Cut dairy emissions 25% by 2020. Fart tax anyone? A

The White House has proposed cutting methane emissions from the dairy industry by 25 percent by 2020. Although U.S. agriculture only accounts for about 9 percent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, it makes up a sizeable portion of methane emissions — which is a very potent greenhouse gas.

Cows-heading-homecowbackpacksPicture left: The cows are coming home to get milked, well nourished from a healthy grass diet
Picture right: Research cow from Argentina fitted with a methane collecting backpack. This cow is fed feedlot style.

You cannot accuse EPA to be lax;
It works very hard to propose a fart tax.
They are running on fumes:
Tax the bovine perfumes!
Throw all the bums out! Let us give them the axe.

About these ads

Lies and transparency. Carney and Obama. A Limerick.

JAY CARNEY: I think there’s no question, I’ve covered the previous two administrations, and know a thing or two about ones before that, there has never been a more transparent administration. We provide more information about, for example, the WAVES [the White House "Workers and Visitors Entry System"] records, something that no administration has ever done. The WAVES records are collected by the Secret Service, individuals who are cleared in for White House access. Those have never been released before, no administration has ever released them.

And I think it’s fair to say that the release of that information has made this White House far more transparent than any other [administration]. That doesn’t mean it’s perfectly transparent. It creates headaches for us, and ridiculous stories on Fox News and elsewhere about, for example, saying Hillary Clinton was only in the White House five times, while Secretary so-and-so was there this many times. People like Hillary Clinton, and most cabinet secretaries literally get waved in by the Secret Service. They’re not entered in the logs. Second, Hillary Clinton, as her successor is, was in the White House every week. So it leads to some challenges. The records weren’t designed to be a complete picture because of the way that individuals who are part of the administration enter the White House. But they provide a lot more information about who visits the White House than has ever been provided before. (carney19n-8-web)

An administration transparent.

Jay Carney, his lies are apparent.

But Obama’s are worse,

For they emptied our purse.

They honest and trustworthy aren’t.

Obama Constrained by the Constitution. Thank God!! A Limerick.

Obama Constrained by the Constitution. Thank God!!

Constitution constrains: That’s his beef,
That Obama still knows, small relief.
He once taught, as adjunct.
Constitution defunct.
Now it is: “I’m Commander In Chief”.
President Obama made a few remarks yesterday in Colorado as he celebrated the fact Colorado had passed some of the strictest gun control legislation in America, severely affecting Second Amendment rights.
He was very excited about Colorado’s extreme laws, characterizing them as “good news.”
But why Obama’s speech got attention was because he complained about being constrained by the Constitution.

Thus, Obama said:

“You hear some of these quotes: “I need a gun to protect myself from the government.”
We can’t do background checks because the government’s gonna come take my guns away.
The government’s us. These officials are elected by you. They are elected by you.
I am elected by you. I am constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders put in place.
It’s a government of and by and for the people.”

Thank God for the Constitution!!
Hitler was first appointed, then elected by the people, but the Weimar Republic did not have proper safe-guards, and so he was able to reshape the way the Republic functioned and made himself Dictator.
Our Constitution Constrains.
Thank God!!

Putin no match for mama Grizzly on the Tonight show.

Vladimir Putin has strong genes.

That said, Obama has mom jeans.

NBC can poke fun,

Sarah Palin can pun.

THE mama grizzly on split screens.

What is going on with NBC? They booted Leno because he was too hard on Obama, and now Fallon is falling all over Sarah Palin, even let her totally control the skit. Are they trying to rehabilitate themselves because Sarah Palin is going to be our next President?

In preparation of Earth day 2014. Cause of climate change is still up in the air.

The cause of Climate Change is still up in the air.

Sherlock Holmes: “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts”. From: “Scandal in Bohemia” by Arthur Conan Doyle.

LeninThe very first Earth Day was celebrated April 22 1970, on the 100 year anniversary of the birth of Vladimir Lenin (Владимир Ильич Ленин). True green environmentalists keep telling me it is just a coincidence. I think not.

.

.

.

