carbon dioxide levels have not increased, since they fell at the end of the little ice age. So when we have a cold climate this you plants, free carbon dioxide rises.
They also noted that crop yields had increased by 15% since the industrial revolution. The carbon cycle is familiar to every scientist on this planet. That is a prediction we all 14.
A static level of carbon dioxide obviously has no impact on the weather systems. The whole idea of global warming was made up by stooges to nuclear power after Chernobyl: the most toxic industry on earth.
That totally ignores biology: burning fossil fuels increases life on earth. More nuclear fission plants increases death on earth. Horrendously expensive, toxic, polluting power.
An industry with no future: who is trying to inject money into academia to buy a future. The academics involved have no place in education at any level.
It would be trivial for Sheffield University to take A gas sample in the countryside: I had told ancer 10 years ago. They never have done. Because the people there are familiar with the carbon cycle, and no the average global carbon dioxide has never been affected by mankind.
The world has been cooling since 1998. Still cientist bleating on about global warming: mostly East Sussex university. Why anybody would cheers to study there I do not know.

Jonathan Thomason JonThm9@aol.com

Academic truth


Academic chambers are reversed every 10 years: three PH D’s plus a year. So then academics can go off and supervise PH D’s into the new idea.
Global warming through carbon dioxide was at four water of after Chernobyl in the 1980s, by scientists who large contracts from nuclear power. No academic has never commented on this.
Photosynthesis takes in carbon dioxide, so if you released more carbon dioxide you get more life on earth. You do not get more carbon dioxide in the air: that is controlled by photosynthesis.
In 1998 the world started cooling. So many nuclear stooges moved on to man made climate change: to say whatever happened to the weather, water falls ability of a biologically impossible increase of carbon dioxide in the air.
You try getting a professor of physics or engineering to engage with the carbon cycle: they were taught it when there were 14 but prefer to ignore it.
Conceding that man cannot control the carbon dioxide level in the air doesn’t produce anything research budgets. It happens to be true. But since when were academics interested in the truth?
So all the date are on increasing carbon dioxide levels in the air is spurious: the average carbon dioxide level in the air is controlled by photosynthesis. As every professor of physics on this planet was well aware.
Nuclear power is the most toxic industry on earth: what the hell are academic professors doing, producing their PR without question! PR they know is impossible rubbish.
Mike engineering professor would not think about the carbon cycle. Be professors say that global warming may or may not be true.
The world is cooling. Carbon dioxide levels have been fixed since they fell at the end of the little ice age. How interesting. Carbon dioxide goes up in an ice ages.
So if it caused global warming, we would never have an ice age. There has been no date are about increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the global air ever. And there will be.
The solution is obvious: all the academics who have ever written papers about carbon dioxide on the climate should not be in education: they are dangerous fantasist trying to further the aims of nuclear power.

Jonathan Thomason JonThm9@aol.com

Impossible science

By the time a scientist has competed doctors, he has learned not to believe populist science: he/she thinks for themselves.
They have certainly become acquainted with biology’s carbon cycle. This teaches that photosynthesis converts all the available carbon dioxide in the air into new life.
Only a transient, local increases over towns and cities of this gas is possible. Air circulates, and cities are such a small proportion of the earth’s surface they have no significance.
The only number which has any importance, potentially, for the weather is global average. Which has been static for 200 years. I say potentially, a has carbon dioxide goes up in an ice age, down in a warm period but has no forcing effect on the weather.
Plant growth follows the natural climate. So free carbon dioxide also follows the natural climate with a four year delay.
All this is known to every fought in your old school child in the developed world. Certainly doctors and professors would never consider global warming as having any intellectual merit for an microscope can.
Man has no impact into level of carbon dioxide in the air. That is fixed exclusively by photosynthesis. Extra carbon dioxide translates to extra life. Not extra carbon dioxide in the air.
Number hell dreamt up man made global warming? Take a bow nuclear power and you have paid stooges.
These are the very last people who should be involved in education. The natural climate has been cooling since 1998. Man made climate change is again based on the erroneous idea that man could ever affect the level of carbon dioxide in the air.
Be professors of physics who have written papers on this will even be retired, or should be.

Jonathan Thomason JonThm9@aol.com

Carbon dioxide is life

is the gas of life. Plants metabolise it in photosynthesis. Producing carbohydrates and excrete ink the surplus oxygen. Animals eat the carbohydrates recombined with the oxygen and get at the residual solar energy.
You more carbon dioxide emitted around the earth the more life their ears on earth. When all the fossil fuels were circulating the carbon system in late Jurassic, there was 65% more life on earth. Term percent more oxygen in the air.
A more temperate climate around the earth, except at intermittent ice ages. That’s right, when all the organic carbon was either carbohydrates of carbon dioxide, the air had natural ice.
Sea levels were 60 metres lower: as all the life died of rain fall in their bodies. It was earth’s golden time.
By burning the fossil fuels we are increasing life on earth, and by law ring seals. But will not be affecting the level of carbon dioxide in the air: that is fixed by photosynthesis going on and on land and in the seas.
So there is no part of global warming which is true: but as it was PR from nuclear power, that is exactly what you would expect.
So no change in carbon dioxide since it fell after the little ice age. 200 years ago air. A factor known changing carbon dioxide around the earth, farmland ever.
Higher levels of circulating carbon dioxide increases life on earth. And lower the sea. And the poles were warmer, and equator was cooler.
Data item: more carbon dioxide increases life on earth. That is high school biology. And has been confirmed by Harvard University.
Since the industrial revolution crop yields have increased by 15%! And rule always taught this science has high school. Professors of physics who have owned a good living for 35 years from global warming so obviously should not be in education!
Jonathan Thomason JonThm9@aol.com

Wednesday, 21 December 2011

Carbon is life

High school biology teaches that green plants take in all the available carbon dioxide to do photosynthesis. Man cannot influence the level of carbon dioxide in the evening air, only photosynthesis can do that.
Man’s cities are such a minuscule area, they have no impact on the average carbon dioxide in the air: and that is a number which might have impacted the weather. So it had not been static for 200 years.
So where did the fraudulent idea of global warming or I strong? The diseased brains of nuclear power tried to distract the world from Chernobyl – which happened in 1986.
The last time average carbon dioxide levels for higher was naturally in the little ice age. When sea levels were lower. And biomass creation was reduced.
How can it be known that carbon dioxide affected the weather? We did have devices around 200 years ago. But the ice and snow tells us that carbon dioxide doesn’t make things warmer, and the sea is higher.
Man’s gigantic carbon dioxide output is now 20% of the total carbon dioxide plants metabolise. Which is 0.0000175% a day. And 1000 times less important than a natural price fire.
So we get more plants and animals alive. We have no effect on the climate. Though all the evidence suggests higher carbon dioxide levels for lyre an ice age: the lower seas and less life on earth.
Much the same as if we are allow new nuclear power plants to be constructed. Are spurious grounds. Nuclear power is not green. It is the most toxic, polluting and fatal industry on earth.
We have real date are on that: go ask Fukushima. Nuclear power has trashed the second biggest economy in the world. That is what nuclear fission does.

Jonathan Thomason JonThm9@aol.com

Tuesday, 20 December 2011

Climate fantasy

By JonThm9@aol.com
During an interglacial age there are 80 times the necessary organisms to taking carbon dioxide to do photosynthesis with. Only in an ice age can free carbon dioxide rise. Walk outside the door. We are not in an ice.
20% of the carbon dioxide in the air today originates from man’s machines. This is a 0.000175%. 1000 times less significant than a local forest fire. So green plants and algae have taken in the carbon dioxide and used it to grow. So every morning there are more photosynthetic organisms poised to take in there carbon dioxide.
So mankind has increased the life on earth. But has not affected the level of carbon dioxide in the air: this is fixed by photosynthesis. It is at 2ppm every evening around the earth. A static level.
Man may have affected the climate by his use of nuclear power, as nature does not do nuclear fission. But he has not affected the level of carbon dioxide in the global air. It is the global average which matters for the climate.
As towns and cities are a minuscule area. And the weather isn't macroscopic. So has not noticed that man burns fossil fuels. So we have increased life on earth. Nuclear power lied the we have affected the climate by burning fossil fuels.
No.
They are still toxic, polluting, fatal and uneconomic.

