View Full Version : Global Warming: Earth can EXPLODE !!!


Banshee
03-25-02, 11:20 AM
This popped up before my nose on the internet. Don't know what to make of it exactly. It sounds plausible though. What do you people think?:( Please, no nonsense replies...

Global Warming:
Earth can EXPLODE !!!
The REAL danger for our entire civilization comes not from slow climate changes, but from overheating the planetary interior.
Galileo discovered that Earth moves. Copernicus discovered that Earth moves around the Sun. In 2000 Tom Chalko, inspired by Desmarquet's report, discovered that the solid nucleus of our planet is a nuclear reactor and that our collective ignorance may cause it to overheat and explode. The discovery, verified by experts in many disciplines of science, has been published in June 2001 by the new scientific journal NUJournal.net.

Polar ice caps melt not because the air there is warmer than 0 deg Celsius, but because they are overheated from UNDERNEATH. Volcanoes become active and erupt violently not because the Earth's interior "crystallizes" as it is currently believed, but because the planetary nucleus is a nuclear fission reactor that needs COOLING..

The current doctrine of a "crystalline inner core of Earth" is more dangerous for humanity than all weapons of mass destruction taken together, because it prevents us from imagining, predicting and preventing truly global disasters.

In any nuclear reactor, the danger of overheating has to be recognized early. When external symptoms intensify it is too late to prevent disaster. Do we have enough imagination, intelligence and integrity to comprehend the danger before the situation becomes irreversible? Did you see the figure above?

If we do not do anything TODAY about Greenhouse Emissions that cause the entire atmosphere to trap more Solar Heat, we will not survive THE NEXT DECADE. In a systematically under-cooled spherical core reactor the cumulative cause-effect relationship is HYPERBOLIC and leads to explosion. There will be no second chance...

If you doubt whether a planet can explode - you need to see a witness report of a planetary explosion in our Solar system. Plato (428-348 BC) reported that the explosion of the planet Phaeton had been perceived by our ancestors on Earth to be as bright as lightning...

We apologize for making this message pop up in front of your eyes, but the matter is URGENT. Please forward this page (or the link to it) to ANY scientist or person of integrity whom you know. Our ONLY chance is to UNDERSTAND and PROVE to everyone what will happen if we do not change our attitude to atmospheric pollution. Avoid the mass media - they are controlled by those who run the "economy" and are interested in keeping humanity misinformed to the greatest extent possible.

Withholding, distorting or otherwise interfering with the Truth about the Planetary Core is a Crime Against Humanity - one of the greatest crimes that man can commit. Please copy and print this page and this article before they will become assassinated.

Money cannot save the Planet.
Only Understanding can.
Focus on Understanding. It cannot be undone.

http://bioresonant.com/news.htm

(Q)
03-25-02, 12:46 PM
Banshee

Please, no nonsense replies...

How else is one able to respond to nonsense?

goofyfish
03-25-02, 01:04 PM
Tom Chalko, the same guy who believes in the power of auric garments?

Peace.

justagirl
03-25-02, 01:31 PM
All I can add as MOST theories accepted today were rejected when first introduced. This theory shows a lot of sense and I will read what I can on it.

daktaklakpak
03-25-02, 01:59 PM
Try heating a large ice cube from under and you are expecting the top melt first? What makes one think the land surface on polars are hotter then anywhere else?

Talk about non-sense. LOL :D

Xev
03-30-02, 07:29 PM
Thanks Banshee, I needed a laugh.


Galileo discovered that Earth moves. Copernicus discovered that Earth moves around the Sun. In 2000 Tom Chalko, inspired by Desmarquet's report, discovered that the solid nucleus of our planet is a nuclear reactor and that our collective ignorance may cause it to overheat and explode. The discovery, verified by experts in many disciplines of science, has been published in June 2001 by the new scientific journal NUJournal.net.

Ah, no, there is radioactive decay occuring in the mantle, but the core is not a nuclear reactor. It is made out of IRON AND NICKEL HOW IN THE BLOODY HELL COULD IT BE A REACTOR??

New scientific journal - I like that. I bet they make the interveiws in Playboy look like evidence of peer review.


Polar ice caps melt not because the air there is warmer than 0 deg Celsius, but because they are overheated from UNDERNEATH. Volcanoes become active and erupt violently not because the Earth's interior "crystallizes" as it is currently believed, but because the planetary nucleus is a nuclear fission reactor that needs COOLING..

Uh huh. I wonder if there is evidence for this beyond 'the tooth fairy told me so'?


The current doctrine of a "crystalline inner core of Earth" is more dangerous for humanity than all weapons of mass destruction taken together, because it prevents us from imagining, predicting and preventing truly global disasters.

Sounds like somone went off his medication.


If we do not do anything TODAY about Greenhouse Emissions that cause the entire atmosphere to trap more Solar Heat, we will not survive THE NEXT DECADE. In a systematically under-cooled spherical core reactor the cumulative cause-effect relationship is HYPERBOLIC and leads to explosion. There will be no second chance...

This is not hyperbole. This is bullshit.

In any case, there is no way the earth's core can be a nuclear reactor. And I don't think 'HYPERBOLIC' is a scientific term.


If you doubt whether a planet can explode - you need to see a witness report of a planetary explosion in our Solar system. Plato (428-348 BC) reported that the explosion of the planet Phaeton had been perceived by our ancestors on Earth to be as bright as lightning...

Ah, Plato ain't describing the explosion of a planet. This guy don't even know his mythology.


We apologize for making this message pop up in front of your eyes, but the matter is URGENT. Please forward this page (or the link to it) to ANY scientist or person of integrity whom you know.

I think forwarding it to a scientist is the worst thing they could do to thier theory.


Money cannot save the Planet.
Only Understanding can.

No, money can. If you send all your money to Xev, she will keep the earth from overheating and exploding.

kmguru
03-30-02, 10:10 PM
Tom Chalko's other article says "It is demonstrated that quantum encoded information transfer in Nature is not only feasible and highly probable, but it is an essential feature of material reality that enables us to determine and verify the Purpose of existence of the entire Universe."

Well, as soon as I build the quantum decoder, I will tell you for sure what the Universe is talking to iteself, and even when the earth is going to explode from the nuclear reactor it is building in secret. :D :D

Edufer
04-01-02, 04:01 PM
<i>If we do not do anything TODAY about Greenhouse Emissions that cause the entire atmosphere to trap more Solar Heat, we will not survive THE NEXT DECADE.</i>

I know you hate facts, banshee, but there is no other way to deal with reality. So this man says --and you go along with it-- that if Earth warms a little more, it will explode?

I remind you that Earth has been significantly warmer before, and nothing happened, as nothing happens to Venus or Mercury that are thousand of degrees warmer than Earth. Or perhaps they have not a built-in fussion reactor inside? They came without "batteries included"? That would not seem plausible as they were formed at the same time as Earth, and by the same process.

But remain calm. Temperatures during the called Little Climatic Optimum (800-1200 AD) were 2.0°C higher than now and, as shown by NASA satellites readings, the Earth has not warmed at all since they started making the readings --and add to that that the Antarctic has been getting colder and colder for the past 35 years, then it seems we are not going to explode...

At least not before the 100,000 years of Glacial Age that is coming towards us. Wrap yourself with a thick blanket and turn on your solar powered heater, banshee, it is going to be really cooooold!

gotanygum
05-05-02, 04:49 PM
please see below:

http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/antarctica/QA/geology/Volcanoes

According to it, there are volcanoes growing underneath antarctic ice. Wait a minute, underneath, you say?

For the record, I am not a scientist so I'm not really able to get into the nitty gritty unfortunately. I just thought of mentioning the above link, it is peculiar to me in all of this.

gotanygum
05-05-02, 04:56 PM
try this one:

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/april24/shrimpcore-424.html

Xev
05-05-02, 05:50 PM
kmguru:

Well, as soon as I build the quantum decoder, I will tell you for sure what the Universe is talking to iteself, and even when the earth is going to explode from the nuclear reactor it is building in secret.

If you send in the tops of 10 boxes of Lucky Charms, you get a special quantum decoder ring!

gotanygum:

First, welcome to Sciforums. Sorry but....

Dude, its not about whether or not the surface temperature is increasing, but how it is distributed, and WHY. Besides, temperatures increase underneath when cooling capacity of atmosphere and gravitational equilibrium of inner van allen belt are disturbed by pollution chemicals. one example of proof is here:

Global warming would increase the earth's surface temperature uniformly...

Secondly, the Van Allen belt does not affect gravity....perhaps I've read you wrong?

Third, there is no 'atmospheric cooling capacity'. Clouds have somthing called 'cooling capacity', but the atmosphere as a whole does not have any set limit on how hot it can get.


There are volcanoes growing UNDER antarctic ice. The reason it is possible is because convection cooling is affected, as a result of solutions worked out based on equation in appendix 4 [d = partial derivative in this case, * means multiplied by, not to the power of, wihch I will denote as ^] Got this straight from the paper, it is his simplification of the eq. 34:

I'm sorry, but I missed the relevence? :confused:


its FISSION reactor, and yes, all planets contain one, but most cool down to temps not suitable for life. In natural state, Earths also cools down. Im pretty sure of these.

No, the earth's core is composed of iron. Radioactive decay does occur in the mantle, that is what drives convection. Global warming shouldn't affect this radioactive decay, so it should not affect convection.

Edufer
05-05-02, 05:57 PM
There have been "natural nuclear reactors" in this planet before, near the surface, although I seriously doubt if the Earth's core is a reactor in itself. All geological studies have shown that the composition of the core is made of iron, nickel, etc, and do not mention radioactive minerals.

Dr. Dixie Lee Ray, former head of the US Atomic Energy Commission tell us in her excellent books "Trashing the Planet" and "Environmental Overkill", this interesting fact:

"In Gabon, West Africa, near a place called Oklo, where there is now a uranium mine, the concentrations of fissionable isotope U-235 was once so high that 1,8 billion years ago a natural chain reaction set in. Nature produced a nuclear "fission" reactor that "operated" on sustained criticality for a period of one million years. tons of uranium were burned and both plutonium and other typical fissi9on reactor isotopes (transuranics) were produced. Even though the reactor area has been subject to rainfall and other weathering agents, the plutonium and fission isotopes have migratyed only a few meters from the place of their production. This natural nuclear reactor has been throughly researched."

Perhaps there has been many other such natural reactors, but I have never heard about the possibility that Earth's core could be one. If there is a serious scientific study claiming that, I would like to hear about it.

Xev
05-05-02, 06:02 PM
Edufer: Yes, I have read of that reactor, but I do not think that such natural reactors would be affected by global warming either.

Banshee's e-mail remains as it has been: pure and complete nonsense.

gotanygum
05-05-02, 07:40 PM
Hi again,

The website http://www.angelfire.com/nc/HUMMINGBIRD1/physics.html is the only online source I know of that links to the abstract for 'Theory of Gravity and the Universe' by Tom Chalko, the article in full itself having been pulled for some time now.

oh yea, when I said fission I meant to correct an earlier post, Im not sure if it was you, Xev, or somebody else; he or she had said 'FUSSION' -- tell me is this fusion or fission??

pages 7-9 and appendices 3 & 5, at http://nujournal.net/core.pdf:

author's calculation modification of previous assertion of it being Fe, suggests a core made of denser-than-Os density, around 28.6 g/cc density, which is a presently unknown element to us.

oh yea, cool pic Xev -- although I haven't watched LEXX in a long time. She's from LEXX, right?

kmguru
05-06-02, 09:33 AM
Best way to solve this climate issues is to model the thermodynamics of planet earth including all the electromagnetic inductions from solar radiation and earth's movement through galactic space. And, oh, dont forget our changing landscape of planes, trains and automobiles.

If one uses a super computer, it may take 5 years for the model to complete and simulation to begin. Then we could find out what direction we are headed and how to prevent (may be) if there is a serious problem.

Without such a program, we are six blind men trying to describe an elephant...And if someone says, NASA is doing this and that - they are not.

gotanygum
05-06-02, 12:30 PM
[And if someone says, NASA is doing this and that - they are not. [/B][/QUOTE]

hey kmguru, you're right, we are. A computer modeling system would indeed be very useful, but, it would only come to fruition if enough people were actually willing to support that research. Because, and I could be off on how much money it takes, but since our research system is based on cash, no money = no research therefore no trust/willingness to acknowledge basal data = no money and thus we never find out what actually could be going on practically.

BTW, didn't NASA press releases indeed reveal van allen belt activity, position and properties Tom described from that quote I used? I don't believe he was lying or exagerrating, if this is what you were referring to [see below].