.

 

earth-day-Einhorn-02The first Earth Day in Philadelphia 1970 featured Ira Einhorn (The Unicorn Killer) as master of Ceremonies. The big environmental scare of the day was the threat of a new Ice Age. The clarion call was: “In the year 2000 temperatures will have fallen 10 degrees”, the culprit was pollution, especially acid rain. The acid rain was so bad in the Adirondacks, Canada, Norway and Sweden that the Rainbow Trout died in droves, and even the oceans were in danger of getting too acid. Regulations were enacted to add Sulfur  scrubbers to power stations, waste water was purified, and – wouldn’t you know it, the cooling trend reversed itself and was followed by warming. Since the cooling trend was “obviously man-made” they had to find a similar reason for the sudden warming.

Never mind that around the year 1200 there was at least one farm on South West Greenland that exported, among other things, cheese. How do we know that? They have excavated the ruins of a farm, “Gården under Sanden”, buried under permafrost for five centuries.  During these five centuries the Northern Hemisphere experienced what is called “the little ice age” a time when the winters could be so cold that in 1658 the Swedish army, cavalry and artillery crossed the Belts in the southwestern Baltic over ice and sacked Copenhagen.

Picture left: Gården under sanden excavation.

Picture right: The crossing of the Great Belt 1658.

To predict future climate changes many computer models have been developed dealing with how the earth responds to changes in atmospheric conditions, especially how it responds to changes in CO2 levels.  Most were developed in the 1970 to 2000 time frame, a time of rapid temperature rise and as such they were all given a large factor for the influence of rising CO2. Since 1998 we have had a cooling trend, so the models cooperate less and less and are given more and more unreliable predictions. It is no wonder then that they all have failed to model the past. None of them have reproduced the medieval warm period or the little ice age. If they cannot agree with the past there is no reason to believe they have any ability to predict the future. The models are particularly bad when it comes to predict cloud cover and what time of day clouds appear and disappear. Below is a chart of a number of climate models and their prediction of cloud cover versus observed data. Note especially to the right where they completely fail to notice the clear skies over Antarctica.

Is there a better way to predict future temperature trends? When you go to the doctor for a physical, at some point and without warning he hits you under the knee with a hammer and watches your reaction. He is observing your impulse response. Can we observe impulse responses for the earth? One obvious case is volcanic eruptions. Sometimes the earth burps a lot of carbon dioxide or methane. But the most interesting response would be how the earth responds to a solar flare  with a sudden change in the amount of cosmic radiation hitting the earth. That would give the best indication how the sun and cosmic radiation affects cloud formation. A couple of solar flares lately have been giving us a hint how the cloud cover responds to changes in cosmic radiation, and they are consistent with the latest results from the CLOUD project conducted using the CERN particle accelerator, a confirmation of a theory forwarded by the Danish Physicist Henrik Svensmark. He first presented the theory in 1997 and finally got the results verified and published in 2007, but the prevailing consensus has been slow to accept the theory that the sun as the primary driver of climate change.

We have many reasons to be concerned about the well-being of the earth, but rising levels of CO2 is not one of them. In fact, CO2 is our friend. Rising CO2 levels increases crop yields, makes the impact of land use changes less pronounced and the photosynthesis process more efficient, using less water and allowing us to grow crops on land once deemed unprofitable.

Picture right: The CERN Cloud apparatus in 2009.

James Hansen, a world famous climate science activist/NASA physicist writes in one of his publications, called “Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications“. It contains a quote that ties nicely in with Sherlock Holmes observation:  The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). (Picture shows James Hansen arrested outside White House fence during one of his demonstrations.)

There we have it. The observed data does not fit the climate models. Change the observed data! Then use that data to validate the climate models! How convEEnient, as the SNL Churchlady used to say. Shenanigans like this have been exposed in what has been named “Climategate1.0”, followed by “Climategate2.0”  This is what happens when politicians take over science and make further funding contingent on obtaining desired results.

 

Obama has no law license, was never a Professor. A Limerick.