Academics lied

By JonThm9@aol.com
Every academic professional in the world knew that biology’s carbon cycle totally controlled the level of carbon dioxide in the air. More carbon dioxide resulted in more life on earth.
Not more carbon dioxide in the air. So global warming was always a biological impossibility: fiction to further the aims of nuclear power. Such individuals are the last people we should have in education.
Dangerous, fictitious and fatal.

Plants consume CO2

By JonThm9@aol.com

Photosynthesis metabolises all the available carbon dioxide in the air. Limit to life on earth is available carbon dioxide. Harvard University found that since the industrial revolution up yields have gone up 15%, but free carbon dioxide in the air was still at the lower limit for photosynthesis: two parts per 1,000,000.
A trace gas: at A static level. No possible effect on the weather. That increasing carbon dioxide emissions have increased plant and animal life on earth. The mass extinction at the end of cretaceous was caused by two little carbon dioxide in the air.
More animals had to evolved to turn the waste gas of plants, oxygen into their food, carbon dioxide. This was the worst mass extinction than the death of the dinosaurs at the end of the Jurassic.
Global warming was a fictitious invention of nuclear power and its paid stooges. Since when did you take biological or metrology and lies from nuclear power; the agents of death on earth.

www.sheffield.ac.uk


By JonThm9@aol.com
Photosynthesis metabolises all the available carbon dioxide in the air. Limit to life on earth is available carbon dioxide. Harvard University found that since the industrial revolution up yields have gone up 15%, but free carbon dioxide in the air was still at the lower limit for photosynthesis: two parts per 1,000,000.
A trace gas: at A static level. No possible effect on the weather. That increasing carbon dioxide emissions have increased plant and animal life on earth. The mass extinction at the end of cretaceous was caused by two little carbon dioxide in the air.
More animals had to evolved to turn the waste gas of plants, oxygen into their food, carbon dioxide. This was the worst mass extinction than the death of the dinosaurs at the end of the Jurassic.
Global warming was a fictitious invention of nuclear power and its paid stooges. Since when did you take biological or metrology and lies from nuclear power; the agents of death on earth.

Saturday, 17 December 2011

Nature controls the weather

By JonThm9@aol.com

The amount of carbon dioxide in the global air is fixed exclusively by photosynthesis. Releasing more carbon dioxide increases life on earth, it does not affect the level of carbon dioxide in the air.
There is a massive surplus of photosynthetic plants in the world. One area can be in drought, another area flooded but globally there are 80 times as much plant growth as required to fix every day’s carbon dioxide. As you had increased there carbon dioxide, every day he had more plants waiting to take in the gas.
The oxygen metabolism plants to at night, releases a very little carbon dioxide. Man was surplus carbon dioxide is only 0.0000175% a day for last 200 years. Harvard University has put on record over a year ago, that plant yields have increased by 15% since the industrial revolution. But carbon dioxide levels in the air every evening at the preindustrial two parts per 1,000,000.
Ice ages increased its level, as there is less photosynthesis. So the 18th century saw carbon dioxide rises to four parts per 1,000,000. The major ice age of the Permian saw free carbon dioxide rise to 5ppm. We can conclude that carbon dioxide doesn’t warm the weather.
We can further concluded, as carbon dioxide in the air has been static for 200 years, manmade climate change is baseless fiction from nuclear power: that is a simple biological impossibility. There has been no rise in average global carbon dioxide due to man.
There never could be. The nature is controlled exclusively by a predictable solar cycles. Meanwhile nuclear power remains the most toxic, polluting, uneconomic method mankind has and found to generate power.
Nature gets power via the turbulent flow of high pressure water or steam: this does not massively exothermic molecular nuclear fusion. That is safe, clean and free. With no plutonium production; and remember, that is the most toxic substance known to man.
How many handers of colon miles has nuclear power received free, through investing ¼ billion dollars in academia. The world is cooling the air. Academics should really walk outside and also the natural global cooling.

Friday, 16 December 2011

Photosynthesis

takes in all the available carbon dioxide, and converse is into plant or bacterial bulk. It excrete oxygen.
Animals breathe in the oxygen, combine it with plant for them. Carbon dioxide. So they can be no increase in carbon dioxide while there are green plants growing on the surface of the air.
We just gets more life on earth, but no more carbon dioxide in the air. So man made global warming and climate change are mutually contradicting fiction from nuclear power.
The world has been cooling for 13 years now. But free global carbon dioxide has remained static since it fell after the last ice age.

Jonathan Thomason JonThm9@aol.com

Thursday, 15 December 2011

Global stupidity

By JonThm9@aol.com

1986 was the year Chernobyl. And ever since then nuclear power has desperately funded climate research, hoping to make itself green. But it didn’t actually know any biology. It new physics and engineering. So that is where he spent his research money.
Amenable professors third economic papers on how man is production of carbon dioxide would affect the weather. They were not bothered that they have no historical data are two backup their ideas. They found that at 2% carbon dioxide as or more infrared radiation. Eureka! That was the idea they wanted.
They didn’t know or care how much carbon dioxide was in the air: after all, mankind’s machines produced so much of it. 20% of the carbon dioxide produced on a daily basis-the best was exhaled by animals. But that was biology, and they did not do biology.
They should have remembered their lectures on the carbon cycle, in biology. Green plants metabolise all the carbon dioxide in the air down to 0,00002%. Today a massive 20% of the us is produced by man.
So mankind has increased life on earth by 20%. But there is no more carbon dioxide in the air now than there was after the little ice age has ended. He each day plants grow, until there is two little carbon dioxide in the air.
So mankind’s carbon dioxide has lengthened the growing day by 0.001 sections around the world. Was are the world is in winter, the other is in summer. There is a massive over supply of photosynthetic plants on land of the air.
Algae and bacteria in the seas also metabolise carbon dioxide. They do rather better than plants on land. So sea levels over arose, carbon sinks would rise. Biology is the adaptive, dynamic carbon sink. It can never get full. We just get more plants alive taking in carbon dioxide.
Free carbon dioxide in the air has been static for two centuries. It is totally outside the control of man kind. Life on earth has increased since the industrial revolution. Releasing extra carbon dioxide is the best thing man has ever done for life on earth.
What of the natural climate there? Professors of physics do not do meteorology. If they did they would have noticed that the natural climate has been cooling since 1998. My PH D on global warming ended in 2001. Apparently a professor of engineer had noticed the climate was cooling.
There are still videos out there on global warming and carbon dioxide. 13 years after the glow started cooling. 200 years after carbon dioxide fell after the little ice age. Well there I always said the Internet was full of rubbish.

Wednesday, 14 December 2011

Biology pegs CO2

Biology pegs free carbon dioxide in the air to the minimum level for photosynthesis can take in. It is summer ammonia or somewhere around the world. And the air circulates.
So we are left with a global level of carbon dioxide at 2 theppm: go look at this up in the biology text books. The only time national carbon dioxide can rise is in an ice age.
It follows natural global cooling. It obviously does not warm the air, or we would never have an ice age. This fiction serves the purposes of nuclear power, but nobody else.
When I made this point in 2001, my PH D got ended the next Monday. I always thought PH D’s were about truth. They are not defined by vested interests. And academic professionals jealously guards this fact.
Nuclear power gave money to the funding agencies, with the proviso that is used to study global warming. Then when the world cooled from 1998, and 2004 cooled by more than the whole of the 28th century have warmed, they moved their PR to climate change.
Still based on the erroneous notion that man controls the level of carbon dioxide in the air. This week they have found massive emissions of methane from the arctic ocean.
This is doing biological molecular nuclear fusion:
CO2+3H2O->CH4+He+3O.+E
This is a massive area of research in Chemical Engineering. If Sheffield had awarded me the PH DI have found they would be justified in going are studying it.
But they didn’t. So they can’t. The natural system that metabolises carbon dioxide. As done by all the deep sea bacteria are on the planet.
You will note that he is the system used by photosynthesis. Surely is, it sinks man made climate change.