Check out these websites and decide for yourself. If you feel inclined, check out the following:

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/spaceflt.pdf [page 18, part entitled 'The Terrestrial Planets, and p. 20, about Van Allen belt]

http://lena.gsfc.nasa.gov/Docs/paper_bad_honnef.pdf [page 6 gives good info. basic on Van Allen belts]

http://sat2.space.noa.gr/~daglis/rev.pdf [real good explanation into van allen belts].

the NU equations [modified maxwell equations] still need to be verified, any supercomputer based research would focus on field research and experiments into actual values to be input into equation 34 and other crucial ones like density and positional stability.

kmguru
05-06-02, 01:41 PM
Cash (research money) is not a problem, if there is a leadership. Heck, I can even raise $250 million dollars (to start with) if we can have a high profile organization behind it. It is all in marketing ideas. If dotcoms can raise billions of dollars on hokey stuff, surely we can do better.

I do have some friends at NASA. But they are bitching, moaning, groaning research employees. They are no help in setting up and raising funds for a project of this magnitude...they want somebody to offer it on a silver platter.

So, if you have some connections, we can go forward. Imagine the project bio - kmguru meets gotanygum on sciforum, they start super computer project...

Xev
05-06-02, 01:57 PM
Gotanygum:

Yeah, the avatar is Xev from Lexx. You can get avatars by doing a google image search - under advanced, select 'small' or 'ikon sized'. If an image is too big, you can use www.gifworks.net to modify it. Also, I think that www.gifs.net has some avatars...


But according to the Chalko paper [that is the topic of this thread] it is only a side effect of a larger problem, that being core overheating and such from the abstract. Also, one of the roles to keep in mind, of the atmosphere in cooling process is letting out certain solar radiation back into space, in a controlled fashion [disrupted by greenhouse effect].

Okay, see, I don't see any evidence for that - and I don't see how such a thing could be caused by global warming.


About the van allen belt, when pollution, certain pollution reactions occured somewhere in atmosphere, it is principally the charge of the van allen belt that MAY be affected, thus possibly irritating positional stability of earth core, because of what VAB is, Tom's re-definition of it would play into possible effects. Since Im obviously not too much of an expert in geological sciences and just enjoy discussing this kind of stuff, I choose to bring this up because it looks important.

I don't think that the Van Allen belt affects the earth's core at all - sorry, but I've never heard such a thing and I don't see any connextion when I enter it on google.


"Earth in its entirety can be considered a nuclear reactor fuelled by spontaneous fission of various isotopes in the super-heavy inner core, as well as [and here it is] their daughter products of decay in the mantle and in the crust." -- So this may explain the reactor idea better? How to 'prove' in mantle etc are naturally produced 'daughter products?' It could be.

Okay, I don't think (perhaps Edufer knows more than I) that fission occurs in the inner core.

And also, it still hasn't been connected to global warming.

gotanygum
05-06-02, 02:25 PM
I'll have to check and see if anyone wants to start this up. Unless you're teasing me, its not unlikely there are few people I 'distantly' know who might want to do it. I'd have to ask and see what happens. Don't know what part I'd even play.

just a few more quotes . . .

utilizing criterion of equation (13), [page 7],

" . . . The radius of the existing inner core of Earth is known to be 1220 km. According to the density distribution proposed by Dziewonski and Anderson [2] that is generally accepted today - the pressent inner core is 2.2 times too small to stay in the center of the planet!"

"In other words, the density distribution proposed by Dziewonski and Anderson [2] is self-contradicting because its acceptance is equivalent to a direct violation of the elementary laws of mechanics- and more specifically- violation of the fundamental stability criterion that needs to be satisfied for the solid inner core to remain concentric."

This seems to be an important condition/concept revision.

kmguru
05-06-02, 05:57 PM
Hey, kmguru, nice idea there. I'll have to check and see if anyone wants to start this up. Unless you're teasing me, its not unlikely there are few people I 'distantly' know who might want to do it. I'd have to ask and see what happens. Don't know what part I'd even play.

No, sir - I am serious. Instead of complaining about how rotten the world is or will be, we can take active steps. We have an international body of over 4700 well educated members on this forum (some are in high school or college and soon to be)...now, sometimes, any one of the members may not have the authority but could know someone who does. I call this butterfly effect.

Many years ago, one of my sales paerson visited Chile to sell some high tech products to improve their industries. When he came back, he said, the Chileans dont have the money to pay for it. I asked, what do they have? He said - a lot of wine. So I took the wine, sold it to a broker and got my money, they got their product. When there is a will, there is a way...


New ideas never start out as widely hailed when un-famous people figure them out.

How true...that is human nature...

Edufer
05-06-02, 07:40 PM
<b>to gotanygum:</B> for changing your profile you make a click on "control panel" at the top of the screen. There you go to: "edit profile" and change whatever you wish. Good luck!
------------------------------------------------

Now, down to business. I´ve spent some valuable time reading the original article (in .pdf format) written by Dr. Tom J. Chalko, MSc., PhD., on "<b>No second chance? Can Earth explode as a result of Global Warming?</b> that orginated this topic by banshee. I am also aware that I am spending some more valuable time giving my opinion here, but there are worse things (like getting married).

As reading progressed, I had the feeling the article was something like the famous <b>"Dr. Fox experiment"</b>. For those who never heard about it: A researcher in scientific writing sent copies of three "scientific" articles for "peer-review" (signed by Dr. Fox) to many respected and not so respected scientists, exposing a theory. The first set was written in plain, normal English, very easy to understand. The second version of the same theory was written in a more elaborated manner, with lots of technical words. The third version was written in a way that was completely incomprehensible, in the most abstruse sintax and full of mathematical formulas that meant nothing.

The response to the first version was an unanimous veredict: <b>"Nonsense"</b>. The second version response was: <b>"Highly interesting"</b> (from not-so-famous scientists). The third version, also from not-so-famous scientists, was <b>"Excellent"</b>. Famous scientists responded to all versions: <b>"Garbage"</b>. The favourable responses were from scientists that did not know anything about the subject, but <b>wouldn´t recognize they had some ignorance in any field</b>. That's one of the worst things in science today: scientists that have not the humbleness and honesty of simply saying: <b>"I don't know"</b>. The article by Dr. Tom Chalko <b>is a superb "Dr. Fox experiment" example.</b>

Then, there is the fact that Dr. Chalko makes assertions that are <b>false</b>. He uses these false claims to support his theory, as this one:

<i>"Surprising <b>support</b> for the likelihood of the above scenario comes from archaeology. Apparently, <b>the last ”mini” ice age on Earth</b> occurred between 536 and 540 AD - only 1490 years ago (!). </i>

Actually, the last Little Ice Age on Earth occurred between the years (aprox.) 1200-1860 AD. The clima cooled down from the "Medieval Climatic Optimum" happened between (aprox.) 750-1150 A.D., when temperatures were <b>2°Centigrades higher than today.</b> No arguing here by scientists: that was the age when the vikings explored the North Atlantic Ocean, discovered and colonized a huge island they named <b>"Greenland"</b> grew vineyards in northern Canada and the US. People were croping wheat near the Arctic circle.

There is also no arguing among serious climate scientists about the <b>Little Ice Age</b> starting at 1200 AD and ending around 1860 AD, centuries when the Thames river froze past London, and the measurement on tree rings made by Dr. John Eddy, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research identified the terrible winter of 1883-84 (also recorded in the novel <i>Lorna Doone</i>) when trees in Somerset, England, froze and many <b>exploded</b> from the buildup of internal ice. This <b>exploding</b> of freezing trees have been also recorded for the Southern Hemisphere by Spanish chroniclers present at the foundation of the Bolivian citiy of Santa Cruz de la Sierra (tropical region: 15°South) in the year of 1591. (Manuscripts in the Historical Library in Santa Cruz). Imagine that: freezing trees in the tropics!

Which was the cause of the Little Ice Age? Remember "Spoerer Minimum" and "Maunder Minimum", during the medieval period? Those were years (centuries) of total absence of sunspots. See: <A HREF="http://deschutes.gso.uri.edu/~rutherfo/milankovitch.html">"Milankovitch cycles"</A> and also: <A HREF="http://www.mtwilson.edu/Science/UCLA/"> http://www.mtwilson.edu/Science/UCLA/</A>.

Don't get nervous: 'll finish my opinion in my next post.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edufer
05-06-02, 07:46 PM
When it comes to volcanoes, Dr. Chalko says: <i>"Following the explosive eruption of just <b>one</b> volcano in the Pacific ring of fire - trees on the entire planet stopped growing for several years. For several years there was no summer... [13] This is not a theory".</i>

This is true, as recorded in recent history: Mount Tambora (1816), Krakatoa (1883), Mount Katmai, Alaska (1912), Hekla, Iceland (1947), Mount Redoubt, Alaska (1976 and 1989), El Chichon, Mexico (1982), Mount Saint Helens (1980), Mount Pinatubo (1991), etc., sent millions of tons of dust and gases to the stratosphere, cooling Earth for at least two years. Benjamin Franklin wrote about the Tambora eruption, blaming it for the "year without summer" of 1816, when temperatures in Hartford, Conn did not exceed 82°F. However, despite all these great eruptions, <b>there was no doom.</b> No Ice age triggered.

And then, Dr. Chalko makes this incredible assertion: <b>"The ice age of 536 AD was caused by the explosion of a single volcano. Can you imagine the consequences of explosive eruptions of a hundred volcanoes?"</b>.As sunspot counting was started about 900 years later, we have no way to know what was the state of the sun then, but if huge volcano eruptions as Tambora or Krakatoa didn't start an Ice Agem, it is highly improbable that the eruption of 536 AD triggered one.

And another, but not the only false assertions made by Dr. Chalko, is this:

<b>"To be or Not to be?</b>
<i>While politicians and businessmen still debate and dispute the need for reducing greenhouse emissions and take pride to evade accepting any responsibility, the process of overheating the inner core reactor has already begun - <b>polar oceans have become warmer</b> and <b>polar caps have begun to melt</b>. Although the danger seems to come from the inside of our planet, the actual reason for the coming disaster is the pollution of the atmosphere [17], which is clearly our responsibility. At present, the atmospheric pollution increases daily..."</I>

Here we go!. A Global Warmer Catatstrophist. Another doomsayer blaming pollution for all our worries. The scientific facts are that <b>polar oceans have NOT become warmer</b> and <b>polar caps have NOT begun to melt</b>. Quite on the contrary, Antarctica ice cap has been <b>increasing by billions of tons a year</b> for several decades. So the "scientific" basis of Dr. Chalko becomes less and less a support to his wild theory of Earth's inner nuclear reactor.

Finally, when I was convinced this was another "Dr. Fox experiment" kind of work, I reached the end of the article, where we can see something that could give us a clue of Dr. Chalko mental state:

<b>The Big Picture</b>
<i>The Universe in its entirety is a masterpiece of Intelligent Design. It is quite easy to demonstrate [14] that this Intelligently Designed Universe is Self-Perfecting. Aiming to design anything else just wouldn’t make sense... Aiming to design anything else would actually be an insult to the Intellect of the Designer... The existence of an extensive range of self-correcting mechanisms in the Universe virtually guarantees that it will eventually be inhabited by the Best of the Best. Thanks to Autonomy and the Freedom of Thought <b>[3]</b> - the Best of the Best can simply choose
themselves..."

"For millennia <b>[20]</b> wise people have been trying to bring to our attention that <i>”Whoever knows everything but lacks WITHIN - lacks EVERYTHING”</i>. How many people today comprehend the importance of this advice?</i>

Now, as a final to this lenghty post, see some references made by Chalko:

<b>Some References given:</b>

[3] T.J. Chalko, The Freedom of Choice, Scientific Eng. Research, Melbourne, TheFreedomOfChoice.com, ISBN 0 9577882 1 5, (2000)

[17] Desmarquet M., Thiaoouba Prophecy, Arafura Publishing, ISBN 0-646-31395-9, (2000), first published in 1993, e-book: http://www.thiaoouba.com/ebook.htm

[20] Thomas, The Gospel of Thomas, Translation from the Coptic original by M.Meyer in ”Secret Teachings...” Random House, NY,
1984, ISBN 0-394-74433-0

Reference (3) is an auto-reference. This guy refers himself for something he could have explained in the article. Reference (17) is to <b>Thiaoouba Prophecy</b>. Now prophets come in the help of scientific theories! And reference (20) is a reference to <b>The Gosspel of Thomas</b> , where mythology comes also to the help of wacky theories!. Jesus! What fun! Now the apochrypha, the hidden, forbiden gosspels are used to help somebody to push his lunacy.