First, the Limerick:
Obama lost accreditation.
He lied on his bar application.
He wrote: I’ve no alias,
But Barry has AKA’s.
A fact and no disinformation.

The link to desertconservative has been taken down, so this is what I copied from there.
FYI –Check it out……..
NO WONDER HIS SCHOOL RECORDS ARE OFF LIMITS, SOONER OR LATER THE FACTS WILL TRIP HIM UP AND THE SHAM WILL UNRAVEL.
I can corroborate Obama’s teaching career at Chicago being a sham. I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about “Barry.” Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasnt even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the pay roll, and give him a class to teach. THe Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct. The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (Publication is a requirement).
INTERESTING….MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND
Former Constitutional Law Lecturer and U.S President Makes Up Constitutional Quotes During State Of The Union (SOTU) Address. Consider this:
1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a “lawyer” . He surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application.
2. 2. Michelle Obama “voluntarily surrendered” her law license in 1993.
3. So, we have the first black President and First Lady – who don’t actually have licenses to practice law. Facts.
Source: http://jdlong.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/pres-barack-obama-editor-of-the-Harvard-law-review-has-no-law-license/
4. A senior lecturer is one thing.. A fully ranked law professor is another. Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago .
5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March, 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) “served as a professor” in the law school, but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.
6. “He did not hold the title of professor of law,” said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.
Source: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_did_hold_the_title.html
Taken from: May 15, 2009 by Johnny Alamo

 

The coldest winter half-year in over a century!! It’s climate change all right. More CO2, please!!

The coldest winter half-year in over a century!! It’s climate change all right. More CO2, please!!

I am sitting in my office in Boalsburg, Pa. looking at the bird feeder. The birds are as busy as ever feeding. It is 15 degrees F so they need the food. Some song birds have come, the Robins are bobbing, but where is the spring? Last night the report on the satellite data came out via CFACT and it showed we had the coldest winter half-year (equinox to equinox) in over a century! Only two years ago we had the warmest winter ever. This was well publicized. Will this be equally treated?

coldest-winter-century

 

The other figure is the maximum snow cover for the season in the Northern Hemisphere. It has been growing in the last 50 years. This year was no exception with total snow well above the trend line.

nhland_season11

 

I take more stock in snow totals than temperature measurements. The freezing point of water doesn’t change. Many temperature stations are placed in airports near the runways. This is fine and good for the pilots that must rely on the micro climate of the runways to make proper take-off and landing calculations, but they do not show the true temperature away from the airport.

I maintain we are more likely to have a new little ice-age than a temperature run-away because of CO2 rise.

The Great lakes had the greatest ice cover in over 35 years:

http://lenbilen.com/2014/03/05/the-great-lakes-ice-cover-91-the-most-in-35-years-a-limerick/

CO2 is not “Carbon Pollution”?

http://lenbilen.com/2014/02/22/co2-the-life-giving-gas-not-carbon-pollution-a-limerick-and-explanation/

The storms and other extreme weather are at new lows!!

http://lenbilen.com/2013/11/18/2013-the-year-with-the-fewest-tornadoes-on-record-and-no-major-hurricanes-making-landfall/

The Antarctic ice cover hit new records two years in a row!!

http://lenbilen.com/2013/10/18/a-new-little-ice-age-is-looming-ten-days-in-new-all-time-record-for-ice-in-the-antartics-a-limerick/

Summarized in “eleven sgns we are entering a new little ice age.

http://lenbilen.com/2013/08/12/eleven-reasons-we-are-entering-a-new-little-ice-age/

 

 

The Great Lakes ice cover 91%, the most in 35 years! A Limerick.

The "vortex" has chilled the Great Lakes.
Keep shov'ling those "Climate Change" flakes!
For new records are set
Warmers losing their bet.
It's cold on our yearly "Spring Breaks".


