Runaway Global Warming

[Billy T]

...Just fishing Billy T, but if as you say "the hotter the core the faster the reaction rate" would this not make the core susceptible to potential overheating if environmental factors such as the hypothesized geomagnetic /Earth COG instability were to occur?... Would they be as sensitive to gravitational COG instabilities as the USSR systems may have been? ...

Quick answer: No.
You speak basically non-sense about "gravitational COG instabilities." I would like you to be more specific as to what that even means and the time scale for a significant movement of the Earth's center of gravity.

Let me note that yes the CoG does move mainly along the Earth's spin axis (not magnetic axis, which is a somewhat different) with great regulatity in a full cycle period of 12 months. I.e. the mass of snow and ice in the Northern Hemisphere increases in winter. This shift has been happing for a very long time as the spin axis of earth is tilted 23.5 degrees from the orbit plane's normal. (Thus Earth has seasons.)

What other shift you can suggest that is even 0.000,1 as great or as fast?

Also note the Earth/moon barycenter orbits the sun in nearly perfect ellipse and has for an equally long time (as the ~23.5 degree tilt.) The separation between earth and moon, is slowly increasing, and has been for millions of years. (I.e. every since the moon "belonged to the earth." I don't know when or how Earth got its moon, but there had to be some "third body" involved. Before earth got ist moon, the spin axis may have significantly different from the current 23.5 degrees, but probably not by 10 degrees.)

Again, to not appear so ignorant, please be more specific as to what significant movement of the Earth's center of gravity you refer to, what causes it, what tiny fraction of the seasonal shift it makes, and what is the time scale for your postulated shift, which is important to GW.

 

[sculptor]

Oh I see our point with out a problem... however rats are also very common also... especially when dealing with cold war politics and policy. But all the same I agree that my thoughts may appear to be out of order except there is more in the back ground that I haven't mentioned that also point to this particular time in human history. 1985/86 as being pivotal.


Example: Significant satellite generated solar luminosity data that mysteriously disappears shortly after publication showing a significant gain of 2% per an. starting from 1985/6 over and above normal fluctuations.
Significant seismic data that shows similar. But wait there is more...

Perhaps you would care to offer an alternative explanation for the obvious gain in seismic tension/pressure we are experiencing and how that relates to climate change and CO2

then again it all may be mere coincidence that my paranoid mind may be having a field day with....

You need a longer timeframe for your chart.
There was a simular cluster of earthquakes 60-70 years ago.
It seems that all energy we've ever observed comes in pulses.
Here's a partial list of earthquakes of 8 and above, more at: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/historical_mag_big.php

• 1960 05 22 - Chile - M 9.5
• 1964 03 28 - Prince William Sound, Alaska - M 9.2
• 2004 12 26 - Sumatra-Andaman Islands - M 9.1
• 2011 03 11 - Near the East Coast of Honshu, Japan - M 9.0
• 1952 11 04 - Kamchatka - M 9.0
• 1868 08 13 - Arica, Peru (now Chile) - M 9.0
• 1700 01 26 - Cascadia Subduction Zone - M 9.0
  