Finishing: I won't give here the scientific details showing that Earth, Venus and Mars were created at the same time, following the same physical laws. Then Mars and Venus have nuclear reactors inside. As Venus surface temperature <b>is higher than 400°Centigrades</b>, why did not its reactor go off, making Venus another "asteroid belt"? (and what about Mercury?). Now, let us end this topic and give this theory the burial it deserves: <b>in a trash can.</b>

gotanygum
05-06-02, 07:58 PM
Are polar ice caps gaining more ice than is lost, really? Are you talking about the theory as mentioned on the website https://mail.lsit.ucsb.edu/pipermail/gordon-newspost/2002-February/002156.html ? [4/5 ths the way down the page, since I dont subscribe to that magazine]?

other links:

http://geowww.gcn.ou.edu/~jahern/solid_earth/prem.html

http://geo.mff.cuni.cz/papers2.bin/a99lh1.pdf [interesting]

**http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf033/sf033p19.htm [this is a link that supports the idea 536 volcanic event was most important in certain ways]

Tom used the reference to a certain book, 'Thiaoouba Prophecy'. I dont mind trying to separate the scientific information from the spiritual persuasions that make one think when one sees such a title in a works cited list, since a hypothesis is a hypothesis -- I do however seem to remember you posting a link to 'Christian Publications'? Anyway the three related journal sources I listed below.

Edufer
05-06-02, 08:04 PM
Go to this study showing a reconstruction of temperatures by proxy methods of the Late Holocen Period (the present period), where you'll see mean global temperatures during the 1500s and 1600s being about 20°Farenheit below today's temperatures.

<A HREF=http://deschutes.gso.uri.edu/~rutherfo/climaterecon.html>" Multiproxy Climate Reconstruction"</A>

Nice and clear graph!

Edufer
05-06-02, 08:24 PM
yea, but there was no doom then, obviously, because it was not several hundred or possibly thousand volcanoes exploding/erupting!

He didn't say hundred or thousand volcanoes triggered the Ice Age of 536 AD. He said was just <b>ONE</b> (The bold belongs to the article)..


dont forget that venus's atmosphere hasn't been tampered with

So it is the "tampering" by human beings what will make the reactor increase his temperature? Or is the temperature alone -wheter natural or human induced-- that will do the trick? Besides that, temperatures inside a reactor are in the thousands of degrees centigrades... so what harm could a mere couple of degrees? As we say down here in Southamerica, "What will another spot do to the jaguar?".


But there is a lot of math in there. What about analyzing it? I haven't seen any of that on here yet.

Yes. I am not a mathematician, and I don't think there are any proficient enough in the board. Probably, if a mathematician or a physicist get hold of the paper would show where the phallacies are. As I said before, this is a "Dr. Fox experiment" paper, where most ignorant people (like us) will be impressed and tend to think: <b>"Wow, how complicated this thing is! Then it must be right..."</b>

I like funny and strange theories (I love Vedas, Upanishads, and Mahabharta, as I love theories about Ica stones and ancient vanished mankinds) but when I see things that I know about that don't fit into the picture, I can't help to be highly skeptical.

gotanygum
05-06-02, 11:17 PM
What is his actual name? Dr. Fox, Who is that, like Fox Mulder? [just kidding]

Adam
05-06-02, 11:46 PM
KABOOM!!!

Edufer
05-07-02, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by gotanygum
Dr Fox? Who is that, like Fox Mulder?

That shows that you didn't read my first post, where "Dr. Fox experiment" was explained at length. Go back there, read it, and then you'll have the whole picture. Dr. Chalko's "study" is a perfect example of a "Dr. Fox" type of study.

<b>Oops!.</b> Adam: I almost forgot: you should be posting in Mr. Jokes forum and newsletter. You are quite original... Do you have another clever remark to post? (PLEASE, don't say : <font color=red size=6><b>BANG!</b></FONT>

Stryder
05-07-02, 02:00 PM
It's not just cooling that causes volcanoes to errupt and earthquakes to occur. But radiation bombardment in the form of Satellites.

Those humble television companies pumping out tripe, can cause frequency fluctuations that when bombarding the earths surface cause solitons that can in turn cause plate movements.

Radiation bombardment can also cause winds through the warming of land, even lightening storms can be caused.

gotanygum
05-07-02, 09:05 PM
No, I read it. But I wanted to know the actual name of the guy, but I totally understand the concept. I even took some time on yahoo trying to find exactly who it was, didnt find anything real promising, pointing to a firsthand source that is readily accessible to read alot into, like a journal or something I could read online.
Maybe you found something?

There are three separate official journals mentioning the experiment and the man. But none of them are freely accessible, I may have to go see my local library or one that carries those journals. They cost $ and membership . . .

stryderunknown, I agree with you.

Adam
05-07-02, 09:26 PM
Blammo!!!

(Q)
05-07-02, 09:29 PM
Global Warming: Earth can EXPLODE. (Crankiest)

http://www.crank.net/planetology.html

Mr. G
05-07-02, 10:45 PM
Earth can EXPLODE !!!
Oh, come on. Everyone knows that planet Earth ultimately will IMPLODE!!! due to the ever-increasing density of its Bozone Layer.

Adam
05-07-02, 10:50 PM
Ka-pow!!!

Edufer
05-07-02, 11:15 PM
From a web page on <A HREF=http://www.christianpublications.com/Periodicals/aareview/2000/perar2000e.html><b>"Dr. Fox"</B></A>

"A celebrated case once involved the presentation of a fabricated "Dr. Fox" to a group of educators. The perpetrators of the hoax hired a professional actor who looked "distinguished and sounded authoritative." He was coached to present his lecture with "excessive use of double-talk, neologisms, non sequiturs, and contradictory statements."

"Then the unsuspecting teachers listened to their guest speaker. Not surprisingly, "the professional educators rated ‘Dr. Fox’ favorably on eight general items, including organization of material, use of examples, arousal of interest, and stimulation of thinking." 10 Nonverbal communication and the phony speaker had carried the day."

From: <A HREF="http://www.freevocabulary.com/order.htm">http://www.freevocabulary.com/order.htm</A>

"people judge you and your ideas by the words you use. The <b>"Dr. Fox Effect:"</b> words used often influence more than objective content. Fair or not, even colleges judge using SAT vocabulary."

Dr. Fox teaches you how <b>not to get fooled again</b> by "excessive use of double-talk, neologisms, non sequiturs, and contradictory statements." Dr, Chalko may be another Dr. Fox experiment going on...

-------------------------------

<b>Quote:></b> <i>"Earth ultimately will IMPLODE!!! due to the ever-increasing density of its Bozone Layer".</i>

It will do it, but due to ever-increasing weight of the Green Moron Layer!

-------------------------------------------------------

Adam: you really got me. I am still laughing. Your sense of humor is great.

Now I must go to fulfill my duty as Captain Marvel and try saving the Earth:

<center><font color=red size=7><b>Sazham!</b></center>

Adam
05-08-02, 12:53 AM
BIFFO!!!

Edufer
05-08-02, 02:31 AM
While the sun is shinning bright in Australia, your brain cells seems to keep working in order. Here in Argentina my brain cells tell me is time to <font size=7 face="Arial black" color=green>ZOOM!</FONT> to bed. Hasta la vista, baby, Terminator dixit...

gotanygum
05-14-02, 12:56 PM
Whitman, N and Burgess PR. Teaching basic science Dr Fox in the phisiology chicken coop. Medical Education Journal 1988; 22 393-7

Naftulin, D. H. , Ware, J.E., & Donnely, F.a. (1973) The Doctor Fox Lecture A Paradigm of Educational Seduction. Journal of Medical Education, 48, 630-635

Marsh, H.W., and J.E. Ware (1982) Effects of expressiveness, content coverage, and incentive on multi-dimentionsl student rating scales: New interpretations of the Dr. Fox effect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 126-134.

ok, anyone able to obtain a full-text copy of any of these??

gotanygum
05-31-02, 06:11 PM
hmm . . .

wet1
06-01-02, 05:08 PM
The trouble I have with this is that the attributed cause is "internal heat". Now this isn't something that just appeared on the scene; this source of internal heat, mentioned. The radioactives that keep our core molten were formed with the rest of the solar system. Most of the planets have radioactives present in their cores.

We don't see a series of asteroid belts out there indicating that planets are missing that once existed. The one that does exists has various theories as to why but to my knowledge there isn't one that the core exploded and caused the disinegration of the planet.

The radioactives have existed since the earth was formed. If the case was that it could "over heat" and cause an explosion, then I put forth that the earth was in far greater danger of such, in it's early state of existance. When the radioactives had not decayed and the resulting heat higher than at present day. The fact that we are still here and going around the sun in the same state for all this time tells me what is what.

We have a crackpot or a social experimenter...

gotanygum
06-01-02, 09:20 PM
to wet1,

Perhaps you're right. We're certainly still here.

If a planet core's positional stability is perturbed enough [asteorid or moon collision], all kinds of things can go wrong. Obviously, if the center is a fission reactor, it makes sense to say that it could explode if hit with sufficient force. Right now it does not seem any gigantic asteorid with high speed can hurtle in to destroy Earth. What is being discussed in this paper, however, is about our environmenntal pollution and one of it's possible aftereffects, not in terms of being hit by any outside object. This is why such an idea is harder to believe, I think.

On the internal heat, appendix 4 supposedly explains that boundary requirement, beyond which overheating may begin to take place. In the paper it is mentioned that heat is generated in the entire volume of the planet, and cooling can only occur at the surface, and the atmosphere holds heat in balance for the entire earth [not forgetting solar heat of course, the majority of heat that reaches the surface], not only the surface. The only other asteroid belt i can think of, and this is without really thinking about it, is the ring around saturn -- maybe that ring of rocks used to be a moon. Also Uranus and possibly also Neptune, have a ring. I guess the rings depend on how big, if they're composed of rocks, if they once were moons, how far away, gravity, atmosphere, etc.

Maybe 'Phaethon' broke apart, exploding in the process, having been hit by an outside body. The story goes in ancient Greece, that the cataclysm was 'as bright as lightning', meaning either that the author of this paper's conclusions on this are incorrect, or Plato may be saying something important. See below [check the sourcing of this in the paper's works cited section] anyone read greek? : "Now this has the form of a myth, but really signifies decline of the bodies moving in the heavens . . . " -Plato, from Timmaeus, The Dialogues of Plato, The Great Books volume 7, encyclopedia brittanica, 1975 -- and from Demetriov, D., 'Neon Orthographikon,' Chr. Giobane, 1970.

Wonder about radiation coming from the asteroid belt, what is found there. I have read there is some type of radiation there. The very idea of it having possibly been a planet, is to many scientists, sacrelige. However, it continues orbiting in a regular fashion, and total size adds up, more or less by not too much, to a planet-sized body/mass. I can therefore at the face of it, see how it may very well be a planet's remains. The author[s] [[research team]] used 3-d integration, partial derivation, as a means of most calculations, as opposed to use of the archimedes principle of linear relationships for pressure, because he [and his team] puts forth a non-linear relationship. The work itself seems reasonable, it is the warning seems to be too much. He has done other work through scientific engineering research, p/l. Do a search for that organization on the internet, if not already done. I admit the idea on the surface is graphic unlike any presently accepted climate change projection or geophysics disaster prediction out there so far, and thus likely to be seen as at least impossible.

http://www.technologyreview.com/offthewire/3001_662002_6.asp

"Giant Nuke May Run Earth's Magnetic Field"

United Press International PHIL BERARDELLI, UPI Deputy Science and Technology Editor 06/06/2002

Jun 05, 2002 (United Press International via COMTEX) -- Thousands of miles beneath our feet, a giant nuclear reactor seems to be at work deep within Earth's core, and preliminary research suggests it may be the mysterious power source behind the planet's magnetic field and thermal energy, upon which all life on the planet depends for its survival, scientists told United Press International.

Gifted
06-10-02, 11:00 PM
All this hype about the end of an ice age?

kmguru
06-11-02, 12:08 PM
The full article - very interesting. We have to get ready to leave the planet when the reactor shuts down and we lose the EM protection.....Pack your bags.


Jun 05, 2002 (United Press International via COMTEX) -- Thousands of miles beneath our feet, a giant nuclear reactor seems to be at work deep within Earth's core, and preliminary research suggests it may be the mysterious power source behind the planet's magnetic field and thermal energy, upon which all life on the planet depends for its survival, scientists told United Press International.

New data analyzed by J. Marvin Herndon, geoscientist and president of Transdyne Corporation, of San Diego, Calif., and Daniel F. Hollenback, a nuclear engineer and criticality expert at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in Oak Ridge, Tenn., show the reactor -- a ball of uranium about five miles in diameter and located at the center of the core -- may have been operating nearly since the formation of the planet.

Herndon told UPI he has been searching for evidence of the deep-Earth reactor for more than a decade. In 1992, he published a series of papers on planet-sized nuclear reactors based on the discovery, 20 years earlier, of the remnants of a large, natural reactor located at the Oklo uranium mine in the Republic of Gabon in western Africa.

French scientists had discovered the Oklo reactor and determined it had operated for tens of thousands of years some two billion years ago, Herndon said, "but at the time of its discovery there were too many pieces missing to know what that really meant."

Nuclear reactors operating inside planetary cores might explain some mysteries that have puzzled scientists for years, Herndon said. For example, since the 1960s, astronomers have known Jupiter radiates nearly twice the energy it receives from the Sun. But up to now, they have not been able to explain the phenomenon in a way that makes sense, he said.