The values for ice coverage on the Great Lakes as of Mar 4:

Lake Superior 95.2889%

Lake Michigan 92.4497%

Lake Huron 95.9375%

Lake Erie 95.8338%

Lake Ontario 31.9431%, the weighted average 91,0% (data from http://coastwatch.glerl.noaa.gov/statistic/ice/ice_stat_2013_2014.txt )

The forecast from NOAA was for 58 to 62% maximum ice-cover for 2014. We are now at the greatest ice cover since 1979, the second highest value since accurate records are kept with a couple of cold nights left to go.  The average for the last 40 years is an ice maximum of 51.4%. See fig:

gl_ice_cover_timeseries

There is still an arctic blast ongoing. Detroit had a new snow record for January. It will take a long time to melt all this ice and snow come spring. It takes 80 calories to melt one gram of ice, but only twenty to heat it from zero to 20 degrees C (68 F) . This may affect the length of the growing season.

Is is climate change, or only unusual weather?

lice-00

Sarah Palin was right on Ukraine! A Limerick.

Now Putin invades poor Ukraine;Putin's Ukraine

Ms. Palin was right once again,

For she said in 08

“After Georgia, just wait

Trust Putin is flat out inane.”

Well, I took poetic license on the Palin quote. What she really said in a rally in Nevada, October 08:  “After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.”ukraine3n-20-web

She was soundly ridiculed at the time for being naïve and ignorant about world events. Time has proven her right again and again.

On the other hand Hillary Clinton gave the “Reset ” button to Russsia. It said “Peregruzka”. The only problem with that is that peregruzka means “Overcharge” in Russian.peregruzkareset

So Putin did.

And Obama promised he would be more flexible after his re-election. Like this:

100421bowingtwo

CO2, the life giving gas, not “Carbon Pollution”. A Limerick – and explanation.

CO2, the life-giving gas, not “Carbon Pollution”. A Limerick – and explanation.

What then is this “Carbon Pollution”?

A sinister, evil collusion?

CO2, it is clean,

Makes for growth, makes it green,

A transfer of wealth, a solution.

Let me first state I am serious about this Limerick. It is not even tongue in cheek. I am an engineer by training and look at the earth as a “living” organism that responds to changes in its environment.

First, the increase in CO2 concentration itself and how nature responds to it.

Second, the effect it has on the earth’s temperature and all its consequences, and finally

Third, the acidification of the oceans.

CO2 concentration has increased from about 280 ppm in pre-industrial times to nearly 400 ppm today, and is increasing at a rate of 2 ppm per year. We are way past the point of no return, 350 ppm which would lead to a temperature catastrophe. (1) But instead, something rather interesting is occurring. The earth is getting greener! (2) This 40 % increase in CO2 the last 250 years has led to a more than 30 % increase in agricultural production all by itself without adding fertilizer or using higher yielding seeds. (3) Thanks to this we can now feed an additional two billion people on earth without starvation. The news are so good, that the per capita food production is increasing, even as the population is increasing. (4)

Look at it this way. The value of basic agricultural products is more than 1.5 trillion dollars worldwide. 30% of that is due to increased CO2. That means that the CO2 emitted is worth 450 billion dollars, spread out over all farmers and ranchers worldwide. This wealth transfer is occurring right now, and knows no national boundary. It is a gift from the developed countries to the rest of the world. Who could be against that?

It turns out that this wealth transfer occurs without global governance. The leaders of the world will not have their say in who gets the wealth transfer, the U.N. bureaucrats will not get their cut, and politicians cannot get a campaign issue since it  occurs without their involvement.

So to recapture the initiative they renamed this life-giving gas “Carbon pollution” and managed somehow to get the Supreme Court to agree with the notion that CO2 is a pollutant.

How can that be? They argued that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which is true. It is second only to water vapor. It is responsible for about 9 degree Celsius rise in global temperature, and if CO2 increases, so does the greenhouse effect and the temperature increases. This in turn leads to more water vapor in the air, and water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas, so there is a risk of reaching a “tipping point” when we could experience a thermal runaway of the planet. All of this is true, so U.N. and many governments around the world have sponsored studies to model  climate change, over a hundred models have been constructed, and they all come up with rather gloomy forecasts. The research is so intense that over 3 billion dollars of government monies are spent yearly on climate change research.