Monday, 12 December 2011

Carbon taxes

Go measure it


By JonThm9@aol.com
Before you can start taxing a country on carbon emissions, you actually need to account for the carbon sinks. Most of the country is countryside. So go measure the value of carbon dioxide in the countryside.
You also need A historical data set on carbon dioxide levels and the climate. The the I will give you some help here: the only time carbon dioxide rises is during an ice age. It follows four years after the natural global cooling.
The global warming fiction was invented by nuclear power. You really do not want to take biological have lies from them. Do you take an independent gas sample in the countryside. Then pay your of carbon taxes on the basis of that.
I can help you again here: carbon dioxide has been at is static level in the air for last two centuries. Says it fell after the little ice age. Quite what d’you think carbon emissions do? Other than boost biology. So you’re wanting to tax the creation of extra life on earth. Strange people.

Sunday, 11 December 2011

No warming

A greenhouse uses a flame to heat the greenhouse. It praises the carbon dioxide level to 50,000 times than found in the global air. The global average carbon dioxide level in the free air is 0.00002%.

That level of carbon dioxide does not raise the temperature. If we have a cylinder of carbon dioxide gas to raise carbon dioxide levels to the same extent, the temperature does not move at all.
The air in the greenhouse is heated, because we have exposed gas flame specifically to heat it. So carbon dioxide is miss labelled.
It is not in the greenhouse to increase to temperature, it is the air to increase plant growth. It is not so much a greenhouse gas, and so air grop promoter.
The concept of a greenhouse gas originates from the 1976 from ‘soylent green’. It was seized upon by nuclear power and its paid stooges after the Chernobyl incident in 1986.
Trouble was, nuclear power does physics it does not do biology. So they assumed the carbon dioxide heat is the area of the greenhouse. Now a gas flame does. And there carbon dioxide has no warming effect.
It increases plant growth rates. So it also increases oxygen production. Yet you never hear oxygen being called a greenhouse gas. There is 20% oxygen in the global air, more in the greenhouse.
So oxygen and should be entitled a greenhouse gas, before carbon dioxide is! Fukushima was two months ago. All I can hear our from nuclear power is to plant days is to move for radioactivity.
This will distribute the radioactivity in local ecosystem, exactly as he is already distributed. People should move out of Tokyo and the hundred square kilometres around the nuclear plant.
Can’t have a walk around a greenhouse. See more life solar plants. Compare with the toxic death air here nuclear power has instigated in Japan and Russia.

Lightening

I am still waiting to hear an explanation for why lightning produces helium, free radical oxygen, heat, visible light and nuclear radiation from regular water.
Driven by rain storms: which he is the gentle collision of rain drops to produce helium gas, gamma wave radiation and ozone. Plus heat.
Nuclear radiation can only be produced by nuclear reactions. We are talking about regular water with no radioactive isotopes in. And he turned up producing helium and oxygen gases.
When there is no chemical source of helium. We are transforming hydrogen into helium with sound, heat and visible light. Plus a magnetic pulse.
We are doing nuclear fusion from molecular hydrogen. Every 3 minutes around the earth. At room temperature and pressure. Generating pressure waves. Plus all that radiation.
Did year contest that nature is doing molecular nuclear fusion from water? If not it is beholden on your to tell the world! We know her to do nontoxic nuclear fusion from water.
And you never even gave me a Ph.D. for this work!

Jonathan Thomason JonThm9@aol.com

Friday, 9 December 2011

CO2 encourages life

Ask any gardener: if you released carbon dioxide into the air above plants, they grow. Issue released carbon dioxide into the air above the air, very quickly circulates to above green plants doing photosynthesis.
It is high school biology: release more carbon dioxide. Create more life on earth. But you never increased there carbon dioxide in the air. Its level is fixed by photosynthesis.
Over the last 200 years mankind has released 0.000175% additional carbon dioxide every day. So every day plants will expand to take in this gas.
So every morning there are more plants growing around the earth. Local droughts all floods don’t matter. The world is a big place.
Winter circulates around the globe. On the other side of the world it is high summer. There are always growing plants to take in carbon dioxide from the air. And the air circulates.
Cities are such a small area of the world they do not matter. Photosynthesis goes on and on land, or slightly more life in the seas. So in C levels rose, the carbon sinks would expand.
To propose that man kind has affected photosynthesis and carbon dioxide in the air is stupid. And nuclear power made of this line after Chernobyl. To distract people from the toxic nature.
So all the people producing work on global warming are doing freed PR by nuclear power: they have moved on to man made climate change, says the world started cooling 1998.
Again based on an erroneous belief mankind can affect the global carbon dioxide levels in the air.

Jonathan Thomason JonThm9@aol.com

Thursday, 8 December 2011

Nuclear lies

Green plants take in all the available carbon dioxide to form new life on earth. Carbon emissions are nuclear guesstimates of the extra life on earth man is supporting.
That is why you never see a global average carbon dioxide levels in the air quoted: they haven’t changed in two centuries. Harvard University has put on record 2010 that crop yields had increased by 15% since the industrial revolution.
He also noted that the world had been cooling since 1998: hence the shift of the nuclear PR to man made climate change. Which doesn’t predict anything. But blames the weather on a biologically impossible rise of carbon dioxide in the air.
Global warming or so last millennia! Total nuclear fiction.

Jonathan Thomason JonThm9@aol.com

What price lack of bias

Green plants take in all the available carbon dioxide to do photosynthesis. So globally there is been no increase in carbon dioxide for last 200 years. Nuclear power has invested 10 million dollars a year since 1986-the year Chernobyl.
How much they will invest in their PR after Fukushima I wait to see! They have got all the media and academics are serving burning fossil fuels has affected the weather. The all the produced carbon dioxide has resulted in more life on earth.
There is no possibility of any weather amendment. Yet for their money they have got quasi academics to sacrifice academic impartiality to write papers on man made climate change.
Used to be global warming, but then the natural weather cools from 1998. 2004 was a bad hurricane year. 2011 is a historically low or hurricane year. Climate change totally contradicts global warming.
It basically says ‘increasing levels of carbon dioxide was some bad effect on the weather’. But there is no increase in free carbon dioxide. The weather today he is getting colder and calmer.
Nuclear power has even got Sir David Attenborough and the BBC talking about climate change. As if he could be real. And will lead to see the level rises. There the historical evidence is that in a cooling world with our fun sing for the icecaps, sea levels fall.
An increase in free carbon dioxide is not biologically possible. So David should retire.


Jonathan Thomason JonThm9@aol.com

Warming the cities

So it is liberate a huge amount of heat to the air: for last century this has written to 2° C. However we also see a local spike in carbon dioxide.
Why have the time the seconds into the countryside, within a mile we are back to the preindustrial 0.00002%. This is a number which might have affected the weather. If it hadn’t been a constant for two centuries.
At engine exhausts over cities we are told the carbon dioxide levels are 180 times greater. If carbon dioxide does have an affect on the weather, we would expect temperatures to rise by 60° C.
In other words, no human or that the thermal protection suit, could lay in the cities. The weather as it rolled in from the countryside would convert from a snow storm to the climate we C ominous.
All the amounts would have abandoned the city’s in 1960. So we see the number of 370ppm is wrong. 2008 new scientist, a great advocate of a biologically impossible global warming, polished the figure of 3.7ppm.
I pointed out to the world over Internet this was a low number: 0.000037%. Magically overnight it was mortified by a factor of 400.
But city temperatures have not risen by 60° C. Plant growth has aken and 185 fold. In any case cities are too small an area to have any effect on the global average carbon dioxide in the air.
You ever came up with this rubbish the services their high school biology.
The world has been cooling naturally since 1998. If carbon dioxide endeavour to play warms the weather how did this happen?
Has only been no global increase in carbon dioxide for two centuries, how the heck do we know that he warms the weather? An increase in global carbon dioxide is not biologically possible.
Carbon dioxide: the ultimate green gas. It increases plant growth. Which is why the can never see an increase of carbon dioxide in the air, it is limited by photosynthesis.