Earth's magnetic field is an even bigger mystery. Some mechanism obviously generates the field, and many scientists think the field is formed from fluid iron in Earth's main outer core acting like a giant electric dynamo, or motor. The geomagnetic field, as it is called, shuts down periodically and sometimes reverses its polarity -- with the North and South poles exchanging their magnetic charges.

The energy sources previously thought to power the dynamo are unable to decrease and then increase again, Herndon explained, so scientists have had to resort to assuming the dynamo mechanism is inherently unstable. But a nuclear reactor can decrease power output -- and even shut itself down -- and come back to life again, increasing to its full operating power, he said.

Current knowledge of the structure of Earth's interior is derived mainly from seismic data and chemical analyses of common meteorites, Herndon continued. Based on that data, scientists estimate about 30 percent of Earth's mass comprises an outer core, he said, which is thought to consist of iron and maybe one or more lighter elements such as sulfur.

The solid inner core is much smaller -- less than 2 percent of Earth's mass.

Still, current popular geophysical models cannot explain, from an energy standpoint, a planet-sized magnetic field that operates like Earth's -- with its varying power levels and periodic shutdowns, Herndon said.

Herndon said he received a major insight when he studied a different type of meteorite. Enstatite chondrite meteorites, as they are called, have chemical compositions similar to Earth's interior. Unlike more common meteorites, enstatite chondrite meteorites contain most of their uranium in the part of the meteorite that corresponds to Earth's core.

It was one of the clues Herndon needed, he said. Uranium is the heaviest natural element. It makes sense that, over time, solid uranium particles would rain out from Earth's fluid core at high temperatures. Because of their high density, they could collect at the very center of the Earth. After enough uranium collected together, a nuclear reaction would begin, and that appears to be what happened very soon after the formation of the planet.

In 1997, Herndon teamed up with Hollenbach at Oak Ridge. The laboratory has unique computer programs that can analyze the performance of different types of nuclear reactors.

"Dan showed me those numerical simulation programs could be applied to a nuclear reactor at the center of the Earth," Herndon said. "We used data about the uranium content from the meteorite discoveries to generate simulations at varying power levels."

A highly persuasive clue arrived in the form of physical evidence of a nuclear reactor at Earth's core. Recently analyzed samples of lava rock from deep-source volcanic "hot spots" in Hawaii and Iceland contained tiny amounts of the isotopes helium-3 and helium-4.

Although scientists have known about the helium-3 for some time, they have thought it was left over from Earth's formation some four-and-a-half billion years ago. But no known physical process could produce helium-3 except for nuclear fission, Herndon said, and the proportion of the two helium isotopes matches the prediction of the Oak Ridge simulation. This is strong evidence that the geo-reactor is at work, he said.

Based on the simulations, and the helium evidence, Herndon and Hollenbach theorize a five-mile-wide ball of uranium has been operating as a nuclear reactor for about 4.5 billion years. Its output is an awesome 4 million megawatts. Much of the energy it produces is heat, and that might be what powers the mechanism that produces the geomagnetic field, Herndon said.

Perhaps more interesting, the Oak Ridge programs suggest the reactor is a breeder -- that is, it actually produces more nuclear fuel than it consumes, which is why it has been able to operate over a time frame that spans nearly the entire existence of the planet. In addition, the reactor's power level varies in intensity over time and it shuts down periodically.

A nuclear reactor continuously produces lighter elements, such as strontium or barium, as the uranium fuel fissions -- or splits apart. Those fission fragments would begin to absorb neutrons -- the subatomic particles naturally emitted by the fissioning uranium and responsible for the chain reaction -- thereby preventing them from splitting other atoms.

"One might imagine instances in which the rate of production of fission products exceeds their rate of removal by gravitationally driven diffusion," Herndon wrote in a recent paper on the subject. If so, he explained, "the power output of the geo-reactor would decrease and the reactor might eventually shut down, thereby diminishing and ultimately shutting down the Earth's magnetic field."

Over time, as the lighter elements moved away from the uranium core, the reactor would restart.

The research is "certainly going to be a major contribution to geophysics," Hatten S. Yoder, Jr., director emeritus of the Geophysical Laboratory of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, D.C., told UPI. "They have developed an explanation for (Earth's) magnetic field and the fact that you can turn it on and off."

One of the most remarkable aspects of the planetary core reactor, Yoder said, is "it only takes a (five-mile) ball of uranium. That's only 65 percent of all the uranium on Earth."

The reactor's existence, if proven, solves the problem of delayed geothermal cooling and explains the observed heat flow, Yoder said. Without a continuing power source, he said, the heat dissipation would have ended long ago. But "if you have a ball of uranium at the center, it would continue to put out heat."

Herndon said he next plans to search lava samples for traces of radioactive elements that might have been produced by the geo-reactor and be light enough to have escaped the core and reach Earth's surface. Lithium, beryllium, boron and neon are possibilities, he said.

"It's not an easy task because both rock data and nuclear data are needed, but it certainly is important," Herndon said.

Yoder agreed. "High-temperature and high-pressure experiments are needed to test the composition and melting characteristics of the core," he said.

Copyright 2002 by United Press International.

gotanygum
06-11-02, 01:38 PM
kmguru, what is your general opinion, politically, of articles that are published by UPI?

I barely visit that site

kmguru
06-11-02, 06:41 PM
Sorry, I got it from MIT Technology Review site. I have not read any from UPI site yet. Most of my information on commercial technology, I rely on free ad supported commercial/technical journals that I get from CMP pub and others. For far out stuff I get from sciam, discover, wired, biz2 etc. Because some of them are far out, one never knows if it will be commercialized. I also review business plans from the investment perspective and find a lot of interesting stuff -

gotanygum
06-11-02, 11:24 PM
how are you,

the beginning of the article actually reports as [UPI via COMTEX], so I made the mistake of ascribing the report put out, as by UPI.

No, wait, it is a UPI article, but it is re-reported in tech review. Yes.
at http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=31052002-035631-9966r.

But, I did find another article, at:

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/april24/shrimpcore-424.html

Stanford Report, April 18, 2002
"Rare rocks offer a unique glimpse of the Earth's core"

BY MARK SHWARTZ

its about Osmium [remember the - ~28.6 g/cc minimum density proposed by Dr. Chalko] found in rare rock samples.

kmguru
06-12-02, 10:59 AM
Hey, what can I say...someone is smart enough to spin ....

Well, as long as my food is being digested knowing that the earth wont explode tomorrow - I am OK. :D

Very interesting indeed....(as Spock would say...)

Xev
06-12-02, 04:01 PM
Here we go, debunked: http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=362&forum=1&31

mgs
08-03-02, 12:16 AM
I read this discussion and all the comments I could find about this theory a while ago, and somehow I haven't become convinced that it is false.
I think it is possible that the theory would be the basis for people trying hard to decrease greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. I present a summary of the relevant theories at www.student.unimelb.edu.au/~msephton/coresummary.htm
I think it could be effective if you think about what my summary says about what doubts you have, and give me some hints if you think I have missed anything.

To get your interest, and test my expectations I'll now evaluate the comments at the discussion about this theory at www.badastronomy.com. I found that Xev's link didn't work, but instead found the discussion by searching the site.
I'll refer to the comments made, by their order in the discussion and to Chalko as C, and Plato as P, and Tom Van Flandern as T

2) Either C misrepresented P or not. However what about T's exploding planet hypothesis. Also what about the empirical basis in physics, for differentiation of elements that exist in characteristic densities, and for fission to occur in the condition of critical mass, and for the discovery of fission products by J. Marvin Herndon and his expectation that the core is a 5mile ball of uranium?

3)loose interpretation of plato? Possibly that's true, possibly C's imagination is running wild. However the P evidence isn't crucial for the theory is it? Also I have found some "paleoastronomy" (or whatever) who argue that human records including from myths have been proven worthwhile basis for astronomical theories, ie. have been corroborated by evidence from a range of good sources.

3)Why hasn't Venus exploded? Considering the seriousness of this theory it could be sufficient to say it might have had a different mechanism of planetary formation.
I have found that it has a far weaker magnetic field, and it's rotation is very different to that of the earth. I have also found some ideas about the dependance of these features on the configuration of the inside of the planet.

4)Why aren't we dead due to the radiation? Ask J Marvin Herndon? Also radioactive materials can be safely contained within man made shields for some time, isn't it possible that the earths crust and mantle serve as a similar shield? Which is more likely?

5)Authors other prejudices discredit the theory? Are you really sure that the author doesn't have good reason to believe in intelligent design? Have you read the books linked from his site like "Freedom of Choice" and "Thiaoouba" and the other article at the site. I haven't made any conclusions yet. It could be rubbish, based on a power trip associating with being warranted to pursue hobbies like meditation and scientific theory devising.
However maybe he's good at devising scientific theories?

6)Why hasn't the earth exploded in the past? It depends on whether you are confident that the earths core was similar enough in the past and also on whether you understand exactly enough how the thermodynamics are likely to work. Chalko's argument in the 4th appendix, which I have struggled to understand, and may have presented a good intro at my site, suggests that the core temperature may be very sensitive with the rate at which the core cools, which also depends on the rate at which the atmosphere cools, I guess.

7) I don't get this comment. Likely equivalent to 2

8) Reactor used to have more fresh fuel. I guess this is a possibility. However my comments about 6 must also be considered. With less erratic thermodynamics, the planet might be ok with more fresh fuel. Also the rate of "rotting" of the fuel might be extremely slow, so that significantly fresher fuel might correspond with ages about which we know little about the thermodynamics.

9) as for 7.

10) just because you disagree with the authors moral philosophy, it doesn't mean he might not be a good scientific theory maker. Are you that confident that there aren't any valid conspiracy theories? I am ignorant about it. Maybe you are not.

11 and 12) as for 7.

13) It would be interesting to test the theory that there has been more volcanic activity due to rate of cooling decreasing, and maybe due to greenhouse gas concentration changes. This comment simply asserts that has been heaps of volcanic activity in the past, in the present and to be in the future, ignoring the main point. Are there trends in this activity? It could be helpful to study it carefully, because it could make people curious, if the rest of this theory made any sense.

14) So either there were 2 ice ages, or there is a typo, or the author delibrately printed the wrong fact. However regardless, is understanding the exact timing of these 1 or 2 ice ages of significant importance in evaluating this theory?

15)The author just referred to the possibility that people would be afraid to make contact, and the commentator says that the author has malicious intent. How about an alternative interpretation, the author thinks that others should understand his moral philosophy and what intents he possesses. How about it is not a good test of the validity of the theory?

16-20) in jokes

21-end) so there was another ice age or not due to volcanoes? My guess is it's unimportant.

So the main point is what do you think is the most efficient way of dealing with this theory?

gotanygum
08-03-02, 11:25 PM
Hi, I have a small confession to make:

I, gotanygum, am A.F. and daddy-o from

http://climate.indymedia.org/commentShow.php3?sid=20011204165315&pid=41.

This is the original location of the postings at the bottom of mgs's first posted link above. These I had posted before I signed up here -- I feel I should say some things though anyway, just in case it contributes anything positive. If not, my sincerest apologies. I am by no means an expert on these matters, but am a concerned layman.

When I said 'take a look at mars' I mentioned it and the whole cyclotron thing, because [for the mars one] it was meant to show how mars is cooled down and instruments maybe I guessed will have less trouble if ever to examine its internal structures. But, I make plenty of mistakes, Im probably wrong here?

[for the cyclotron one] I meant to communicate from a former paper no longer online, [NUjournal issue no. 1] about tectonic effects such as severe flooding/earthquakes possibly resulting from ionospheric charges from the van allen belts decreasing as a result of certain types of pollution [in that article there was a statement to the effect claiming that such pollution is in fact occurring - pollution I am not an expert on, nor any of the above, I merely am a concerned reader]. I included it because if this separate claim from issue 1 is correct, it complicates the proposed problem.

[for the venus one] - I should make clear Dr. Chalko himself never indicated in the paper explicitly about Venus [my language may have been misleading]:

"atmospheric differences, [I should have said "'may possibly' indicate," since Dr. Chalko never said this directly in that paper] according ..."

here:

"and [therefore] according to Tom's theory as I wrote earlier in this messeage, [it may seem that] Venus is still a young planet."

This one may not help, because I really dont know what his ideas on Venus are in this particular regard - so I kind of guessed on that. However, he does post a message at

http://bioresonant.com/cgi-bin/htmlos.cgi/001668.2.3913605234

about Venus.

lastly also here:

"differences, [MAY] indicate according ..." - [again, my language is
unclear here - Im trying to apply my opinion here].

