Summary:
by Dr Tom J. Chalko, MSc, PhD,
Head of Geophysics Division, Scientific E Research P/L, Melbourne, Australia
submitted on 8 April 2001
Consequences of global warming are far more serious than previously imagined. These consequences relate to the newly discovered properties of the "inner core" of our planet.
It is a well established fact, verified by decades of seismic measurements, that the Earth's inner core is a nearly spherical solid of about 1220 km radius that occupies the central position of our planet. The generally accepted view today is that this solid grew slowly to its current size as a result of the "crystallization" of the surrounding liquid. The "latent heat" of this "crystallization" allegedly explains how the inner core generates heat.
This article considers global hydro-gravitational equilibrium conditions for the Earth's inner core and presents a proof that the solid core of our planet could never be smaller or lighter than a certain minimum, otherwise the core would not be able to remain in the center of the planet.
Since the inner core could have only been larger and heavier in the past than it is today - it cannot be the result of any "crystallization". This simple conclusion has astonishing consequences.
Imagine a gigantic object of 1220 km radius that slowly becomes smaller, lighter and gives off heat for millions of years. What could it be? It can only be an object that generates heat by nuclear decay.
The main consequence of the above is that all heat generated inside Earth is of radionic origin. In other words, 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 their daughter products of decay in the mantle and in the crust.
Life on Earth is possible only because of the efficient cooling of this reactor - a process that is limited primarily by the atmosphere. Currently this cooling is responsible for a fine thermal balance between the heat from the core reactor, the heat from the Sun and the radiation of heat into space, so that the average temperature on Earth is about 13 deg C.
Since the radionic heat is generated in the entire volume of nuclear fuel (the entire Earth) and cooling can occur only at the surface, the hottest point of the planet should be in the very center of the planet.
This article examines the possibility of the "meltdown" of the central part of the inner core due to the reduced cooling capacity of the atmosphere, which traps progressively more solar heat due to the so-called greenhouse effect. Factors that can accelerate the meltdown process, such as an increased solar activity coinciding with increased emissions of greenhouse gasses are discussed.
The most serious consequence of such a "meltdown" could be a gravity-buoyancy based segregation of unstable isotopes in the molten inner core. Such a segregation can "enrich" the nuclear fuel in the core to the point of creating conditions for a chain reaction and a gigantic atomic explosion. Can Earth become another "asteroid belt" in the Solar system?
It is a common knowledge (experiencing seasons) that solar heat is the dominant factor that determines temperatures on the surface of Earth. In the polar regions however, the contribution of solar heat is minimal and this is where the contribution of the heat from the inside of our planet can be seen best. Raising polar ocean temperatures and melting of polar caps should therefore be the first symptoms of overheating of the inner core reactor.
While politicians and businessmen still debate the need for reducing greenhouse emissions and take pride to evade accepting any responsibility, the process of overheating of the inner core reactor has already begun - polar oceans have become warmer and polar caps have begun to melt. Do we have enough imagination, intelligence and integrity to comprehend the danger before the situation becomes irreversible?
There will be NO SECOND CHANCE...
How many degrees is the "inner core" from its meltdown point? Do we know enough to predict the intensity of solar activity in the next decade? Full article
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.
We are not the first "civilization" on Earth to be wiped out due to the lack of understanding of Nature. Are we to be the LAST one? Do notorious abusers of Nature deserve to exist?
"The proof: If intellect is unwilling or unable to understand the analysis - no proof is possible." [The Freedom of Choice]
This summary can be freely distributed, providing that no content is altered or removed. Someone needs to do something. We will continue to do research and publish it. You can begin helping out by forwarding this abstract (or a link to it) to all your friends and anyone who is conscious enough to comprehend the information above. The only chance we have is to inform enough people across the planet so that they can consciously and intelligently CHOOSE to DEMAND action from "leaders" whom they elected. Believing is not enough. People need to KNOW. 
der, Colorado. The increases coincide closely with rises in sea surface temperatures in the eastern Atlantic tropics. Previous studies have attributed these rises to human emissions of greenhouse gases. "That [correlation] implies there is a substantial contribution by greenhouse warming to the current crop of tropical cyclones," Holland said. The study also shows that the proportion of major hurricanes to less intense hurricanes has sharply increased in recent years, which agrees with earlier studies showing an increase in stronger storms. However, the new study found the proportion of major hurricanes has fluctuated with a "remarkably constant period of oscillation" over the past century, Holland said. The oscillation appears to be a natural variability not associated with warming. So while the storms' severity seems to fluctuate in a natural cycle, their frequency is on the rise, he explained. "What we're seeing [now] is a high point of major storms, which has been a very, very stable oscillation, combined with a sharp increase in the frequency of all storms, which has been a trend," Holland said. Holland and Peter Webster of the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta published their findings online today in the research journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. He is a leading critic of studies that link increased storm intensity to global warming, saying historical data are too crude to determine long-term trends. The same, he argues, is true for storm frequency. "The doubling in the number of storms that they find in their paper is just an artifact of technology, not climate change," he wrote. Airplanes and satellites outfitted with sensitive instruments to monitor tropical storms did not exist a hundred years ago. Aircraft began monitoring hurricanes in 1944, satellites about 1970. Recent research by Landsea finds three to four tropical storms were missed before the mid-1960s. And one storm a year was missed from the 1970s to the 1990s. "When one takes into account these missing storms, the upward trend disappears and large multiyear variations remain," he said. According to Holland, however, the technological improvements cannot account for all the observed increase in tropical storms. His new study accounts for three missed storms per year in the pre-satellite era, and a statistically significant increase is still present, he said. "So, yes there's uncertainty, there's no doubt about that," Holland said. "But it doesn't change our conclusions." Frequency Transitions According to the study, the period from 1900 to 1930 saw an average of six Atlantic tropical storms a year, with four of those storms growing into hurricanes. From 1930 to 1940, the annual average increased to ten, with five hurricanes and five tropical storms. Then, from 1995 to 2005, the average number of storms increased to 15, with 8 hurricanes and 7 tropical storms. Even 2006, which seemed mild in the wake of the record-breaking 2005 season, saw ten tropical storms, the authors note. Holland likened the transition phases to a thunderstorm in the Rocky Mountains—the sun rises and warms up the clear blue skies for hours, and then suddenly a thunderstorm develops. "That's a very good example, but what we're looking at is happening on the global scale," he said. The most recent period has yet to stabilize, leading the authors to conclude there may be even more active hurricane seasons in the future, though other factors may dampen the storm activity. "What I will say is there is no evidence that I'm aware of and nothing I can think of which indicates they are going to go back down," Holland said. Increase your knowledge and be aware about global warming and its impact, for more knowdlage visit (Courtesy:nationalgeographic.com)