• 2010 02 27 - Offshore Bio-Bio, Chile - M 8.8
• 1906 01 31 - Off the Coast of Esmeraldas, Ecuador - M 8.8
• 1965 02 04 - Rat Islands, Alaska - M 8.7
• 1755 11 01 - Lisbon, Portugal - M 8.7
• 1730 07 08 - Valparaiso, Chile - M 8.7
• 2012 04 11 - off the west coast of northern Sumatra - M 8.6
• 2005 03 28 - Northern Sumatra, Indonesia - M 8.6
• 1957 03 09 - Andreanof Islands, Alaska - M 8.6
• 1950 08 15 - Assam - Tibet - M 8.6
• 2007 09 12 - Southern Sumatra, Indonesia - M 8.5
• 1963 10 13 - Kuril Islands - M 8.5
• 1938 02 01 - Banda Sea, Indonesia - M 8.5
• 1923 02 03 - Kamchatka - M 8.5
• 1922 11 11 - Chile-Argentina Border - M 8.5
• 1896 06 15 - Sanriku, Japan - M 8.5
• 1687 10 20 - Lima, Peru - M 8.5
• 2001 06 23 - Near the Coast of Peru - M 8.4
• 1933 03 02 - Sanriku, Japan - M 8.4
• 1905 07 09 - Mongolia - M 8.4
• 2006 11 15 - Kuril Islands - M 8.3
• 2003 09 25 - Hokkaido, Japan Region - M 8.3
• 1958 11 06 - Kuril Islands - M 8.3
• 1903 08 11 - Southern Greece - M 8.3
• 1897 06 12 - Assam, India - M 8.3
• 1877 05 10 - Offshore Tarapaca, Chile - M 8.3
• 1843 02 08 - Leeward Islands - M 8.3
• 2012 04 11 - off the west coast of northern Sumatra - M 8.2
• 1994 06 09 - Bolivia - M 8.2
• 1968 05 16 - Off the East Coast of Honshu, Japan - M 8.2
• 1943 04 06 - Illapel - Salamanca, Chile - M 8.2
• 1942 08 24 - Off the coast of central Peru - M 8.2
• 1940 05 24 - Callao, Peru - M 8.2
• 1938 11 10 - Shumagin Islands, Alaska - M 8.2
• 1908 12 12 - Off the Coast of Central Peru - M 8.2
• 1906 08 17 - Valparaiso, Chile - M 8.2
• 1835 02 20 - Concepcion, Chile - M 8.2
• 1821 07 10 - Camana, Peru - M 8.2
• 2009 09 29 - Samoa Islands region - M 8.1
• 2007 01 13 - East of the Kuril Islands - M 8.1
• 2007 04 01 - Solomon Islands - M 8.1
• 2004 12 23 - North of Macquarie Island - M 8.1
• 1998 03 25 - Balleny Islands Region - M 8.1
• 1974 10 03 - Near the Coast of Central Peru - M 8.1
• 1966 10 17 - Near the Coast of Peru - M 8.1
• 1957 12 04 - Gobi-Altay, Mongolia - M 8.1
• 1952 03 04 - Hokkaido, Japan region - M 8.1
• 1949 08 22 - Haida Gwaii (Queen Charlotte Islands), British Columbia, Canada - M 8.1
• 1946 12 20 - Nankaido, Japan - M 8.1
• 1946 04 01 - Unimak Island, Alaska - M 8.1
• 1944 12 07 - Tonankai, Japan - M 8.1
• 1934 01 15 - Bihar, India - Nepal - M 8.1
• 1932 06 03 - Jalisco, Mexico - M 8.1
• 1911 06 15 - Ryukyu Islands, Japan - M 8.1
• 2007 08 15 - Near the Coast of Central Peru - M 8.0
• 2006 05 03 - Tonga - M 8.0
• 2000 11 16 - New Ireland Region, Papua New Guinea - M 8.0
• 1985 09 19 - Michoacan, Mexico - M 8.0
• 1970 07 31 - Colombia - M 8.0
• 1946 08 04 - Samana, Dominican Republic - M 8.0
• 1945 11 27 - Makran Coast, Pakistan - M 8.0
• 1931 08 10 - Xinjiang, China - M 8.0
• 1920 06 05 - Taiwan region - M 8.0
• 1907 10 21 - Qaratog, Tajikistan - M 8.0
• 1899 09 10 - Yakutat Bay, Alaska - M 8.0
• 1891 10 27 - Mino-Owari, Japan - M 8.0
• 1855 01 23 - Wellington, New Zealand - M 8.0
• 1787 05 02 - Puerto Rico - M 8.0
• 1668 08 17 - Anatolia, Turkey - M 8.0
• 1556 01 23 - Shensi, China - M 8.0

 

[sculptor]

Have you ever heard or read about something called a gee-whiz graph or gee-whiz chart.
It is a chart or graph which has had removed it's bottom or side so that it only shows the data which sells your idea.
Once you acknowledge that people play with statistics and charts/graphs in such a manner, their use and abundance in in of it's self is quite informative.