I heard J Marvin Herndon on coast to coast AM last week -- I was disappointed though, to hear a person call up and say something like 'will aliens come to earth and blow up its center with a bomb?'
It seemed a perfect setup to discount the possibility of danger in the earth's core. Then again the caller may have been sincere, but still it annoyed me slightly.

mgs
08-03-02, 11:54 PM
Do you think this is a good interpretation of Gotanygum’s perspective?
So we could check to see how Mars is cooled. Reasons why Mars hasn’t already blown up are that it has a lower temperature than earth, and there have not been injections of greenhouse gases into its atmosphere in the case where they actually cause global warming. So maybe it is not necessary to get more information. As for the cyclotron. Is it dependant on the magnetic field? And who cares about it? The magnetic field is supposed to be powered by the nuclear core. Very well, so a planet without a cyclotron is simply not expected to have a nuclear hot core, so it is not expected to explode. This fact explains why Venus doesn’t explode. However we could also consider how we expect that the earth is cooled, in case we think that we should take some steps now.
So proposed priorities are to check whether surface temperature really affects core temperature extremely. And check to see how humans can “significantly” reduce surface temperature. Where it’s probably best to define significant according to how much is required to have any chance of an effect on the core temperature.

Is it satisfactory to consider the affect of ionospheric pollution as a separate problem not a complicating part of this problem. The meaning being that for problem 1 we work out if it is economical to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations. For problem 2 we work out if it is economical to reduce ionospheric pollutant concentrations.
A third proposed priority is to work out whether it is worth finding out how to reduce ionospheric pollutant concentrations.

gotanygum
08-04-02, 12:34 AM
In terms of economic loss analysis, what losses do you [mgs] particularly see as most problematic [least re-adjustable to a former stable level over a short period] in a hypothetical scenario?

I don't mean to push hard to get an answer right away. Think about it and of course answer too if you like.

mgs
08-04-02, 05:17 PM
In terms of economic loss analysis, what losses do you [mgs] particularly see as most problematic [least re-adjustable to a former stable level over a short period] in a hypothetical scenario?

Is this a joke? Am I somehow failing to understand why I am ridiculous by taking this theory seriously?

Who cares about a hypothetical scenario?

Should we not care about a realistic scenario?
If you mean that until they are realised, our expectations must be hypothetical, and you are asking me to say why the truth of this theory could be very important, then here is my answer.

Basically if the earth exploded, there wouldn’t be a chance of re-adjustment.
What are the other likely consequences?
I know most about why it is likely that the earth’s core could heat up. It would affect convection of the mantle. If volcanos and earthquakes really function to “let off steam”, then it would cause them as well.
I don’t know which would be worse without considering circumstances like intensity and proximity to people.
I don’t know why you are asking about this, when it is not clear at all that the theory is worth worrying about, I got a letter from a 3rd science university graduate. This time J. Marvin Herndon himself, he says:
“Thank you for visiting NuclearPlanet.com and for your email. After a news story appeared about my work, a web bulleten board with the strabge name "badastronomy" posted an item by Alan G. Archer.
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=1462&forum=1&
Archer stated: Not to be confused with the fantastic nonsense being pushed by Dr. Tom Chalko and the BANNED Mifletz, UPI recently published a story by Phil Berardelli, "Giant nuke may run Earth's magnetic field."
His words "fantastic nonsense" seem appropriate. There is no way that heat from the atmosphere can heat the inner core. Heat always flows from a hotter region to a cooler region; not the reverse.
At my web site, you will find a list of my scientific papers. These real, solid science published in premiere scientific journals, such as the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. “

However his arguments are appeals to my subservience to authorities like “premiere scientific journals” and are so simple that it is clear that he didn’t account for my philosophical problems- heat flows from hot to cool, sure, but if the surroundings of something that generates heat are a bit hotter, then the temperature gradient decreases, and what is the immediate effect of that on the temperature of the generator?
An update on my understanding is that Chalko's solution to the homogeneous (temperature not changing with time) partial differential equation, shows that the steady state for core temperature if temperature gradient changes by a small amount is much higher.

For example, I substituted a initial temperature gradient of 1 degree per km, and a core temperature of 6900 degrees Celsius, and a core radius of 1220 km into the equations and found the change in core temperature at a radius of 1km from the centre due to a 1% decrease in temperature gradient, is 14000 degrees Celsius.
So why would scientists think this result is meaningful is my key question?

gotanygum
08-04-02, 06:33 PM
What i meant was what may be most direct economic losses to people from putting things to work to AVOID an explosion.

Things like money and labor costs/consequences for cars having to be converted to run on other fuels, and such for other modes of power [homes, businesses].

I thought you meant how is the economy affected by investing big in fuel cells, and immediate reforestation programs, if people believe this research.

Thats all I was saying.

That last thing you said though, is interesting. I dont know.

mgs
08-04-02, 06:41 PM
I know nothing about the effects of investing in fuel cells and reafforestation or anything else. I don't even know whether it is correct for everyone to agree that these are the most efficient ways of:
i)reducing carbon dioxide emissions
ii)decreasing effective insulation of heat (keeping temperatures under control

I have tried to learn about it, and presented my results at www.student.unimelb.edu.au/~msephton/climsummary.htm
However I thought that it was a higher priority to find out about whether this core theory is likely to be accurate.

Maybe there is no point in thinking about economics unless people like Herndon are saying "Yes, we should do something to care for our temperamental core"

Edufer
08-04-02, 09:10 PM
Daly, Feyerra say the sun is causing the warming … [quote]Daly says urban heat islands are the cause of the warming. … Feyerra replied that it was a structural failure not a melting.
Mgs: I read your letter in the weblink you provided. I guess <b>Daly</b> is John Daly, from <A HREF=”http://www.john-daly.com”>”Waiting for the Greenhouse”</A>, and Feyerra is me. But my name is <b>Ferreyra</b>, and my website is at: http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/ENGLISH.html<b>Myths and Frauds in Ecology</B></A>. I collaborate with Daly in his work, (he is in Australia, and I am in Argentina) and we think what you already know: CO2 emissions are not a problem, and GW is just a hype. Am I right in my suppositions?
I would add to the present discussion just this:
1) If Earth has a nuclear reactor in its core, the radioactivity of this reactor must have been decaying for billions of years. Could you calculate how much radioactivity still remains there, considering the half life of most radioactive materials? That could be an interesting subject.
2) Looking at paleoclimatic studies we learn that temperatures in Earth have been higher in the past, at the same time that radioactivity in the core reactor was higher too. Why didn’t explode then? As radioactivity goes down, so goes down temperature in the nuclear core, making the possibility of an explosion quite impossible. Am I right?

(My name is Eduardo Ferreyra, and that’s the origin of my nickname in the sciforums: Edu-Fer.)

You are doing a good job, though, even if I don’t believe the Earth could explode because a slight increase in surface temperature. Temperatures inside a nuclear reactor are in the range of thousands of centigrade degrees, so one or two degrees at the surface (2000 km away from the core) could mean nothing. But people also believed Earth was flat and I could be among those who are mistaken.

mgs
08-05-02, 04:59 AM
I have discovered that I was wrong when I said that a 1% decrease in the temperature gradient would cause an increase in the core steady state temperature of 14000 degrees. It was a stupid mistake.

To entice anyone who is familiar with the problem:
My reasoning then was:
If only deltaT terms change then those that don't involve deltaT are "cancelled out" when you subtract the equation describing relation of temperature with temperature gradient et al with the initial value for temperature gradient, from the one with the decreased value for temperature gradient, so:
T2-T1=(deltaT2-deltaT1)R+(deltaT1-deltaT2)R^2/r.
If deltaT is positive, then its true, T2-T1 gets big as you approach the core centre.
I have been advised by a lecturer "don't say the equation works except when r<1! The equation should work for r>0!"
However I realised that really deltaT should be negative, because temperature decreases as you move away from the core, ie. as r increases. (deltaT is dT/dr after all) (1)
Also if deltaT is positive, then the steady state temperature when r=0 is negative infinity.

My latest results show that Chalko's solution doesn't fit the physical situation because it seems that even if deltaT is negative, (a sensible value according to argument (1)), the values of T at different radii are negative. The opinion of my lecturer was this is a meaningless solution! But I wouldn't trust anyone except for my logic, because I don't have any allies yet.

It could be effective if you checked my reasoning. It is presented at www.student.unimelb.edu.au/~msephton/Ctherm.htm

mgs
08-05-02, 05:11 AM
I wrote all that and then thought of Edufers cutting edge.

Chalko quotes the Stefan Boltzman law that radiation from the earth (like all matter) is a function of temperature ^4 and that in hotter times, there were probably lower concentrations of greenhouse gases, so that cooling could be conducted more efficiently.
A model is if surface temperatures increase suddenly, then absolute value of temperature gradient decreases suddenly, then core temperatures increase suddenly, increasing temperature gradient more to increase cooling.

Of course you would say "what about past CO2 concentrations?" Good point. We might be safe for now, if that data is accurate. Also Chalko's thermodynamics seemed to be an exageration according to what I mentioned above.

Of course other considerations are uncertainty about true past temperatures and CO2, and also coincidence of high temperatures with great core volatility causing much volcanic activity, which we want to avoid.

Should review to see whether further thermodynamic investigations are warranted given the historical evidence?

Edufer
08-06-02, 10:21 AM
Mgs: Chalko quotes the Stefan Boltzman law that radiation from the earth (like all matter) is a function of temperature ^4 and that in hotter times, there were probably lower concentrations of greenhouse gases, so that cooling could be conducted more efficiently.
Perhaps he’s right, but we’ll have to quantify the amount of greenhouse gases. CO2 concentrations I the past were quite high during the Ordovician period, 450 million years ago –in the range of 5,600 ppm- going down to 4,000 ppm by 340 million before present (YBP), while in the Cretaceus period (60 - 90 million YBP) CO2 level were 2,600 ppm. These high concentrations were not associated –at all!- with any “runaway greenhouse effect”. 50 million YBP levels were down to 2,000 ppm, but global temperatures were barely 1,5°C higher than today.

<b>Perhaps</b> the concentration of water vapor were lower then, and because water vapor is the main greenhouse gas, then temperatures were low because there was no humidity to keep the atmosphere warm. But I think this was not the case, as water was formed in Earth at the same time of the formation of the planet. We have now the same amount of water as when Earth was formed, not more, not less. During the Ordovician –when CO2 levels were 16 times higher than today, temperatures in the tropics did not go up, while in the high latitudes was happening the Gondwanaland glaciation. (According to C.J. Yapp and H. Potts, 1992, Nature, vol. 365, pp. 342-344).

The following information could be helpful for those interested in the greenhouse gaes subject: according to J. Berret, in his “The Global Warming Debate”, (J.Emsley ed. [London: The European Science and Environment Forum] pp. 60-70) the total greenhouse effect of 342 w/m2 , water vapor contributes with 330 wats/m2 --that is, 96,5% of the heat retention capability of the atmosphere—while CO2 contributes with 12 w/m2, just 3%. Other studies accounting for the water vapor, liquid water and heat transport by convection, estimate the contribution of CO2 between 1 to 5% of the total greenhouse effect. The rest of the gases (methane, CFCs, Argon, etc) have just marginal importance.

mgs
08-06-02, 05:42 PM
Is it best to focus on whether we think that greenhouse gas concentrations were enough in the past to cause the core to explode?

Or is it best to try to achieve better understanding of the thermodynamics?

The answer might depend on what we think we could discover by doing each. If we discover that the core is temperamental, then we could gain the interest of 3 scientists I've corresponded with by showing them that they are wrong to dismiss the theory on this basis. The correspondance is presented at www.student.unimelb.edu.au/~msephton/coreletters.htm

If we discovered that greenhouse gases seemed to be pretty strong in the past, would we be confident that we didn't need to respond to the chance of a temperamental core?
I doubt it, considering that evidence would also be needed to show why increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the past, didn't coincide with core violence, for example.

I have found that my first judgements about the thermodynamics have been wrong, and I am determined to persist.
Why don't you help?

Don H
08-07-02, 09:38 AM
Planetary explosions are of course possible from a number of theoretical dynamics however for minor surface temperature changes to come into any significant play is farcical and moot.
Even if there were a uranium/plutonium core by the time surface temperature played a role at 1000-2000 degrees man would have been long gone.

None the less it appears that Venus heated to the point of a rapid liquid rock convection that virtually turned it inside out.

mgs
08-07-02, 05:10 PM
Don H, your argument is inductively weak, you don’t specifically
claim that there is any particular problem with Chalko’s theory.

Whereas you could say Chalko's argument is inductively strong
because he uses a partial differential equation that I find in a book called "Fundamentals of Mathematical Physics" for describing heat conduction.

You just propose a different one that the earth surface
greenhouse gas concentrations couldn’t affect the core temperature significantly.

You base your theory on no particular evidence. It just seems like a guess, perhaps based on your observations of “cakes” cooling outside the oven on days of different temperature. Don’t you want to understand in detail because the consequences of being wrong are high, particularly considering that no-one has criticised the theory carefully.

All of the above might be wrong, but you haven't shown anyone that you know any thing about thermodynamics yet.
Please show me that I'm wrong, or respond to the fact that you are.


