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.