Jonathan ThomasonJonThm9@aol.com

Plant growth

By JonThm9@aol.com
Green plants metabolise all the available carbon dioxide from the air to form new life on earth. If global carbon dioxide has gone up by 185 times since the industrial revolution: so would plant growth/
Or other than to millimetres a month, grass would grow by 10 centimetres and power. While there was sufficient fertilizer and water. So really are powered by shoot up 10 centimetres in 1 hour, then we there and die.
It would require specialist teams with machetes to hack back the growth on council Parks. This hasn’t happened. Climate of bacon’s sample gases at diesel engine exhausts. The only number which affects the weather so global average carbon dioxide.
The this is at home free industrial two parts per 1,000,000. 750 parts per 1,000,000 is 0.00037%. That number is just too insignificant to affect the weather or anything. For people for writing and parts per 1,000,000, to make the number seem large. It isn’t. It is totally inconsequential.
Carbon dioxide is a trace gas. Paid stooges to nuclear power tried to build a importance of carbon dioxide to make themselves ecologically sound. But plants metabolise carbon dioxide. Fossil fuel burning increases plant growth. Without altering the weather.

Tuesday, 6 December 2011

Global impossible

Even an idiot can see the problem here: the media is taking weather advice from professors of physics and engineering. Who have no knowledge of the carbon cycle, or meterology.
The carbon cycle is biology. Meteorology is a whole different disciplines. On their advice rest the whole future of nuclear fission from uranium. And guess what!
They said four reason as they do not understand, burning fossil fuels perfect the weather. Though they have no idea how. From 1986, the year Chernobyl, till 1998 they said it would warm the weather.
1998 the natural weather started cooling. So now they say carbon emissions will change the weather in some unspecified way. Really warming, just take a few decays off to cool naturally.
Only problem is, all the available carbon dioxide is taken in by plants to do photosynthesis. More carbon dioxide means more life on earth. More photosynthesis.
The professors of physics never did understand photosynthesis. At under stored carbon emissions; that is where the knowledge ended.
It is like designing a bracing power with no brakes. Somebody is going to die. Properly.
Since the industrial revolution crop yields have gone up. That free carbon dioxide in the air has not moved. It is still at the lower limit for photosynthesis to take the gas in.
Burning fossil fuels increases crop yields on earth. Even an idiot can see he’s has no causative effect on the weather. As the level of this gas in the air has been static for two centuries.
Professors of physics and engineering shows shut the hell up rather than talk about the weather.
Anybody else who is not a degree level biologist and climatologists should find something factual to talk about. The world is not warming. It is cooling. Explain. Carbon dioxide levels are static in the air. Comprehend?

Jonathan Thomason JonThm9@aol.com

Monday, 5 December 2011

Climate truth

The world climate has been cooling for 13 years. Naturally.
All mankind’s carbon emissions have resulted in extra life on earth, but for 200 years there is been no rise and the level Life Gas in the air.
Carbon dioxide does not coals global warming. Or global cooling. It is used by biology to create more life on earth.
Nuclear power causes toxic death. Hence Japan and Germany have abandoned its.
Molecular nuclear fusion turns regular water into inept helium, oxygen and heat. Your heart does MNF every time it beats.
The most useful engineering method are doing MNF is via a steam plasma.
A lightning bolt is driven by a rain storm. It sets up a steam plasma and liberated in three sections more energy than man has ever generated.
Nuclear fission is the most toxic, uneconomic and sleazy method mankind has device to make energy.
Molecular nuclear fusion is how nature all around and in us produces clean energy.
Nuclear fission from uranium should be avoided if we wish to live.


Jonathan Thomason JonThm9@aol.com

CO2 levels in the air

Since they fell at the end of the little ice age carbon dioxide levels in the air have remained static at two parts per 1,000,000. Carbon emissions are nuclear guesstimates,. Serving their fiction of man made climate change.
The world climate has been cooling air for 13 years. But carbon dioxide in the air has neither increased more decreased. Sheffield University is now investigating how a steam plasma does molecular nuclear fusion.
Turning regular water into inept helium and oxygen plus a load of heat. This is how nature is driven. It goes on at waterfalls, breaking waves all do animal heart beats.
Free power with no plutonium or carbon dioxide. But as I said, there has been no global change in carbon dioxide levels in the air for last two centuries.
If you’re a fan of nuclear power think Chernobyl or Fukushima.

Wednesday, 16 November 2011

No rise in CO2

2010 Harvard University published the results of a two year survey. If you exclude geothermal vents and city centres, carbon dioxide has been static at 2 parts per 1,000,000 since the levels of this gas fell at the end of the little ice age.
Cities are such a vanishing this small proportion of the earth’s surface, the average global concentration of this gas in the air is fixed by photosynthesis. This gives us our figure of 2ppm.
A level which can only rise in an ice age years. Nuclear power sort to differentiate themselves from regular power, and fought they released no carbon dioxide.
They forgot that the 25 year turnover of plants results in massive emissions of carbon dioxide. They are the world’s second biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, after conventional power generation.
So emitting carbon dioxide boosts life on earth, he does not affect the level of this gas in the air. So global warming and climate change were devised without the ever having been an increase of carbon dioxide in the global air.
They are nuclear fiction to scare the stupid. A rise of carbon dioxide in the air is a biological impossibility outside of an ice age. The Permian mega ice age higher carbon dioxide £10.00 per 1,000,000.
Five times today’s level. And we heard 1000 year ice age.
I should mention the work of Dr. Dyer of Warwick University. He discovered that all life on earth in its visible light. Weiner he shouldn’t also it is cours it emits gamma wave radiation.
There is no biochemical reaction energetic enough to produce visible light. So he has just proved biological molecular nuclear fusion from water.
Mike turns regular water into helium and oxygen gases, heat and nuclear radiation: which includes visible light. Life does Bio luminescence. This means life also does nuclear fusion at the mitochondria or photo glass.
Dr. Dyer is so shocked by his genius he know denies his own work and refuses to talk about it. If you’re a student after Warwick, think twice.


Jonathan Thomason JonThm9@aol.com

Tuesday, 15 November 2011

Photosynthesis destroys cl theimate change!

Biology teaches that green plants taking carbon dioxide, build carbohydrates and excrete oxygen. Oxygen is the greatest pollutant in earth history. Animals evolved to metabolise oxygen and carbohydrates and expire extra carbon dioxide.
The limit to life on earth is available carbon dioxide. There is a massive surfeit of photosynthetic plants. He each day plants grow, until they leave only two parts per 1,000,000 carbon dioxide in the air.
A level that has remained constant since the little ice age. Manmade global warming and climate change were a biological impossibility years. Designed to scare the stupid, and greedily adopted by the money hungry in academia.
They were called upon by nuclear power. Need I say more? Fatal fiction.

Jonathan ThomasonJonThm9@aol.com

Monday, 14 November 2011

Are nuclear power stupid?

Then to make themselves ‘green’ they start off by contradicting basic biology: plants take in carbon dioxide, build carbohydrates and excrete oxygen and helium. The latter is interesting. It tells us that plants via photosynthesis do nuclear fusion from water.
Two suggest they could never be a builder of carbon dioxide in the air, any time in last 650,000 years-says green plants evolved; is remedial.
Cities are such a small area, the global average concentration of carbon dioxide is a free industrial two parts per 1,000,000.
Being green enhances plant growth: and burning fossil fuels releases more carbon dioxide, so does exactly that. It doesn’t increasing carbon dioxide in the air, it increases life on earth.
Nuclear power kills all life on earth. They are two fatal error to the rain. Every academic on this planet knew that, but went along weather global warming or climate change stuff to get out nuclear money. So a further down the line somebody could tell them about the carbon cycle.
There was no way global warming would ever get new plants. Even before the world started cooling 1998. Climate change it contradicts global warming. So really the available invoke climate change, they negate global warming.
Academics have played nuclear power as idiots. And all the time nuclear power for the faint academics for idiots. A smartest guys on this planet. Wake up. You have been had!