Can someone think of a physical situation where intuition was misleading?

mgs
08-12-02, 05:15 AM
At the moment I think that the most important thing is to find out:
-quantitative relations between core surface gradient and core temperature,
-quantitative relation between greenhouse gas emissions and core surface gradients,
-quantitative relation between core temperatures and rate of differentiation of materials of different densities, and
-qualitative relation between volcanism and earth surface warming/atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.
-correspondance of thiaoouba prophecy with evidence from real life
-ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions without doing any of the above.
-checking out the possibility that increased greenhouse gas emissions cool the atmosphere more than they warm it.
What do you guys think?

overdoze
08-13-02, 01:11 PM
This must be THE stupidest idea I've ever heard. The Earth is much cooler now, overall, than it has ever been in its 4.5 billion year history. Remember that over a period in its life our entire planet was a molten ball of magma with no solid crust. Do you think the core was hotter or cooler than today, and do you think the core was dissipating heat more efficiently back then (when even the surface was molten hot)?

mgs
08-13-02, 06:28 PM
Hi everyone,

Thanks for your ideas Overdoze.

I searched the net about the idea that the earth has been hotter, so there would have been a time where the core would have been so hot, that differentiation of nuclear stuff would have happened so fast that it was blown up. It could be helpful if you referred me to the evidence of this that you’ve found. I only found another site http://www.noahsark-naxuan.com/TDBLDsynopsis.htm, claiming that the core of the earth was received at the K/T boundary. I also found verification that most geologists believe the earth was once a molten ball at http://www.outdoorguidemagazine.com/morgue/backissues/spri99.htm.

It seems possible to me that if the earth was just molten, that the core temperatures were not so hot that there was therefore not sufficient differentiation to cause a massive explosion because of more efficient cooling.

Reasons I don't think it is ridiculous as Overdoze seems to, are the following:

I don't know much about thermodynamics, as I explained in my response to Don H.

There may have been sufficient differentiation to cause quite explosive volcanic activity and this would be no guarantee that our planet could not undergo a stage of violent volcanism soon.

i) Also I wonder if such a state existed, how did the earth surface cool down, with the breeder nuclear reactor continuously producing energy? Perhaps because of such effective cooling, that there was a lack of differentiation and consequent fission reaction. If the ideas about the Earth’s nuclear reactor are right, wouldn’t this be the only explanation? Wouldn’t it constitute proof that a molten planet can cool extremely efficiently so that it would not explode? Would it also not preclude the possibility that a non-molten planet, with high greenhouse gas concentrations can explode?

ii) Also Chalko suggests that the earth core is decaying to some extent, whereas Herndon says it is a breeder reactor. So if it is decaying, and the fissionable material is more heavy, then possibly the core is getting more pure, because the lighter elements that are produced by the decay of heavy ones leave.

iii) Combined with the idea that the core was received, presumably originally containing a mixture of light and heavy elements, this might be more likely. Of course it is also highly likely that there is a reason why the fusion of planetoids is not feasible, but it would not disprove I and ii.

<b> Future investigations </b>
If you showed me that it was actually very probable that the earth was molten. And you showed me with a thermodynamic model, simply based on evidence about how the expected material is expected to have certain heat producing and conducting properties, not only based on an assumption that a core surrounded by lava has to be so hot that it would have exploded if any core could explode.

And you show me a thermodynamic model that suggests that global warming would have no significant effect on global volcanic activity, And if you show me that my suggestion that the core is more pure than it was in the past, is crazy (thereby showing that the core was received by the earth in a collision is crazy). And we get advice from experts about these matters, checking that they are not dogmatic and closed minded, and think about it a lot.

<b> Conclusion </b>
Then I might think that maybe I should dismiss my suggestions that we should investigate relation between the earth interior and global warming and find out that the scientific community are right to ignore some investigative possibilities.
And then I would have to think of something else to do.

<b> <i>But I could be totally wrong for some reason. But for what reason? What do you think?</i> </b>

overdoze
08-13-02, 07:22 PM
Oh goodness me.

First, radioactive materials do indeed decay. This means that upon completion of its formation around 4 billion years ago, Earth contained a lot more radioactive elements than it does today. Moreover, the heat due to formation (planetoid collisions) would have meant the planet was a molten ball of rock. Since no significant net energy has been input since then (ignoring the solar heat flux, which is insignificant), Earth has been cooling ever since so of course it is cooler today than ever in its history.

Second, as Edufer and I discovered in a neighboring thread, there have been periods in relatively recent Earth history (e.g. Cretaceous) when CO2 concentrations were something like 10 times what they are today, and global climate was something like 10-20 degrees Kelvin warmer. We're still here, aren't we?

Third, the hotter and more liquid the Earth's interior is, the faster it convects. That means that if ever there was a concentration of radioactivity in the core such that it would result in massive chain reactions, the core would heat up and melt, with the hot material convecting upward and thus diluting the concentration of radioactivity and stopping the chain reaction. It's the equivalent of a fission bomb whose implosion charges have not been properly aligned and if you detonate it you get but a whimper of what a properly confined explosion would give. Fact is, there's nothing in Earth's core to confine a thermonuclear explosion; due to the liquidity of the core conditions could never form to create a spike of heat strong enough to actually blow apart the planet. If it weren't so, our planet would have been blown to bits many times over its 4 billion year lifespan.

And finally, Venus is indeed quite relevant to your topic. It is almost identical in mass to Earth, it has 90 times the atmosphere with 900 degree Fahrenheit surface temperatures. It has a much thicker crust (since it has no plate tectonics), which means its core is even more thermally insulated than Earth's. At the same time, it is much closer to the Sun, which means it must contain a greater proportion of heavy (including radioactive) elements than the Earth.

mgs
08-14-02, 01:09 AM
Hi everyone,

Thanks for your ideas Overdoze

<i>
First, radioactive materials do indeed decay. This means that upon completion of its formation around 4 billion years ago, Earth contained a lot more radioactive elements than it does today. Moreover, the heat due to formation (planetoid collisions) would have meant the planet was a molten ball of rock. Since no significant net energy has been input since then (ignoring the solar heat flux, which is insignificant), Earth has been cooling ever since so of course it is cooler today than ever in its history. </I>



Actually, if the earth received the core of the earth at the K/T boundary, then the nuclear fission that began then would be a heat input.

Alternatively if nuclear fission is a much larger source of the earth heat than the radioactive decay, then it might not be significantly cooler than it was in the past.



<I>Second, as Edufer and I discovered in a neighboring thread, there have been periods in relatively recent Earth history (e.g. Cretaceous) when CO2 concentrations were something like 10 times what they are today, and global climate was something like 10-20 degrees Kelvin warmer. We're still here, aren't we? </I>

If greenhouse gas concentrations were higher than now, and there was equal water vapour, then an explosion soon would not be expected, but Vincent Courtillot claims that volcanism was a partial cause of the disappearance of the dinosaurs. I think it was the volcanism that created “the Deccan Traps”. Therefore perhaps catastrophic volcanism could be expected if we didn't act fast to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

<I>

Third, the hotter and more liquid the Earth's interior is, the faster it convects. That means that if ever there was a concentration of radioactivity in the core such that it would result in massive chain reactions, the core would heat up and melt, with the hot material convecting upward and thus diluting the concentration of radioactivity and stopping the chain reaction. </I>

I totally agree that everyone thinks that if the earth gets hotter, more of the core becomes more mobile, but possibly the lighter parts of it first because less force is required to accelerate lighter materials to a certain degree. Indeed Herndon suggests that a good explanation for the variability of the geomagnetic field is that the lighter materials melt and leave the core, while the heavy ones only melt and heat up to the extent that the conglomerate. Repeatedly people, particularly Chalko and Herndon, have referred to the idea that the fissionable materials differentiates, when the core gets hotter, not to the idea that the fissionable materials are dispersed by convection.

So I guess the key would be to compare your model of the core with Herndon’s to see which one makes more sense? I wouldn’t want to prefer your model just because it means we should forget about the issue. <b> What do you think?</b>





<I>It's the equivalent of a fission bomb whose implosion charges have not been properly aligned and if you detonate it you get but a whimper of what a properly confined explosion would give. Fact is, there's nothing in Earth's core to confine a thermonuclear explosion; due to the liquidity of the core conditions could never form to create a spike of heat strong enough to actually blow apart the planet. If it weren't so, our planet would have been blown to bits many times over its 4 billion year lifespan.</I>

I don’t know what properly aligned implosion charges are. If it is just an analogy that you use to help explain the last paragraph I discussed about differentiation as opposed to dilution, I guess it may not matter, but please correct me if I am wrong.

<i>
And finally, Venus is indeed quite relevant to your topic. It is almost identical in mass to Earth, it has 90 times the atmosphere with 900 degree Fahrenheit surface temperatures. </i>

Chalko says at www.thefreedomforum.com,

“For a core to overheat, the amount of heat produced by the core should exceed the amount of heat transmitted to the planetary surface and emitted into space.

The higher the planetary surface temperature, however, the more heat radiated into space to cool the planetary interior (and the core). Hence, hotter planets may not necessarily have hotter cores.

The problem here is that our "crust" is a thermal insulator. On one hand it is good, because we do not have to walk on lava, but on the other we have to be very careful not to overheat the interior by putting more insulation (greenhouse gas pollution) for too long”.

<i>
It has a much thicker crust (since it has no plate tectonics), which means its core is even more thermally insulated than Earth's. At the same time, it is much closer to the Sun, which means it must contain a greater proportion of heavy (including radioactive) elements than the Earth.</i>

So to summarise Chalko’s point of view and your point of view, it seems there could be two effects in opposition, one is the greater thermal insulation that a crust provides compared to molten crust, the other is the greater radiation from a hotter surface. The issue remains as to whether it is convenient to make any conclusive comments about which is greater.

Secondly I wonder why the planet has no magnetic field and has a deep crust. Is it that it has no molten rock? Why is that the case, if it is so hot? Perhaps, due to the pressure of the atmosphere, there is not much scope for the continuation of fission reactions and therefore the interior of Venus is not so hot? Consider that fission reactions continue if the core is partially molten so that differentiation is possible.

Consider that heavier elements might not be closer to the sun, since higher forces would be required to decellerate heavier objects?


<b>Conclusion</b>
So in summary, perhaps I am saying that maybe you are not considering that there are possibilities sufficiently as likely as those that you present, which are consistent with Chalko's theory.
So maybe we should find out more about them, to establish that it is Chalko's theory is so likely to be true that we should respond to it, or that it is so likely to be false that we should ignore it.

overdoze
08-14-02, 04:55 PM
Hi mgs. I admit this discussion is becoming less trivial than I expected. I almost didn't want to get involved because of how stupid I thought it would be. And I apologize for my previous outbursts of incredulity. I appreciate your patience, and hope we continue in a similarly civil vein.



Actually, if the earth received the core of the earth at the K/T boundary, then the nuclear fission that began then would be a heat input.


The core is just that: the core. If there was no core prior to the K/T boundary, then what do you propose was there? Moreover, where do you get this idea that the Earth "received" a core at the K/T boundary?? Way too much surface older than that still survives intact today for there to have occurred something as catastrophic as this. I expect such an event would have wreaked havoc with the crust and the mantle. Where is the geological evidence of such a tremendous upheaval? Where did the previous core go? Such a gigantic impact would have thrown up a great deal of debris into orbit. We would have more than one moon, and the moon we have right now would be peppered with major craters and clearly identifiable (isotopically) Earth material dating back to the K/T boundary. None of that is the case. I believe there is evidence that the Earth had a magnetic field prior to the K/T boundary; magnetic field reversals are documented in ancient lava flows and I haven't heard of this form of fossilization having a cutoff at the K/T boundary.



Alternatively if nuclear fission is a much larger source of the earth heat than the radioactive decay, then it might not be significantly cooler than it was in the past.


?? Nuclear fission and radioactive decay are the same thing.



If greenhouse gas concentrations were higher than now, and there was equal water vapour, then an explosion soon would not be expected,


?? why?



but Vincent Courtillot claims that volcanism was a partial cause of the disappearance of the dinosaurs. I think it was the volcanism that created “the Deccan Traps”. Therefore perhaps catastrophic volcanism could be expected if we didn't act fast to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?


It is widely accepted now that the K/T boundary is defined by a massive impact of a mile-wide or larger asteroid. Such an impact would send powerful shockwaves through the entire planet which would manifest as massive earthquakes. They would be especially dramatic on the opposite side of the globe from the impact site, where concentric shockwaves would converge toward a point and constructively interfere. If the impact was indeed around the Yucatan peninsula in Mexico as is currently thought, then it wouldn't be surprising to find such convergence of shockwaves somewhere around India. It would naturally trigger massive volcanism.

While a global spike in volcanism would certainly not be conducive to dinosaur survival, the main effects leading to their extinction would stem from the impact itself. It would send massive tsunamis through the oceans, circling the planet multiple times and destroying all low-lying and coastal areas. The massive oceanic shockwave would wreak havoc with large aquatic organisms, whose large bodies and internal cavities would resonate with the repeated low-frequency shock fronts. The impact would throw a large amount of debris into parabolic suborbital trajectories; when this debris falls back down to Earth it will be in the form of molten rock, doing direct explosive damage and setting off massive fires all over the world. The impact itself, the secondary impacts, the fires and the volcanoes will throw up a great deal of dust and particulates into the atmosphere, resulting in a catastrophic multi-year global cooling. At the same time, the noxious gases from the volcanoes and the explosions vaporising rock would generate world-wide acid rains. At the same time, rampant oceanic volcanism would alter the chemistry of the oceans, making them potentially toxic to many lifeforms. On top of it all, there would have been massive disruptions in the food chain, devastating large creatures which needed to feed constantly in order to survive.



I totally agree that everyone thinks that if the earth gets hotter, more of the core becomes more mobile, but possibly the lighter parts of it first because less force is required to accelerate lighter materials to a certain degree.


That would be true, except the lighter parts are precisely the parts that don't contain high percentage of fissile material. The parts that do contain it are heavier, and they heat up to the exclusion of the lighter parts. Rock, generally speaking, is a pretty good thermal insulator, so I expect convection to take place before heat transfer could equalize temperatures.



Indeed Herndon suggests that a good explanation for the variability of the geomagnetic field is that the lighter materials melt and leave the core, while the heavy ones only melt and heat up to the extent that the conglomerate.


That wouldn't explain such things as magnetic field reversals. At any rate, I don't believe anyone has a convincing account right now of how the geomagnetic field evolves. This doesn't mean there's no progress. For example:

http://www.psc.edu/science/Glatzmaier/glatzmaier.html



Repeatedly people, particularly Chalko and Herndon, have referred to the idea that the fissionable materials differentiates, when the core gets hotter, not to the idea that the fissionable materials are dispersed by convection.


Use common sense to figure out which is more likely. For example, imagine two immiscible liquids in a beaker, one heavy and one light. If you leave them alone, they'll eventually settle into two distinct layers, with the heavier liquid on the bottom. Now put a heat source under the beaker (which will warm up the heavier fluid first, simulating fission). You'll observe convection, with the fluids increasingly mixing up in a chaotic flow of currents. The more you heat it, the more chaos there will be. This is as opposed to increased differentiation, or order.



So I guess the key would be to compare your model of the core with Herndon’s to see which one makes more sense? I wouldn’t want to prefer your model just because it means we should forget about the issue. <b> What do you think?</b>


I suppose the best judge ought to be observation. As we observe our planet intact after 4 billion years, I'd say there's something wrong with Herndon's model.



I don’t know what properly aligned implosion charges are. If it is just an analogy that you use to help explain the last paragraph I discussed about differentiation as opposed to dilution, I guess it may not matter, but please correct me if I am wrong.


Briefly, the simplest nuclear bombs consist of a shell of Uranium or Plutonium, cut into chunks (for example, like slices of an orange), which are separated from each other. This configuration spaces out the fissile material, thus preventing it from being at a critical mass where a runaway fission reaction would occur. Around these dowels of fissile material are placed a number of high-explosive charges that are directional and pointed inward toward the center of the split shell. When precisely balanced as to strength and detonated in a precise sequence, these implosion charges jam the pieces together and symmetrically collapse them into a ball of fissile material which then has a sufficient critical mass and density to touch off a runaway chain reaction. A nuclear explosion follows.

If these implosion charges are misaligned or not fired off in the precise sequence, instead of collapsing the fissile material they will blow it apart and no nuclear explosion will occur. This demonstrates the tight balancing act that must be achieved to have a nuclear detonation. In the core, such a balancing act is impossible due to the chaotic currents and convection. There is nothing in the core that could precisely contain and concentrate fissile material into a critical mass sufficient for a nuclear explosion of the magnitude that would blow apart the Earth or even significantly increase volcanism at the surface (which is insulated from the core by thousands of kilometers of liquid and solid rock.)



“For a core to overheat, the amount of heat produced by the core should exceed the amount of heat transmitted to the planetary surface and emitted into space.


The problem with this is that it assumes the amount of heat emitted by the planetary surface is constant. If the core were to heat up, this heat would melt its way through the mantle and eventually the crust, heating up the surface and then getting radiated into space.



The higher the planetary surface temperature, however, the more heat radiated into space to cool the planetary interior (and the core). Hence, hotter planets may not necessarily have hotter cores.


That is very wrong. Consider two kettles full of boiling water. One is at room temperature. The other is red-hot. In which case does the water in the kettle cool faster?



The problem here is that our "crust" is a thermal insulator. On one hand it is good, because we do not have to walk on lava, but on the other we have to be very careful not to overheat the interior by putting more insulation (greenhouse gas pollution) for too long”.


This ignores the fact that our "crust" exists only because it is cool enough to be solid. If the core heats up too much, the crust will melt, thus eliminating some of the "insulation" while simultaneously removing some of the heat from the core. Naturally, the system balances out so that if the core were ever to just keep on heating up, it would eventually melt the entire crust through, returning the Earth to its original state as a ball of magma. If the core continued to heat up, this ball of magma would expand due to heat-driven expansion, much in the same way that red giant stars form. But any of this is impossible, as the Earth has ever less internal energy ever since it was formed, due to the ongoing nuclear decay.



Secondly I wonder why the planet has no magnetic field and has a deep crust. Is it that it has no molten rock? Why is that the case, if it is so hot? Perhaps, due to the pressure of the atmosphere, there is not much scope for the continuation of fission reactions and therefore the interior of Venus is not so hot?


The surface of Venus is hot not due to some internal heat from the core, but due to the greenhouse effect generated by its atmosphere.

Venus has no magnetic field to speak of primarily because it practically does not rotate. For earth, its rotation drives its internal dynamo. For Venus, one day lasts 243 Earth days. Not much of a dynamo to speak of.

Venus has a much thicker crust because it retains most of its primordial crust. Earth lost a lot of its surface crust in the impact that formed the Moon. The Moon is, in effect, the old crust of the Earth sent into orbit. That's why it has a relatively low density compared to Earth, and proportionately a much smaller core. For example, see here:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/lunar-01d.html

The pressure of the atmosphere is insignificant when compared to the pressure from the overlying rock. For example, 3 meters of water are equivalent in pressure to 1 Earth atmosphere. Rock is usually heavier than water...



Consider that heavier elements might not be closer to the sun, since higher forces would be required to decellerate heavier objects?


They are closer to the Sun, for two reasons. First, when heavier particles orbit together with lighter particles, the lighter partiles tend to be kicked out while the heavier particles coalesce toward the center. Second, the emergent Sun sends out streams of radiation and solar wind that sweep out lighter particles before they do heavier ones. Thus you get the situation where the rocky planets are concentrated toward the sun, and the gas giants are on the periphery.

mgs
08-15-02, 06:58 PM
Hi,

Moreover, where do you get this idea that the Earth "received" a core at the K/T boundary??........
http://www.noahsark-naxuan.com/TDBLDsynopsis.htm, claims that the core of the earth was received at the K/T boundary.
Your evidence against that hypothesis could be tested against the information at this site.
?? Nuclear fission and radioactive decay are the same thing.
Thanks. So since the only reasons I gave for the possibility of earth being hotter and more likely to explode soon were the core having been received, and for nuclear fission being different from radioactive decay. It would seem that the core wouldn’t be likely to explode.
However isn’t there a difference between a nuclear reactor with some kind of critical mass (minimum concentration of fissile material) that generates energy faster than the same mass spread diluted over a larger volume?
Couldn’t a core that is decaying, in the sense that it is losing the lighter fission products by differentiation according to density, achieve larger critical masses than ever before, if temperatures rose increasing the rate of differentiation.
The reason for the increased temperatures being, that the fresher core of the past had less concentrated nuclear material, and the absence of past greenhouse gases that did not cause global volcanism. The reason I make that qualification, is that unless core heating up in the past did not cause global volcanism, then it is more likely that we should do something to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, because it is more likely that we could cause global volcanism.

If greenhouse gas concentrations were higher than now, and there was equal water vapour, then an explosion soon would not be expected,

?? why?
I meant that if gg concentrations (including all significant grenhosue gases like water vapour) were higher in the past, then if the core is more likely to have exploded then, than it is likely to explode now when there are less greenhouse gas emissions, if core heating as a cause of catastrophic volcanism is an accurate theory.

It is widely accepted now that the K/T boundary is defined by a massive impact of a mile-wide or larger asteroid. Such an impact would send powerful shockwaves through the entire planet which would manifest as massive earthquakes. They would be especially dramatic on the opposite side of the globe from the impact site, where concentric shockwaves would converge toward a point and constructively interfere. If the impact was indeed around the Yucatan peninsula in Mexico as is currently thought, then it wouldn't be surprising to find such convergence of shockwaves somewhere around India. It would naturally trigger massive volcanism....

So basically you disagree that violent volcanism was independent of an asteroid attack and think that volcanism may not have been the most significant side effect. I think it could be best to test your interesting theory with that of Courtillot, if we couldn’t think of anything more urgent.

I totally agree that everyone thinks that if the earth gets hotter, more of the core becomes more mobile, but possibly the lighter parts of it first because less force is required to accelerate lighter materials to a certain degree.



That would be true, except the lighter parts are precisely the parts that don't contain high percentage of fissile material. The parts that do contain it are heavier, and they heat up to the exclusion of the lighter parts. Rock, generally speaking, is a pretty good thermal insulator, so I expect convection to take place before heat transfer could equalize temperatures.
I am not sure what I originally meant, however I think we now agree that the core could have some more concentrated deposits of fissionable material, and they produce lighter products (or poisons as they were mysteriously called) and the lighter products could decelerate the heat generation, however sufficient temperatures can sometimes exist that cause the lighter products to be separated as lighter fluids rise above the denser ones by diffusion. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t consider the need to reduce greenhouse emissions on the basis of heating up the core being risky.


that wouldn't explain such things as magnetic field reversals. At any rate, I don't believe anyone has a convincing account right now of how the geomagnetic field evolves.
What you say is true, Roberts and Glatzmaier said that their model did predict a reversal at the end of a 40,000 year simulation, as due to fluid dynamics. I wonder what kind of heat source that assumed to be driving convection in their model? If not a nuclear reactor core, it would seem that a nuclear reactor core is less likely to be a necessary condition for the variability of the geomagnetic field.
However anuclear reactor core is consistent with a geomagnetic field that varies due to chaotic fluid dynamics due to the rotation and motion of the planet, which I think was the main basis for Roberts and Glatzmaier’s model. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t consider the need to reduce greenhouse emissions on the basis of heating up the core being risky.
Use common sense to figure out which is more likely. For example, imagine two immiscible liquids in a beaker, one heavy and one light. If you leave them alone, they'll eventually settle into two distinct layers, with the heavier liquid on the bottom. Now put a heat source under the beaker (which will warm up the heavier fluid first, simulating fission). You'll observe convection, with the fluids increasingly mixing up in a chaotic flow of currents. The more you heat it, the more chaos there will be. This is as opposed to increased differentiation, or order.
Consider that two liquids of different density in a beaker isn’t a good model for the core of the earth. Consider that the core of the earth is instead “hyper-plastic”, or partly solid, and the heavy and light stuff is originally mixed to some extent. Now if there is heating up, maybe it is enough to shed some light materials, but not enough to mix the heavy fissionable stuff with the light stuff. Why not?
Now I understand what I meant by saying that the lighter materials require less force to be accelerated, it was to suggest that maybe the heavy stuff is too heavy to get mixed up by high temperatures? Isn’t that possible?

Your suggestion that 4 billion years is long enough for all the differentiation of the core to have already happened, so that necessary maximum critical masses have already been formed seems to be an arbitrary guess, like saying, surface temperature change of a few degrees due to increased greenhouse concentrations, would be to the core temperatures, like a flea to a whale.

In the core, such a balancing act is impossible due to the chaotic currents and convection. There is nothing in the core that could precisely contain and concentrate fissile material into a critical mass sufficient for a nuclear explosion of the magnitude that would blow apart the Earth or even significantly increase volcanism at the surface (which is insulated from the core by thousands of kilometers of liquid and solid rock.)
Couldn’t the immense pressure under the earth, serve equivalent to implosion charges, considering that the lighter non-fissionable materials might be able to be convected, whereas the heavy materials might not?

Does your suggestion have significantly higher chances of accuracy than mine? Would it be effective to quantitatively compare the magnitudes of the factors like different ability for lighter and heavier materials to be convected under pressure and high temperature and high pressures being equivalent to implosion charges, in some kind of scaled down experiment. Do any exist? Should they be done?

The problem with this is that it assumes the amount of heat emitted by the planetary surface is constant. If the core were to heat up, this heat would melt its way through the mantle and eventually the crust, heating up the surface and then getting radiated into space.