 

[billvon]

The spontaneous self destruction and reactor failure at Chernobyl in 1986 was deliberately blamed on human error as a smoke screen to hypothetically hide the severe and unexpected shift in "natural" geomagnetic integrity and poor reactor design, that led to nuclear reaction becoming potentially uncontrollable.

Actually, it was just plain human error; they have analyzed it to death and understand in detail all the mistakes they made. It was undoubtedly a poor design, but not one that guaranteed an accident.
(As proof that it was not an inherent flaw destined to doom all such nuclear power plants, the other nuclear reactors in the complex ran until 2000, when the last one was shut down. That's another 14 years.)

 

[billvon]

o if the Earths COG was impacted so to were the individual nuclear elements of all nuclear devices. [right down to the atomic structures]
I also believe that the stability of magnetic fields is directly related to the constancy of gravity.

And yet reactors work just fine in the microgravity of orbit. The claim that millionths of a G change could destroy a nuclear reactor, but a full G change will not, is not credible. (Same with the changes in magnetic field that a reactor sees in orbit.)

Gravitational instability is harder to detect than magnetic on smaller scales [ except universal scales such as cosmic expansion etc. - Hubble telescope ]

It is among the easiest force to measure. A scalar change affects spring based scales. A vector change affects levels. Such tools are widely used.

The magnetic fields that made up the core elements of reactor 4 may have become unstable leading to higher reactor core instability than would have been able to be anticipated by the engineers at Chernobyl. [t'was only theory as Billy T stated]
Thus with the high risk testing procedure combined with hidden geomagnetic COG variables a core failure may have resulted.
Basically because the atomic structure of the materials used were being pushed already to extreme tolerances, the destabilization of the materials inherent binding magnetic fields meant that the tolerance levels were possibly exceeded in that sort of reactor.

What, specifically, would a small change in magnetic field do to a fission reaction?

 

[Billy T]

Here is an informative video on cloud seeding etc. (from NOAA & NASA & Livermore facts and speaker inserts) acknowledging the power of silver iodide to make rain locally but suggesting it also makes droughts and is a very toxic, long lasting hazard - a bad idea being widely used with active government support since the 1970s and on smaller scale, prior to 1960.

I. e. man has been doing large scale "geoengineering" for nearly 50 years and perhaps with consequences for humans as bad as his CO2 release! Jump in at a little past 12 minutes to learn that this may be part of why Sao Paulo has only 3.5% of the reservoir's water remaining and the Amazon is now often a net source of CO2. At 19 minutes into video is a summary of four main adverse effects discussed earlier.

 

[Billy T]

Still having problem that caused prior delete. Please open all with click.

Collectively, the past six months have been the hottest since humans started keeping track of global temperatures. Last month was the warmest September humans have recorded, according to both NASA's Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center.

September came at the end of a record-breaking six months: April, May, June, and August of this year were all also the warmest on record, and July came in at fourth hottest. Recent research shows the current warm stretch is probably the planet's warmest in at least 4,000 years. That means global temperatures may have already passed a level that human civilization has never experienced.

The sheer size and depth of the world's oceans means that most of global warming's extra heat has been stored there. For the last decade or so, atmospheric warming has been playing catch up. That means things will just keep getting warmer. Beyond that {+2C increase} point, many experts agree that the world could see a disastrous series of climate change effects, including widespread floods, fires, storms, famines, and extinctions.

 

[Trippy]

Actually, it was just plain human error; they have analyzed it to death and understand in detail all the mistakes they made. It was undoubtedly a poor design, but not one that guaranteed an accident.
(As proof that it was not an inherent flaw destined to doom all such nuclear power plants, the other nuclear reactors in the complex ran until 2000, when the last one was shut down. That's another 14 years.)

Quite.
It was the design of the reactor and the experiment they were conducting and the management attitudes at the time and, as I recall, some unfortunate timing.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Have you ever heard or read about something called a gee-whiz graph or gee-whiz chart.
It is a chart or graph which has had removed it's bottom or side so that it only shows the data which sells your idea.
Once you acknowledge that people play with statistics and charts/graphs in such a manner, their use and abundance in in of it's self is quite informative.

Yes of course and personally I don't take casually sourced data all that seriously any way. However one thing that does stick for me and gets a 9/10 is that all the data sets that I have looked at, fraudulent of other wise seem to share one unexpected commonality and that is 1985/86.