Jonathan Thomason JonThm9@aol.com

Ignore biology


We are in the lecture room at a professor of physics has delivered a lecture on the most important science of the 21st century: global warming. He has failed to notice that the world has been cooling since 1998: and all the climate details realy!
Tim prof, you talk as if carbon dioxide amassed in this air until we had all asphyxiated
Prof that’s the one! Got it in five
Tim have you never considered biology’s carbon cycle?
Prof biology? I do physics! The real science.
Tim but biology is an older science. And deals directly with carbon.
Prof that’s all very well. But I have a thumping basic research budget from nuclear power. And I gave my personal assurance to EDF that I will single-handedly get them a new generation of nuclear power plants
Tim that we are all explode like Fukushima. No doubt killing four million UK citizens, and making the north of England is uninhabitable for 100,000 years.
Prof that is very unlikely!
Tim just as Chernobyl was unlikely after windscale
Prof all I can say is, ‘thank god for Chernobyl!’ Before that the UK, had world’s worst nuclear incident.
Tim and now Japan has ut – according to the UEAA.. The most technically adept nation on earth has abandoned its nuclear programme. As has Germany.
Prof could never see why! After all Tokyo is a third of a planet away
Tim unless you live in Japan. It is home to 60,000,000 Japanese.
Prof anyway I’m concerned about Britain.
Tim and bringing Fukushima home.
Prof no! Not a bit of it. Fukushima is a silly name. I would have prefered ‘a Preston’. That is a real name for a nuclear disaster.
Tim you have been talking about global warming. The great phantom science at the end of the last millennia.
Prof yes! Greatest threat to life on earth. Greatest source of higher education research ever.
Tim until the world started cooling 13 years ago. As life on earth had increased 15% and sea levels may even have fallen. Things have got cooler and it is hard to tell with the weather, but maybe calmer.
Prof where to get your data?
Tim I read, and get emails from Harvard and around the world.
Prof Hmm. Cheating that one. Being informed. Very un-English. And now we have climate change.
Tim based on the same biologically impossible rise of carbon dioxide in the air.
Prof impossible? Explain.
Tim biology teaches that the limit to life on earth is available carbon dioxide in the air. As man has released more carbon dioxide, so life on earth has increased. But the level of carbon dioxide in the air can only rise in an ice age.
Prof oh yes? What was the carbon dioxide level in the little ice age and the Permian mega ice age?
Tim four parts per 1,000,000, and 10ppm. Since the little ice age ended carbon dioxide has been pegged at 2ppm by photosynthesis.
Remind me. Who is the climate scientist here?
Really to talk about the carbon cycle you should know something about biology. Or even open the 256 emails Harvard has sent U.
Prof an exact number! How did you know that?
Tim I asked why professor friend at Harvard.
Prof well there is a good job that not everybody is in touch with Harvard.
Tim the point remains. You should know something about biology. And the impossibility of man kind affecting the level of carbon dioxide in the air.
Prof you just said it keen to have an ice age!
Tim no. Its just nature for U. CO2 is a climate follower. In all recorded history carbon dioxide has risen four years behind natural climate changes.
Prof yes yes yes. But since the industrial revolution man can have been pumping out the carbon dioxide.
Tim an additional 0.0000175% per day. My PH D area. That is 20% additional organic carbon into hundred years. So crop yields have gone up, the free CO2 has not.
Prof damn it! Now you can told me that, I can’t give lectures on man made climate change anymore. Do you realise the research budgets you have denied me.
Tim so you are not interested in truth, rather money!
Prof wake up and smell reality! Biology department are robbing me. Your little facts gets in the way of raising research money. While people did not engage with the carbon cycle I was coining it in.
Tim so now you can’t.
Prof well no: that would be dishonest
Tim and you recent behaviour wasn’t?
Prof while we were all at it! For the last 25 years. The cartel only talked with each other, and we all agreed that global warming was real and was having a real effect. And the only answer was to build new nuclear power plants.
Tim so how many people are there in the cartel?
Prof 100 leading world scientists!
Tim niw then?
Prof the hardcore. At least 8 of us. The old members stated that they off to talk to with biology, and we never heard from again. The cartel felt so threatened. Then you jump out with the words carbon cycle.
I hope you are happy with yourself! It wasn’t as if we were doing any harm to anybody. Just getting money from nuclear power.
Tim so you would aim to establish a new generation of fatal plants around the world?
Prof that would be good. That it is not as if anyone be listens to us anyway.
Tim when you ignore the oldest science in the human pantheon in order to make money, can you blame them? Making money by writing up their death warrants.
Prof you do make it sound dramatic don’t U! The we’re just trying to have fun. And with the squeeze on university budgets, how else could we find our departments?
Tim why not do research in real, important work!
Prof boring!
Tim like the fact that the turbulent flow of high pressure water gives off nuclear radiation!
Prof and you say that because?
Tim I did an M Eng in the eighties. When truth still mattered.
Prof go on.
Tim we see the production of gamma wave radiation throughout nature. Along with the production of helium and ozone.
Prof there are many chemical sources of ozone!
Tim but none of helium. Your heart emits gamma wave radiation as it beats. And you exhale helium and methane.
Prof not back to biology are we?
Tim your life depends on it. Green plants in light give out gamma wave radiation and produce helium and oxygen. As do growing bacteria.
Prof are you certain?
Tim Google it. I was taught this stuff in 1982. We also get nuclear radiation from waterfalls and breaking waves.
Prof impossible. There is no source of nuclear fission! Now nuclear fission I know about.
Tim what we are seeing is nuclear fusion from water.
Prof where did you read about that? News to me
Tim and you are a professor of physics! It came out of my Ph.D. into Chemical Engineering.
Prof Oh see, you were cheating. You should be a fan of global warming.
Tim no. I am a fan of truth. There has been no increase in carbon dioxide over last 200 years globally. Only local increases over cities or forest fire years. Forest fire years been 1000 times more important than our additional feeble carbon emissions.
Prof truth? That is subjective!
Tim no it isn’t absolute. And there is no man made climate change.
Prof OK. Run with it. I can’t give any more lectures on science I don’t understand. At least nobody has bothered to ask the biologists.
Tim so I have make videos on this stuff on YouTube.
Prof Oh that’s you is it? Well I have not bothered to watch them because you’re not part of the cartel
Tim so I don’t get paid to do the PR for nuclear power.
Prof that’s right. But now neither can I! Happy?
Tim when the last person on earth realises that man made climate change is PR fiction from nuclear power. And the biology is supported by doing nuclear fusion on water.
Prof hmm. Have you written that one up?
Tim no. Two busy singing and making videos.
Prof (scribbles e-mail on paper) give my postgrads a heads up on this stuff, and I am sure that we can get you published in Nature. After all, I have a research budget to fill.

Jonathan Thomason JonThm9@aol.com T/F 0161 848-0416

Sunday, 13 November 2011

Media stupid

After Chernobyl nuclear power far as I as their fiction of man made climate change. Attributing it to biologically impossible rise of carbon dioxide in the air.
They fall got over photosynthesis. Plants take in carbon dioxide down to the lower limit for photosynthesis. Excrete ink oxygen and producing life on earth.
This meant that man is production of carbon dioxide has boosted life on earth, But not increased the level of carbon dioxide in the air. This meant they can be no man made climate change or global warming due to increasing levels of this gas in the air.
This gas can only increase in the air in an ice age. It is outside the control of man kind.
Now we have had Fukushima. Japan and Germany have abandoned their nuclear programmes. So should we be if we wish to live.
Nature gets at energy by molecular nuclear fusion on water: Google it. I have published loads of stuff about this Energy System on blogger. It is safe, clean and nontoxic: it is the way biology is powered.

JonThm9@aol.com

Climate impossible

Biology sinks all the free carbon dioxide from the air down to 2ppm, outside of an ice ages. When the level rises up to 10ppm. A fact you are well aware of do to your engagement with the carbon cycle.
Manmade global warming was devised by physicists and familiar with biology: acting to further the interests of nuclear power, the most toxic industry on earth. An enemy of biology and life.
Even as the world cooled from 1998 nuclear power would not give up on their climate fiction. So they gave us manmade climate change: based on a biologically impossible rise of free carbon dioxide in the air.
So both manmade global warming and climate change are biological impossibility years. All academics keeling house room to this fiction should not be in education.
Meanwhile biologists have noted that all organisms on earth you about this of or light. All physicist on earth could tell them this was a sign of nuclear processes.
But there is no nuclear fission in nature. The visible light and gamma wave radiation emitted by all life as it emits helium gas tells us that all life does molecular nuclear fusion from water.
We do see MNF from hydrocarbons, sulphel biology and ammonia, but on earth and the carbon system is the most potent source of MNF. It requires water, as does all life on earth.
The insight that MNF from water is the most important Energy System for biology on earth will give rise to so much biological study.
It totally demolishes the chance of a new generation of commercial nuclear fission plants on earth. The last thing we sat country of Bangladesh needs, is the donation of the toxic nuclear fission plant.
The fast breeder idea is fatal. As he is the lesser economic uranium nuclear fission system. Carbon dioxide powers life. Nuclear fission powers death.
JonThm9@aol.com
The

Saturday, 12 November 2011

Nuclear fiction

In October 1986 Russian nuclear power and the world experienced Chernobyl. Nuclear power seized on their discredited science of global warming, to suggest that carbon dioxide would warm the atmosphere.
They always ignore the fact that their plant building programme they burn the second biggest emitter of carbon dioxide after conventional power generation.
They fought carbon dioxide was the distinguishing feature. So a build up a fictional pantheon about the houses of carbon dioxide. They ignored the fact that plants take in carbon dioxide. And excrete oxygen while building carbohydrates.
Animals breathe in their waste gas and combine it with plant matter. So all life on earth hinges on a trace of carbon dioxide in the air: in the little ice age there was four parts per 1,000,000. Since then he’s has fallen to 2ppm, and remained static for last 200 years.
They predicted land would aridify. All errors places without. And there bigger idea was that sea levels would rise: by 15 feet by 2010. And of course the whole world would be 20° C warmer five. Wrong.
Life on earth has increased as plants had taken in by extra carbon dioxide. So there is no more carbon dioxide in the air. The world climate has cooled; according to predictable solar cycles.
There have been plants in Australia and Pakistan. In fact the whole world has experienced natural cooling weather. Let me repeat –life on earth has increased. One many other predictions of global warming, was a life would decrease. Since 1998 the world has cooled.
By 2005 even nuclear power had given up against them global warming: it only proponents near our academics stupid enough to ignore biology’s carbon cycles and all the meteorology date gathered by real scientists: those people should not be in education.
Hence 2005 sore the announcement of climate change. 2004 was a predictably bad hurricane year. So they seized upon the idea of the natural weather becoming more violent. Trouble is, it hasn’t. It has become colder and wetter.
Tarea for another a cold snap by the 1950s. Which coincided with large carbon dioxide prediction during the post war boom.
But again, that just increased life on earth. It did not increased the level of carbon dioxide in the global air. The winter for harsher, but on the outside world the some as well more lush.
No we have Fukushima. And EDF are determined to bring such an incident to England: after all the French hate the English. And EDF are French nuclear.

Jonathan Thomason JonThm9@aol.com

Rain is fusion

In heavy rain we form helium and ozone gases; nuclear radiation and loads of heat. This is why heavy rain warms the air. Is no nuclear fission, so we are doing molecular nuclear fusion from water:
2H2O->He2++2OH-+E+y
As the rain drops collide chaotically they do nuclear fusion. Only at four atmospheres pressure, and room temperature. The important addition is that turbulent flow of rain drops.
The Alpha particles (He2+) collect above the clouds. The hydroxyl molecules fall to the ground. When we have a potential of 5000 volts, 100 amps we get a lightening down strike. This sets up steam plasma connecting the areas of charge.
We then get a chance fly up the steam plasma, and releasing in three sections more power than mankind has ever generated since he evolved. Around the earth we get one lightning strike every 3 minutes.
This fixes the organic nitrogen which fertilise is life: without lightening there would be no life on earth. It is nature doing nuclear fusion driven by a rain storm.
Power with no carbon dioxide or super toxic plutonium. However, green plants take in all the available carbon dioxide. So man has not increased the levels of this gas in the global air, merely increased life on earth.
The date are on increasing carbon dioxide relates to rush hour in the cities. Once this air circulates over the countryside, we are back to the free industrial two parts per 1,000,000.
The level of carbon dioxide fell to at the end of the little ice age: at the beginning of the industrial revolution.


Jonathan Thomason JonThm9@aol.com

Friday, 11 November 2011

www.sheffield.ac.uk


By JonThm9@aol.com

Any rational person realises that plants metabolise all the available carbon dioxide: so mankind has increased life on earth. But have no conceivable effect on the weather. That is all lie from nuclear fission.

Biology controls carbon


Since are green plants evolved 650,000 years ago the level of carbon dioxide in the air has been controlled exclusively by biology.
Carbon dioxide has been a trace gas at two parts per 1,000,000 for the last 300 years. In the little ice age there were fewer plants online, and so more carbon dioxide in the global air.
Mankind’s carbon emissions have increased life on earth, but had no effect on the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air. This is the wrong answer for nuclear power, who made up global warming is PR fiction.
It was so successful as in 1998, as the world cooled, they changed over to man made climate change. That predicts nothing, but blames the weather on a biologically impossible increase of carbon dioxide in the air.
Every scientist on this planet knows about biology’s carbon cycle. All academics who have ever written papers on man made global warming of climate change obvious and cities to all life in education; which deals with the real world.
The concentrations of carbon dioxide has no effect on the global weather systems. He are just two tiny an area. And once at air have circulated over the countryside we are back to preindustrial 2ppm.
Nuclear fission is toxic, polluting, uneconomic and fatal. They have no experience with biology or truth.
http://youtu.be/G0UOvgwTlhI

Wednesday, 26 October 2011

Not carbon dioxide

Green plants evolved 650,000 years ago. Since then the level of carbon dioxide in the global air has been controlled by photosynthesis: green plants excrete the surplus oxygen. Animals only evolved to breathe in oxygen, combine it with plant bulk and breathe out carbon dioxide.
In the late cretaceous, 90% of life on earth died as those two little carbon dioxide in the air. Animals evolved and multiplied to redress this balance. There is 20% oxygen in the air, and only 0.00002% carbon dioxide.
As man has released more carbon dioxide his cities have seen are transient blip of carbon dioxide during the rush hour. But then we are back to the global level of 2ppm.
A level that can only rise in an ice ages: we have the ice core samples that prove this! Little ice age some carbon dioxide at 4ppm, the major ice age of the Permian saw it at 10ppm.
Carbon dioxide tracks the wax and wane of plants. Mankind is irrelevant to biology is carbon cycle. Global warming was PR for nuclear power, saying a non existent rise of carbon dioxide in the air would inevitably warm the world.
Harvard University has put on record that free carbon dioxide in the air has been static for two centuries. Then it was higher, in the little ice age.
1998 the world climate began cooling. So the stooges to nuclear power now push man made climate change. Based on a biologically impossible increase in global carbon dioxide. Not the level over cities, they have no impact on the climate.
If you read them predictions of climate change, it states that the rising level of carbon dioxide in the air will affect the world climate, though not warm it.
Who ever thought up this rubbish chose to ignore all their high school biology. A rise in global carbon dioxide levels in the air is not possible.
Man has increased life on earth, but he’s carbon emissions can obviously not impact the weather. The carbon dioxide level in the air has been static for two centuries.
And then we get to Chris Huhne. He was livid this week when it was announced at the conservative party conference that reducing carbon emissions for no scientific reason whatsoever, was a financial disadvantage to UK industry.
Chris Huhne knows that the level of carbon dioxide in the air is fixed. He just uses to ignore his available biology. And why not! Always very educated people do exactly that.
But they are not on a ministerial salary. They are on high research grants from nuclear power. I seem to remember that the funding for the minister of climate change does not come from the UK electorate.
It is paid direct by nuclear power. Chris Huhne is a directly paid stooge to nuclear power. A liberal MP being paid to do the PR for nuclear power. Can somebody explain to me why is this guy even in parliament?

Cities have no impact

on the global weather. They are just too small an area. The carbon dioxide has two short peeks during the rush hour. Once at air circulates over the countryside green plants greedily metabolise the carbon dioxide to form new life on earth, and excrete the surplus oxygen.
Each day over last 200 years man has released 0.0000175% more carbon dioxide. This has resulted in plant growth. So each day there are more green plants to take in man’s carbon!
As Harvard University has noted, backing up the O level biology were all taught at school, they can be no increase in carbon dioxide in the air, without basic changes to photosynthesis.
Man has created more life on earth. But he’s carbon emissions have not impacted the weather. So we get to Chris Huhne.
He has been spurting biological rubbish in favour of nuclear power during this government. Says he knew was fiction. They can not be any man made climate change, as carbon dioxide has remained static for two centuries.
So how much money have repaid Chris Huhne, for doing the PR of nuclear power? Not Green. More deep crimson. He leads the department of ‘climate change and the environment’ the environment is a real, but anybody who thinks climate change is at the, fiction from nuclear power should not PA minister of any government.

VACUUM DESALINATION

By J.Thomason M.Eng 26/10/11
The industrial revolution started with a contract to steam cycle. Where steam was produced in the boiler, then said into a cylinder where it condensed. It converted them into percent of the energy used to create the steam, into useful work.
Thing is massively progressed when it was found that she could feed high pressure, superheated steam into the cylinder. When you released the pressure water, it boils vigorously. This produces gamma wave radiation and turns the water into helium and oxygen gases plus a load of power.
So the industrial revolution was then driven by the power released by of boiling molecular nuclear fusion.
All organisms on earth produces helium and gamma wave radiation. As their mitochondria or photoblasts do biological MNF. Waterfalls and breaking waves do physical MNF. Green crops in light years UV light to initiate biological MNF.
Every time your heart beats it does physical MNF. Which is why you can take your pulse with a Geiger counter.
So industry has been driven by the evaporation of water at reduced pressure. That in this case producing from 4 to 3.8 atmospheres pressure.
If you want to pump water you have to pump it up the pipe. Otherwise the water evaporates. Pumping steam around corners causes capitation knocking, as a kinetic interaction of steam molecules does physical MNF. So the steam is heated up as it rounds a bend.
Some of it is converted into helium and oxygen gases.
If you applied a vacuum pump to sea water, you could not raise it above 80 centimetres before it boils. As it does so, the water vapour is heated by MNF. Then the cold brine left behind will sink back into the sea, taking its salt with it.
We would extract warm, pure water vapour. If we played this against a stainless steel finned metal plate, we would condense out hot, pure water.
So a solar powered vacuum pump, or animal tread mill will suck fresh water out of the sea: or brown, contaminated water. We let the water cool, and use it to irrigate the fields. At a stroke we have used the physics that has been known about since the 18th century to end global hunger and thirst.
As a side issue, or less plant growth will take in there carbon dioxide released by the developed world. That man made climate change was only ever fiction by nuclear power.
We can use high school physics to save the lives of 50,000,000 people who die of thirst or hunger every year.

Thursday, 13 October 2011

Making fresh water

By JonThm9@aol.com

I learnt this as a 14 old schoolboy. Though I didn’t return to it on my PH D aged 36. If we expose sea water to reduce pressure, it boils. One metre of head the boil water and 0° C.
So we anchor a pipe in the seas, so the waves never expose the open air and. We attach the other end to a vacuum pump. This can even be A solar driven pump, or an animal tread mill. The sea water is sucked up the pipe, but boils before it has risen a metre.
So all the time cold brine will return to the seas, to be replaced by fresh sea water. Where the pump issues into the air, we will get a stream of pure water vapour. Which will condense. Returning its heat to the air, which rises and we are not concerned with.
We fill a high reservoir with pure water. No salt in it at all,so it will taste of nothing. Absolutely ideal to irrigate the fields and grow crops. The idea will end for ever global hunger and thirst.
Rather than $100 million dollars, such a plant more use local labour and cost $80.00. It does not use mains electricity or gas. It either uses solar energy, or animal power.
We feed the animal are some of the crops we grown. So obviously this is going to take in a lot of carbon dioxide. But photosynthesis around the world these are global average carbon dioxide level of 2ppm. Oxygen is the waste gas of plants, and makes up 20% of the air.
Man’s additional carbon dioxide represents 0.000017% a day for last 200 years. This is 100 times less than a local forest fire all volcanic eruption. Global warming was fiction from the base stooges to nuclear power. The world has been cooling since 1998. Hence man made climate change. To say a phantom increase in carbon dioxide levels in the air has led to whether there being used changeable as ever.

Monday, 10 October 2011

Uneconomic

Fourteen years ago nuclear power got the government to subsidise the building of a planned to reprocessed plutonium into fast breeder fuel rods. The only customer was Japan, so they never repaid the capital cost of the plant.
Now at Germany and Japan have shut down their nuclear programmes. Uranium ore is cheaper to use than reprocessed nuclear waste. The British public have shown over 30 years they do not want reprocessed nuclear fuel using.
It guarantees a British Fukushima.
Now nuclear power, French owned, was a 6 billion UK pounds sensibly to reprocess there used fuel rods. Which have no customers.
Our nuclear accident will leave Chernobyl and Fukushima as a side note in the history books. EDF are asking the UK government to subsidise our own death.
Give fell and a free vote. 95% of UK MP’s don’t want this.

Sunday, 9 October 2011

Fusion from water

By JonThm9@aol.com

This idea was inspired by Dr. Zimmerman saying that turbulent flow of hygiene gas and does nuclear fusion: this goes on in the Corona of every star in the universe. But on earth, hydrogen gas does not exist. We gain hydrogen from space, as we lose 5.125ppm helium to space every day. That is the amount of molecular nuclear fusion going on around the earth. 1015 Watts of heat every day into nature from MNF. Power with no plutonium, and not even any carbon dioxide.
The latter is taken in by green plants doing photosynthesis. Which is why there is only 2ppm carbon dioxide in the global air. The air for above cities circulates over the countryside, so the global average carbon dioxide level in earth’s air is a preindustrial 2ppm.
Where ever we have the turbulent flow of high pressure water or steam, we see the creation of gamma wave radiation, and production of helium gas. Even with no radioactive isotopes around.
Rain plants don’t even have any heavy water in. But they chaotic descent of rain drops towards the ground releases gamma wave radiation and produces helium gas. The helium is as Alpha particles, which rise to above the clouds.
The negative charge is carried to the ground in hydroxyl ions (OH-). When we build up a potential of 5000 volts, with a charge of 100 amps, we C the gentle drift of electoral holes to water ground sets up a steam plasma: a lightening down strike. I started writing papers on this three years ago, but no scientist in the world has ever challenged or augmented my ideas. Hmm. Scientists are famous for saying stuff about anything!
When we have set up the steam plasma, electrons travel back up the 1.5 kilometre steam plasma. It releases massive heat. Driven by the power of rain fall: which is not a lot.
There is a lightening strike around the world every 3 minutes. So nature gets 3x1039 Watts of energy from this system every year. It fixes the organic nitrogen which fertilise is the soil. Without it, there would be no life on earth.
Plants take in carbon dioxide and water to do molecular nuclear fusion. They excrete helium and oxygen gases: that’s right, you breathe in the waste gas of plants. At the end of the cretaceous, life hit a brick wall as there was only 1ppm carbon dioxide in the air. Animals increased represented massively, to metabolise their waste gas of plants.
And combine it with plant carbohydrates. So they breathed out CO2, the gas of life. For the last 650,000 years carbon dioxide has been limited to 2ppm, outside of an ice ages. They are the only appears free carbon dioxide can rise.
Today, even in an ice ages, we could construct Geodysic domes with artificial lights and heating. To consume the extra carbon dioxide in the global air. Plants doing MNF generates heat: as well as oxygen. So this would hold off the next ice-age, which is where the mass.
Man made climate change was a fictional invention of nuclear power: designed to scare the stupid. Sufficiently to allow a new nuclear plant to be built. Such plants are toxic, polluting, fatal and uneconomic.
Just think Fukushima. That is after 25 years progress after Chernobyl. They least safe industry on earth. Aged plants, such as those that EDF has just got a five year life extension for in the UK, are the least safe.