The essence of the argument doesn’t depend on this assumption, it depends on the assumption that it is reasonable to consider the possibility that the extent to which a hotter surface can cool down faster under conditions of higher greenhouse gas concentrations, might be sufficiently small, that the core could heat up.

That is very wrong. Consider two kettles full of boiling water. One is at room temperature. The other is red-hot. In which case does the water in the kettle cool faster?

The boiling water kettle cools down faster, according to heat transfer laws that q=T1-T2. But Chalko’s point seems to be that Venus has high surface temperatures and therefore radiates a lot of heat, so its core might not be hotter than the earth’s. Sure Venus also has lots of greenhouse gases apparently. But maybe the surface heat is so high that there is high enough radiation that the Venus core is less hot than the earth core.

Venus has no magnetic field to speak of primarily because it practically does not rotate. For earth, its rotation drives its internal dynamo. For Venus, one day lasts 243 Earth days. Not much of a dynamo to speak of.

So maybe Venus does have some molten rock after all, or maybe not. But you’ve shown that absence of molten rock isn’t necessary condition for absence of geomagnetic field.

The pressure of the atmosphere is insignificant when compared to the pressure from the overlying rock. For example, 3 meters of water are equivalent in pressure to 1 Earth atmosphere. Rock is usually heavier than water...
What about the increased pressure of a thicker crust?

Conclusion:
Discussion of the fluid/solid composition dynamics of earth core means, bigger critical masses could happen.

Does Venus have mega-volcanism?

Is Venus not likely to get bigger critical masses because of different kind of core fluid/solid composition dynamics?

Clockwood
09-12-02, 11:10 PM
Frankly, I think this thread should be dumped in the psudo-science folder.

The earth is not a nuclear reactor, it is just really hot. That heat was from the initial formation of our planet from a superheated dust cloud and meteorites.

It vents heat slowly, through volcanoes and normal radiation.

mgs
09-13-02, 05:22 AM
Hi,
it may be relevant to mention that it may not be a priority to study this theory immediately because it turns out that according to www.nujournal.net/core.pdf, the article has been withdrawn from publication so that the author can revise it.
However at the thread at sciforums about "whether earth's core is a nuclear reactor", here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9742&perpage=20&highlight=earth%20core%20nuclear%20reactor&pagenumber=2
the participants agreed that at least small scale critical masses could form within the core of the earth. Please see my latest comment there about the probability of the earth core being a nuclear reactor in any sense.

It may not be helpful for Clockwork to just say "the earth heat is from the initial heat of formation" without saying why there should be no heat from a nuclear reactor in the earth, or why there should not be fissionable materials in the core of the earth that could undergo fission at a high rate, if the earth core heated up enough.
You do imply a reason why it is not undergoing nuclear fission currently because it releases heat so slowly through radiation and volcanic activity, but you don't imply any reasons why there aren't those fissionable materials ready to explode if they differentiate.
However on a fact based note can you provide sufficient evidence that the slow heat release that you descirbe could not be the result of nuclear fission. Do you know what kind of energy intensity nuclear fission would involve, and to what extent it would be diffused at the surface of the earth?

You may then want to rebut Chalko's theory at www.nujournal.net/core.pdf, when it is available again.
Or you may want to rebut Herndon's theory from Nuclear Planet, if you want to prove anything.

Gifted
09-14-02, 08:31 AM
What I was told in school(before this idea came up) was that there is a large amount of radioactive material in the core and mantle. Through decay, these materials produce heat. This heats the inside to the earth enought to produce the liquid mantle and outer core.

Popcorn8636
09-15-02, 06:59 PM
No way am I reading all 71 posts before this, but I think that 'global warming' is actually something natural. How do you explain the ice ages, and what melted all that ice??? Keep in mind that there's been one in the past million years.

Agesilaus
09-16-02, 08:15 PM
As for those natural reactors, they are no longer possible since natural uranium's U-235 concentration has decayed below the critical level. Same thing would pertain to the core unless the core material was "squeezed" enough to fullfill the requirements of the six factor formula. I don't know the physics enough to say if this is possible, you'd need some sort of neutron moderator and moderators are usually light elements. You would not expect to find much in the way of light elements in the core. The Gabon reactors occured in a river bed with lots of water. Water is a good moderator.

There is radioactive decay going on in the core and most of the heavy elements like Uranium and Thorium ended up in the core. It is primarily iron-nickel but there are plenty other high density elements to spice up the mixture.

zira
10-02-02, 07:09 PM
Earth will not explode due to global warming.

Because potential increase of temperature end interior pressure in the magma will lead to increased volcano activity.

Volcanos as security devices will thus avoid explosion of earth.

Maybe slightly more atmospheric pollution but nothing dramatic.

gotanygum
10-06-02, 04:19 PM
If you remember from reading the article, this situation is mentioned both as a precursor to earth's explosion, or as a possible alternative future situation, from core.pdf file.

[currently it is being revised and is temporarily unavailable, dont know how long it will be--wonder what is being discovered].

In case increased violent and amount of volcanic activity does keep earth intact, i wouldn't think it wouldn't seem to leave humans very intact [again, potential ice-age or similar after-effect as per core article]. Would you?

There are ways to measure crust temperature at significantly deep enough depths that can test the equations of delta T for the core, already. Was it 20-25 meters depth? I think so.

unbalanced
10-29-02, 06:04 PM
This theory may be a little easier for you sarcos to follow.
1-polar icecaps melt
2-sea level rises
3-water pressure on ocean floor rises
4-the plates of earth's crust are pushed down by the water pressure increase
5-the pressure must be released
6-volcanoes begin to erupt more frequently to release this pressure
7-too many volcanoes erupting send us into what is called"nuclear winter"
8-earth kills us cause we be so ignorant

raddy
11-02-02, 05:05 PM
Anything is possible. However, I side with the volcano theory. If the pressure on the earth builds, its obvious release would be in in the form of a volcanic erruption or somthing similar to that.

Commerce
03-21-06, 06:13 PM
I know you hate facts, banshee, but there is no other way to deal with reality. So this man says --and you go along with it-- that if Earth warms a little more, it will explode?

I remind you that Earth has been significantly warmer before, and nothing happened, as nothing happens to Venus or Mercury that are thousand of degrees warmer than Earth. Or perhaps they have not a built-in fussion reactor inside? They came without "batteries included"? That would not seem plausible as they were formed at the same time as Earth, and by the same process.

But remain calm. Temperatures during the called Little Climatic Optimum (800-1200 AD) were 2.0°C higher than now and, as shown by NASA satellites readings, the Earth has not warmed at all since they started making the readings --and add to that that the Antarctic has been getting colder and colder for the past 35 years, then it seems we are not going to explode...

At least not before the 100,000 years of Glacial Age that is coming towards us. Wrap yourself with a thick blanket and turn on your solar powered heater, banshee, it is going to be really cooooold! The planet will not go poof and explode but there is no scientific proof that mercuary didnt have water or life or plants on it 1 billion years ago and what im trying to say is

Earth may not explode but it is highly possibal that are atomospher will go poof wich causes earth to end up like Mercuary, Hotter then hell and how the hell do we know if mercuary didnt have a atomospher or plants or life on it? i know its close to the sun but does are law of physics apply to aliens????

What my point is that if earth did explode it would be faster then hell and we wouldnt even notice it and why wouldnt we notice it???? BECAUSE! earth has something called a Core and if it ever cracked we would die in a instant without even fealing it unless gravity gave out before the planet exploded wich means we would die of oxygen

Cant u idiots see!! we are stupid idiot and we are killing ourselfs

Commerce
03-21-06, 06:35 PM
Mabey Humans came from another planet and eventually moved to earth! mabey it went like this

Pluto
neptune
uranous ( people farted to much and the planet exploded :O but there were suvivors
venus
some other planets
Mars
earth

Well people it looks like are next step is mercuary where we can get sun tanned all day long. Imma bring lots of water to mercuary when earth finally explodes

O and did u nubs know that Earth gets wider each year wich means that are planet will grow to be as big as the sun! so sweet huh! to bad we explode before then

Wtf ever happend to the god theary man god wont let us explode!

CANGAS
03-22-06, 02:52 AM
The thread starter needs to study manmade nuclear reactors THOROUGHLY to come to an understanding of how they work, and, therefore, how a natural, accidental, reactor would work.

Reactors get hotter or colder only because of the presence or absence of neutron moderator material in the immediate proximity to the fuel.

The housing of the reactor certainly may need adequate cooling so that it will not suffer from the heat, structurally, but the temperature of the housing has no influence at all on the progress of the nuclear reaction.

Muslim
03-22-06, 09:31 AM
I heard Global warming is a load of bullshit, and the earth had been warming and cooling for over past year, i.e the mini ice age we had and stuff. And also, some scientists did an experiment to see, if the methane in the seas would react if the seas got warmer and the found that, it would not happen.

I mean how bad can it be? humans have been through all sorts of stuff world war 1 world war 2, ect, ect. We will get through it.

Muslim
03-22-06, 09:33 AM
As you can see I'm an optimistic. But if you really want to be worried about something you, should be worried about all those non tracked comets and asteroids. Its more likely that we would die from a comet hitting us then Global warming remember the dinosaurs?

Muslim
03-22-06, 09:35 AM
"Galileo discovered that Earth moves"

lol, how hard was that?

Communist Hamster
03-22-06, 10:39 AM
does are law of physics apply to aliens????
Hahaha. You have no idea how stupid that statement is, do you? The laws of physics apply to EVERYTHING, nub.

kmguru
03-22-06, 06:41 PM
wow...somebody dug this thread out from deep freeze...! Congratulations....did we run out of ideas....:D

CANGAS
03-22-06, 11:53 PM
What you mean "we", Registered User?

Matt Townsend
03-24-06, 12:57 AM
Looks like something had started, severe cyclones forming around aussie with category 5's!!! Awesome landfall at Innisfail with winds up to 290km/hr, seems worst than Katrina last season! New cyclones forming right now around aussie circle!!!!

Matt

Communist Hamster
03-24-06, 01:29 AM
Looks like something had started, severe cyclones forming around aussie with category 5's!!! Awesome landfall at Innisfail with winds up to 290km/hr, seems worst than Katrina last season! New cyclones forming right now around aussie circle!!!!

Matt
Aww, MattMarrs first sockpuppet. How adorable.

Matt Townsend
03-24-06, 01:58 AM
WHAT R U TALKING ABOUT? I feel pissed now as i just joined this forum.

Matt

Communist Hamster
03-24-06, 02:15 AM
Pissed? The maybe you should stop drinking :p

I aplogise, but there is another poster called MattMarr on this forum who makes a habit of posting nonsense claiming it was the Illuminati. He also occasionally uses pathetic fallacy (weather) as a theme. Your post just happened to seem like one of his going down a different road, and of course your username has Matt in it.

Matt Townsend
03-24-06, 02:36 AM
I am different Matt. I from Ballina from Australia. I working on climate and weather, studying at school and learning to be meteorology.

Any comments on my first post?

Matt

Communist Hamster
03-24-06, 02:53 PM
Not really, sorry. I'm no meteorologist, or an Australian.

I don't know
03-29-06, 10:21 AM
I heard Global warming is a load of bullshit, and the earth had been warming and cooling for over past year, i.e the mini ice age we had and stuff.- No one's denying that the global temperatures are affected by nature, what's being said is that there is a dramatic warming that's taken place since the industrial revolution that's on a scale and with a speed that's unprecedented in human existence - this warming can't be explained by natural factors alone, but are explained by human emissions of greenhouse gases.


I mean how bad can it be? humans have been through all sorts of stuff world war 1 world war 2, ect, ect. We will get through it.- I don't think anyone doubts that some humans will survive (unless we act really stupid), but I kind of think we should set our sights higher than that, don't you? :|

Andre
03-31-06, 04:14 AM
Relax, there is nothing going on. Just an unprecedent scaremongering campaign like Chalko, the causer of the very first opening post intended to do. There is nothing unprecedent in the rate of warming. It was supposed to have happened 11,600 years ago but then with a rate of 10 degrees in as little as 10 years (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0318/p13s01-sten.htm) which is speculation based on biased interpretation, but that's another story. Humans were around by then.

The warming of the last decade is actually surprsingly low (Palle et al 2006), considered the abnormal low cloud coverage which should have induced a theoretical black body warming of 2,8 degrees Celsius but it was only 0,6C without any influence of greenhouse gasses.

The current hype is now stronger than ever due to a positive feedback loop of people wanting to be feared, media that want to scaremonger, climate scientists who need more money for their toy models and governments that seek leadership in fighting against the threat and get happy tax payers in the process.

The warming has already spiked out, the warmest year being 1998 and in a few decades global warming will just be another tick in the series: the eugenics scare, anti-semitism, mutual assured destruction, nuclear waste et al, nuclear meltdown scenarios, the coming ice age, the population bomb, acid rain, the asteroid collision, the clash of the civilizations, radon, microwaves and power lines, Y2K, peak oil etc. It will only costs us a few billion more. Money that could have been used for mitigating the real disasters.