Global Warming: Earth can EXPLODE !!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
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 [[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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
kmguru, what is your general opinion, politically, of articles that are published by UPI?

I barely visit that site
 
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 -
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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...)
 
hi, I think we might have missed the point

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?
 
Last edited:
who is A. F. on climate indymedia?

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.
 
Last edited:
next steps

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
Purpose: emphasise that we get facts straight before speculations?

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"
 
Daly, Feyerra say the sun is causing the warming …
Daly says urban heat islands are the cause of the warming. … Feyerra replied that it was a structural failure not a melting.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
 
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
 
Last edited:
Why didn't earth explode when it was hotter in the past

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?
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top