Total fiction

By JonThm9@aol.com

After Chernobyl in 1986, nuclear power devised ‘global warming’ to say that increasing levels of carbon dioxide would inexorably warm the weather. Green plants have taken in all man is additional carbon dioxide, to create more life on earth. Carbon dioxide has been static for 200 years.
Before protest ‘we are pumping out CO2’. Not really. We are adding 0.000035% to the gas of life every day. Plant life grows, so the next day there are more plants to take the gas in. Up yields have gone up by 15%. There is a preindustrial 2ppm CO2 in the global air.
Levels over cities in the rush hour maybe higher. But once I have no flows over the countryside, you are back to 2 ppm. The world started cooling after 1998. So the world weather getting colder and wetter.
So nuclear power no entitles its climate fiction ‘climate change’. That has never acknowledged that there is no global increase of carbon dioxide in the air. Then we got Fukushima.
This shows that all nuclear power is basically fatal and unsafe. EDF a five year extension on Britain is a doing nuclear plants. Fukushima demonstrates these are most dangerous plants to operate.
We should follow the lead of Germany and Japan. And powers all nuclear power. Raising the taxes on carbon fuels breaches European anti competition laws. We should be taxing nuclear power higher than carbon taxes; which are directed at a non existent problem. Up by nuclear power. Labour is a nuclear stooge.
All the while nature uses the turbulent flow of water or steam to do nuclear fusion: we produce gamma wave radiation and helium gas. Plus ozone. The most useful variety from mankind, is the steam plasma used by lightning to generate huge energies driven by rain drops.

Saturday, 8 October 2011

Carbon shortage

Before green plants evolved, there was 40% carbon dioxide in the air.We are at the Permian .There was a 1000 year ice age.There is 0.0002% CO2 in the air today. So CO2 obviously does not warm the climate!
Since the industrial revolution 20% of all the carbon dioxide in the air comes from mankind’s machines. This equates to 0.000032% extra carbon dioxide every day. A decent volcanic eruption produces 0.001% extra local carbon dioxide. We see a massive growth spurt. But no warming of the local weather.
In the little ice age carbon dioxide was at twice today’s level. After the ice-age it fell, and has remained static at 2ppm for last two centuries. Life on earth has increased. No effect on the weather. Burning fossil fuels is the best thing man kind has ever done for life on earth.
Who made up global warming? Somebody adept at fiction. With no knowledge of biology. Step forward nuclear power. Who devised the fiction after Chernobyl, to terrify the stupid sufficiently to allow the building of a more toxic nuclear fission plants.
They were unaware that nature derives a lot of its energy from the molecular nuclear fusion of water. Turning water into helium and oxygen gases plus loads of heat. No plutonium. No carbon dioxide either.
But carbon dioxide is the gas of life. It could never have any conceivable effect on the weather, as its level is controlled by photosynthesis: which reacts to the weather cooling.
So in cold times carbon dioxide goes up. Nuclear power kills and pollutes. Just think Fukushima.

Wednesday, 5 October 2011

Life does fusion

Dr. Dyer has demonstrated that all life on earth produces visible light. Is no biochemical process energetic enough to produce having more energetic than low level infrared.
There is no nuclear fission goes on in biology: it is just too toxic for life. You to all life produces methane and helium gases. Is also a user to gamma wave radiation.
This tells us that all life on earth does molecular nuclear fusion from water, utilising carbon dioxide. Dr. Dyer reacted to the same side with horror.
I have just proved that all life takes in carbon dioxide to do nuclear fusion. This explains why had the last 200 years free carbon dioxide in the air has not increased. More life on earth has.
This means Dr. Dyer has turus disproved man made climate change. Was he pleased? No, he reacted with blind terror that he had been so clever. And totally disproved man made climate change. While demonstrating that biology doing nuclear fusion at 3° C.
He is about to present a conference involving biology, on water technology. The air stated that he will not mention that he has proved molecular nuclear fusion, although there have been no increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, because he is fun does want him to back man made climate change.

Jonathan Thomason JonThm9@aol.com

Tuesday, 4 October 2011

Man cannot influence photosynthesis

Any biology student knows that plants take in carbon dioxide, build carbohydrates and excrete oxygen. They support life on earth. The limit to life is available carbon dioxide.

As man has released more carbon dioxide life on earth has released, but carbon dioxide in the air is limited by the efficiency of photosynthesis to take this gas in.
So before last 200 years carbon dioxide levels have been static: as known to every biology teacher on this planet. Even a 40 old school kids no less.
Two hypothesised that an increase in this gas would affect the weather is totally pointless: man could never engineer such an event.
The only time global carbon dioxide levels rise is in an ice age. So we can conclude this gas does not cause global warming.
Since the industrial revolution mankind has increased the carbon dioxide levels only in cities during the rush hour. This is such a minute area it can have had no effect on the weather.
One decent bit of wind, and real back to global average at two parts per 1,000,000. Man has no evidence that higher levels of carbon dioxide produce warming.
His are only evidence is that when there are fewer plants around, carbon dioxide levels rise. Any biologists who has ever given any supports in the fictitious ideas of nuclear power, regarding man made climate change should not be in education.

Jonathan Thomason
JonThm9@aol.com

The greatest pollutant

By JonThm9@aol.com

In earth history is oxygen. The early earth atmosphere was 40% carbon dioxide. Then biology started metabolising carbon dioxide:
C02+3H2O->CH4+He+3O+E+γ
The methane was used to build carbohydrates. Oxygen is formed a reason. This is how life first learned to do molecular nuclear fusion on earth. Producing no toxic end products, and not using hazardous fissile materials. Even the gamma waves produced are low energy and harmless.
Ghost and by a waterfall! Is this does molecular nuclear fusion. Or a field of green crops, as they do MNF. If you Geiger counter your own beating heart; you will find out that he does molecular nuclear fusion.
Four times as much energy as nuclear fission. This is why exploding an atomic bomb in a tank of water, so only produces a hydrogen bomb. So in other words, we have known how to do nuclear fusion since the fifties. And it generates a lot more power than nuclear fusion.
But there are far smarter ways to do it, don’t involve an atomic bomb. Green fields in light have the idea. Your microwave kitchen is home uses radio frequency waves to censor nuclear fusion within your fears. Which is why he might with levels puls ples plastered with radiation warnings,
Hot smokers in the seas for geothermal steam into high pressure water. The so do molecular nuclear fusion: and support massive ecosystems away from solar radiation. So biologists know all about doing molecular nuclear fusion.
Physicist are trying to the heated hydrogen gas around a tourus. The same approach they have used unsuccessfully since the 1950s. The linear flow of hydrogen gas will never do nuclear fusion (Professor Zimmerman 2000).
So is use a hydrogen plasma. Oxford University got four billion UK pounds in 2008 to look into this science. Every sun in the universe uses a us to do nuclear fusion. How embarrassing for Oxford University that they can’t get nuclear fusion! Might be something to do with nuclear power and their fantasy or climate change. You see nuclear fusion totally destroys the argument.
Green plants take in all the available carbon dioxide, so the global level gas hasn’t changed in 200 years. There the amount of life on earth has increased. This is high school biology. Coal increases of carbon dioxide over cities has no impact on global weather systems. Climate change is a scary name, blaming whatever happens to the weather on increasing level of carbon dioxide. That is not possible. And hasn’t happened.
A really accessible place that does MNF, is the countryside. Take a Geiger counter to a waterfall, breaking waves or green plants and light. All three areas give off gamma wave radiation, with no source of nuclear fission.
No academic knew that nature did nuclear fusion: no no we know this, we need to go study how it works. The simplest way to generate power is to copy lightning: using a steam plasma to turn regular water into heat and power.
Once we start the plasma in a tube, it will self sustain. Lightning is a free partial steam plasma, which flows itself out after three sections. Driven by a heavy rainstorm. From regular water again.