All models show a similar pattern, a fairly steep and more or less linear rise in temperature as CO2 increases. There is only one major thing wrong with them. They do not agree with what is happening to the global temperature. We have now had 200 months without any global warming, in fact, the trend is down. (5)

What is wrong with the models? They all assume a passive earth, where there is no negative feedback to the changing environment. It turns out, the earth has a “governor”, and it can be expressed in one word, albedo, which means “whiteness” or how much of the incoming sunlight that gets reflected back into space.

The major albedo changers are the amount of ice around the poles and clouds, but even land use changes such as forests cut down and replaced by agriculture and urbanization.

When there is snow or ice on the ground, more sunlight gets reflected and it gets colder still. Urban heat islands are warmer than the surroundings, airports are warmer than its surroundings. Interestingly, that is where we are placing our new weather stations. (This is great for pilots that have to evaluate take-off and landing conditions, but is less than ideal for climate research. But then again, climate research has moved from the realm of physical science to political science, where different rules do apply.)

The most important albedo changers of the earth are clouds. Without them no land based life would be possible since clouds serve both as rainmakers and temperature stabilizers. If there were no clouds the equilibrium temperature at the equator would be around 140 degrees F.

Over the oceans, in the so called “doldrums” where there are no trade winds, the mornings start with a warm-up, and when the conditions are right a shower or thunderstorm occurs. The ambient temperature is usually between 84 and 88 degrees when this happens. As CO2 concentrations increase thunderstorms occur a few minutes earlier and last a little bit longer, but they are no more severe and as a result the average temperature stays the same. (5)

In desert areas of the world this temperature regulator doesn’t work well, so deserts will receive the full force of temperature increase which is 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit per doubling of CO2 levels.

In the temperate region the temperature increase will be somewhere in between. Dry days will be warmer, cloudy and rainy days will have the same temperature as before, since the regulator starts to function.

The polar region is a special case. None of the models have done a good job at modeling the clouds at the poles, especially the South Pole. (6) They will warm up more than 2 degrees F, how much is a question. In the South average temperatures will rise from – 70 degrees F in the interior all the way to maybe – 63 degrees F, and come closer to freezing in the summer at the northern edges. There may be added snowfall that will expand the ice sheet. The Antarctic ice sheet has set new records since record keeping began, and is at the moment bottoming out at 30% more ice than the 30 year average. (7)

The North Pole region is even more complicated since it is partially land, partially ocean. The oceanic ice cap has been shrinking  at a fairly constant rate the last 30 years, but last year it broke the trend and grew back to break the trend line. The winter snow cap has remained at about the same level year to year with a slightly positive trend line, this year being no exception.  So, why is the snow cover growing slightly, but ice cover shrinking? The common explanation has been global warming, but the ice cover kept shrinking even as the temperature increase leveled off. There are two possible explanations: Warming oceans and changes in pollution. The North Atlantic Oscillation has been mostly positive (warmer) since 1970 and has only recently turned negative, so that is certainly part of the cause of the shrinking of the icecap, but another candidate is even more likely: Carbon Pollution. With that I do not mean CO2, but good old soot, spewing out from the smokestacks of  power plants in China. 45% of all coal burned is burned in China, often low grade lignite with no scrubbers. The air in Beijing is toxic to humans more days than not. Some of that soot finds its way to the arctic and settles on the ice, changing its albedo, and the sun has a chance to melt the ice more efficiently. This occurs mostly in the months of August and September when the Sun is at a low angle anyway, so the changing of the albedo has very little effect on temperature. The net result of all this is that the temperature in the North Pole region will rise about 3 degrees Fahrenheit for a doubling of the CO2. This will have a very minor effect on the Greenland ice cap since they are nearly always way below freezing anyway (-28 degree C average). The largest effect will happen in August and September in the years when all new snow has melted and the soot from years past is exposed. This happened two years ago with a sudden drop in albedo for the Greenland ice. It will also lead to an increase in the precipitation in the form of snow, so the net result is the glaciers may start growing again if the amount of soot can be reduced.