 

[sculptor]

85/86?

 

[Quantum Quack]

And yet reactors work just fine in the microgravity of orbit. The claim that millionths of a G change could destroy a nuclear reactor, but a full G change will not, is not credible. (Same with the changes in magnetic field that a reactor sees in orbit.)

The fields I am referring to are not external to the reactor but are internal atomic scaled fields. So ambient global gravitational and magnetic factors are not so important but can be used as indication of something anomalous is occurring generally.

It is among the easiest force to measure. A scalar change affects spring based scales. A vector change affects levels. Such tools are widely used.

Not if the universality of the gravitational constant was the issue [items would invariably appear to weigh the same]

What, specifically, would a small change in magnetic field do to a fission reaction?

The issue deals with what I hypothesis is that a fundamental anomaly in the constancy of Gravity manifesting locally during 1985/86.
This anomaly amongst many things effects all substances, culminate or individually, organic or non-organic.
It also impinges upon the integrity of magnetic fields. (organic or non-organic)
There are indications and I do mean indications, not facts, that a very slight loss of pole symmetry is involved as well.
mathematically it might be rendered as:
+1 + (-)0.9995 = 0
N and S poles loosing exact symmetry

So it could be proposed that a major loss of magnetic integrity would effect all atomic structures.
It is further proposed that when a nuclear reactor is being pushed to it's limits as was the case at Chernobyl this loss of integrity may become evident. It takes the extreme situation to manifest the issue.
Like a pyramid on it's tip teetering [thanks Trippy], and just waiting for something to come along and tip it over.
If the assessment is found to be correct Chernobyl was ironically and tragically a lucky wake up call for the future of similar reactors on the presumption that magnetic integrity was trending to the adverse.

 

[Quantum Quack]

anecdotal gossip of magnetic pole asymmetry can be possibly inadvertently revealed by the Steorn Industry fiasco of 2004, with a pseudo free energy magnetic device called ORBO.

It was an utter fiasco and a lot of money was spent (+$400k usd) promoting it's demonstration. I tend to believe that Steorn did in fact have a device that functioned but only because they were working off a playing field that was no longer strictly adhering to the laws of thermo dynamics. The microscopic asymmetry as mentioned above, was enough to get their device happening however observer effects were enough to neutralize any gain they may have had... so that when they attempted to demonstrate it in front of world web cast and media it failed to operate. Remember this is gossip only...
Of course Steorn like any business will attempt to capitalize on failure and recover it's investment, thus claims of fraud against them have a certain weight. Not to mention the conspiracy of petro chem dollars interest etc...
for those that may be interested here is a link to their web site
http://www.steorn.com/orbo/

 

[billvon]

The fields I am referring to are not external to the reactor but are internal atomic scaled fields.

Are you referring to the strong and weak nuclear forces? If so those forces are measured with a fair amount of regularity (primarily in high energy physics experiments) and no change has been noted.

Not if the universality of the gravitational constant was the issue [items would invariably appear to weigh the same]

Changing the gravitational constant would change the orbits of the planets within our solar system dramatically. Again, that hasn't happened.

The issue deals with what I hypothesis is that a fundamental anomaly in the constancy of Gravity manifesting locally during 1985/86.
This anomaly amongst many things effects all substances, culminate or individually, organic or non-organic.
It also impinges upon the integrity of magnetic fields. (organic or non-organic)

How would a change in gravity affect magnetic fields?

So it could be proposed that a major loss of magnetic integrity would effect all atomic structures.

What is "magnetic integrity?" What do you claim changed exactly?

It is further proposed that when a nuclear reactor is being pushed to it's limits as was the case at Chernobyl this loss of integrity may become evident. It takes the extreme situation to manifest the issue.

Why do you think a fission reactor (which does not depend on magnetic fields) would be affected, but every generator in the world (which depends entirely upon magnetic fields) every CRT (also dependent on magnetic fields) and every motor (same) would not be?

 

[iceaura]

I offered an alternative causation for global warming that suggested non-anthropogenic causation

1)That had nothing apparent to do with Chernobyl. 2) No, you didn't, actually. You made a vague reference to something unspecified about the earth's core, but no mechanism to connect that with any of the data we have concerning the ongoing warming trend.

The magnetic fields that made up the core elements of reactor 4 may have become unstable leading to higher reactor core instability

The questions you were asked was 1) how in the world you imagine that to have happened, given the vanishingly small forces involved in any fluctuations of the earth's magnetic field. Do you imagine that workers at nuclear reactors are not allowed to park their cars near the plant because the permanent magnets in their alternators and solenoids might destabilize the reactor cores? That all tools and machinery in a reactor complex, including the forklifts and robotic gear, must be made of magnetically neutral materials?

and 2) what in your view is incomplete or wrong about the standard, Wikipedia presented account of Chernobyl?

"Positive temperature coefficient" mean that once the temperature starts to climb so to does reaction. There was no way they could control a melt down once it started because hypothetically all known tolerances where out the window due to factors well beyond theirs and any ones control.

The control rods and other safety provisions were not beyond human control, but were instead deliberately disabled. The reactor was placed in its fragile situation by human agency and error, described in detail with timelines and everything by easily netsearched sources. Of course they could not control a launched meltdown - but control of a nuke does not involve meltdown. "Control" means no meltdown. Meltdown means failure of control.

Governments can not act properly because the data that IS available is not conclusive enough so confusion reigns supreme

There's plenty of data and it's easily sufficient to justify proper action.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Iceaura,

There's plenty of data and it's easily sufficient to justify proper action.

Unfortunately the world generally appears to disagree with you. I think this is mainly due to the perception that the rate of climate change exceeds, by many orders, the rate predicted by most models presented.

"They could stop all CO2 inputs immediately and we will still be in deep sh*t big time, so why bother?" type attitude no doubt...

CO2 levels can not alone be held responsible for what we are currently experiencing and what we are likely to experience in the next 12 months or so.. IMO

 

[Quantum Quack]

I was asked by a female environmental lobby group donation collector for support to save the Great Barrier Reef (QLD) from oil exploitation and I responded by suggesting that the barrier reef was a lost cause due to rising water levels and that perhaps she should be lobbying to save the 45,000 walruses trapped, land locked, and starving to death up in the ice free Artic!

So little is understood about the current situation due to the sheer pace of change that is occurring globally and clinging to the old "CO2 is responsible" paradigm aint helping. IMO

 

[iceaura]

duplicate

 

[iceaura]

Unfortunately the world generally appears to disagree with you.

Not the informed folks.

I think this is mainly due to the perception that the rate of climate change exceeds, by many orders, the rate predicted by most models presented.

Where would anyone get a silly and ignorant "perception" like that?

So little is understood about the current situation due to the sheer pace of change that is occurring globally and clinging to the old "CO2 is responsible" paradigm aint helping. IMO

Two months ago the denialist take on CO2 boost effects was that the boost was happening faster than the warming, so they weren't connected. Now it's the boost that is supposed to be lagging, and the warming too fast to be boost caused?

You guys need to get your stories straight.

 

[Quantum Quack]

And your response to this please :

"They could stop all CO2 inputs immediately and we will still be in deep sh*t big time, so why bother?" type attitude no doubt...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Here is an informative video on cloud seeding etc. (from NOAA & NASA & Livermore facts and speaker inserts) acknowledging the power of silver iodide to make rain locally but suggesting it also makes droughts and is a very toxic, long lasting hazard - a bad idea being widely used with active government support since the 1970s and on smaller scale, prior to 1960.

I. e. man has been doing large scale "geoengineering" for nearly 50 years and perhaps with consequences for humans as bad as his CO2 release! Jump in at a little past 12 minutes to learn that this may be part of why Sao Paulo has only 3.5% of the reservoir's water remaining and the Amazon is now often a net source of CO2. At 19 minutes into video is a summary of four main adverse effects discussed earlier.

Unbelievable!!! Sao Paulo 40 million people, less than 3.5% fresh water reserves. What are they going to do when that 3.5% dries up?
40M people is a lot of thirsty people....summer nearly there!
Terrible news Billy T....