The conclusion is: The temperature regulator of the earth is working quite well, and the increase in temperature at the poles is welcome as it lessens the temperature gradient between the tropics and the polar regions, which in turn reduces the severity of storms, since they are mostly generated by temperature differences and the different density of warm, humid and dry, cold air. (8) The Polar Bears will do quite well, their numbers have more than doubled in the last 50 years.

What about ocean acidification? As CO2 increases, a lot of it will be absorbed in the oceans, thereby making the oceans more acid. This is true, but CO2 is a very mild acid and has a minor acidic influence. Of much more importance is acid rain. At one time in the 70’s some lakes in Norway had a Ph. of about 4.5, enough to kill most trout fishes. In Sweden it was said they fertilized their rivers and lakes four times as much as tilled soil, leading to significant acidification of both the Baltic and the North Sea. The Baltic Sea is still in danger of total oxygen depletion. By comparison to these dangers CO2 in the ocean is only a very minor disturbance. Clean the rivers and lakes first!

Oh, and one more thing. The sea level rise is a natural phenomenon of tectonic plate movements, the Atlantic Ridge is rising and the Eastern Seaboard is sinking.  These movements will continue to occur regardless of the climate.

John Kerry said in Indonesia the other day: “The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand. We don’t have time for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society.  And in a sense, climate change can now be considered another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.

The opposite is true, increased levels of CO2 is a major vehicle of wealth distribution.

The increase in temperature is manageable and even desirable in most regions of the world, desert areas and areas prone to flooding being the exception.

In conclusion:

CO2 is a clean gas, necessary for life, and an increase in the amount of CO2 is highly desirable.

The very minor increase in temperature is on balance beneficial, since it leads to a less violent climate, with fewer storms, hurricanes and tornadoes.

The increase in CO2 makes us able to feed another 2 billion people on earth, not to mention additional wildlife.

Ocean acidification is a problem, not so much from CO2, but from sulfuric acid, nitrates and other pollutants.

The increase in precipitation is beneficial, except in areas already prone to flooding. It is especially welcome in arid areas.

On the other hand the great conservationist SARAH PALIN once said: “We’ve got to remind Americans that the effort has got to be even greater today toward conservation because these finite resources that we’re dealing with obviously – once oil is gone it’s gone, once gas is gone, it’s gone. And I think our nation has really become kind of spoiled in that arena.”[Fox News, Hannity's America, 10/12/08]

Coal, oil, peat, wood  and natural gas are our best raw material to sustain life as we know it, and are far to valuable to waste on electricity production, so let us switch electricity production to thorium based nuclear energy (8). Coal can be converted to jet fuel and gasoline, air planes have no alternative fuels.

I welcome constructive comments. Tell me where I am going wrong. I have done my very best to look at what is really happening to the earth and from there draw conclusions, rather than rely on climate models.

Notes:

(1). This is a message from 1010global.org. Their aim was to reduce carbon emissions by 10% in 2010.

http://lenbilen.com/2014/02/22/a-religious-message-from-1010global-org-and-a-limerick/

(2). The earth is getting greener!  http://lenbilen.com/2013/03/19/co2-the-solution-to-climate-change/

(3).

greenearthhigh_resolution1

(4).

chart11-2

(5). Reality versus climate models.CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1(6) Projected cloud cover for various climate models versus reality.Cloudmodels

(7)

seaice.recent.antarctic46

(8).

uah-lower-troposphere-temperature

(9). http://lenbilen.com/2012/02/15/nuclear-power-and-earthquakes-how-to-make-it-safer-and-better/

http://lenbilen.com/2012/02/15/eleven-reasons-to-switch-to-thorium-based-nuclear-power-generation/

http://lenbilen.com/2012/02/15/eleven-more-reasons-to-switch-to-thorium-as-nuclear-fuel/

http://lenbilen.com/2012/02/15/nuclear-power-why-we-chose-uranium-over-thorium-and-ended-up-in-this-mess-time-to-clean-up/

http://lenbilen.com/2012/01/31/energy-from-thorium-save-500-million-from-the-budget-now/

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers