Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Man Made Global Warming Ignores Evidence

Global warming proponents can never answer the basic question of where the carbon that the supposed dinosaurs consumed that made the oil came from in the first place.

Nor can they explain why hydrocarbons exist on other planets that have never had any life.

from Wikipedia:
Basic hydrocarbons are ubiquitous in the atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn. The parent molecule, methane (CH4), undergoes photochemical reactions which convert it to chain molecules such as acetylene (C2H2), ethylene (C2H4), and ethane (C2H6). The atmosphere of Saturn's largest moon, Titan, contains higher mass hydrocarbon ions such as C3H3+, C3H5+, and C5H5+. Hydrocarbons containing as many as seven carbon atoms were observed in Titan's atmosphere by the planetary probe Cassini, which also observed nitriles, nitrogen-containing hydrocarbons

However there is evidence of a nuclear reactor inside the earth and other planets in the solar system that suggests much of the oil we see at the great depths is actually the remnants of half life nuclear reactions deeper in the core.

Since we know that uranium is one of the heaviest elements, evidence suggests that the core is actually uranium and plutonium with a nickel layer above. 

This would account for the earths magnetic field better than the supposed induction of molten iron which has not yet ever been really expained.

Further evidence finds a possible correlation between weather effects of this deep georeactor and weather events like el nino. 

From Space Daily

 This theory undoubtedly deserves serious scrutiny from the scientific community. Like so many other 'earthshaking' new ideas in science it has sadly been largely ignored to date. Plate tectonics suffered the same 'pariah' status for fully half a century with experts refusing even to consider it. Radical new ideas in science frequently face hostility because scientists themselves are only human. Geophysicists who have spent the better part of their lives writing papers on the dynamics of Earth's inner structure do not want to hear about how they might have been wasting their lives chasing the wrong theory. Building up a reputation as being an authority on a subject is extremely difficult. It requires enormous dedication and long years of study with little pay and perhaps mounting debts.

 Many of us imagine the scientific community to be extremely logical and fair-minded in assessing new ideas. We see these people in their spotless white frocks taking exceedingly precise measurements of the universe and its easy to think they must administer themselves in the same way.Following the demandingly stringent doctrines laid down by the scientific method to judge any new theory on its merits alone. This would be the action of a robot. In truth, science is just another belief system that can be corrupted by ambition, jealousy and fear.Dr. Herndon discovered this the hard way and has paid for much of the research done so far out of his own pocket. However, as evidence builds in favour of his "georeactor sub-core", the walls of opposition are now finally starting to crumble. People everywhere are beginning to realise that it makes sense. The Earth is not yet a dying planet, but a World that is alive with a nuclear reactor heart.
 From another article:

Some researchers have previously suggested, although it's not a widely held view, that gravity could cause a concentration of radioactive ultra-heavy elements such as uranium. These elements might sink down into Earth’s core, where they are enriched enough to ignite georeactors.

 Further reading:

Nuclear Fission Confirmed as Source of More than Half of Earth's Heat By David Biello | July 18, 2011

Partial radiogenic heat model for Earth revealed by geoneutrino measurements
  1. Araki, T. et al. Experimental investigation of geologically produced antineutrinos with KamLAND. Nature 436, 499503 (2005).
  2. Abe, S. et al. Precision measurement of neutrino oscillation parameters with KamLAND. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 221803 (2008).
  3. Bellini, G. et al. Observation of geo-neutrinos. Phys. Lett. B 687, 299304 (2010).
  4. Enomoto, S., Ohtani, E., Inoue, K. & Suzuki, A. Neutrino geophysics with KamLAND and future prospects. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 258, 147159 (2007).
  5. McDonough, W. F. & Sun, S-s. The composition of the Earth. Chem. Geol. 120, 223253 (1995).
  6. Arevalo, R.Jr, McDonough, W. F. & Luong, M. The K/U ratio of the silicate Earth: Insights into mantle composition, structure and thermal evolution. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 278, 361369 (2009).
  7. Pollack, H. N., Hurter, S. J. & Johnson, J. R. Heat flow from the Earth’s interior: Analysis of the global data set. Rev. Geophys. 31, 267280 (1993).
  8. Fiorentini, G., Lissia, M. & Mantovani, F. Geo-neutrinos and earth’s interior. Phys. Rep. 453, 117172 (2007).
  9. Fogli, G. L., Lisi, E., Palazzo, A. & Rotunno, A. M. Geo-neutrinos: A systematic approach to uncertainties and correlations. Earth Moon Planets 99, 111130 (2006).
  10. Giunti, C. & Kim, C. W. Fundamentals of Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics (Oxford Univ. Press, 2007).
  11. Abe, S. et al. Production of radioactive isotopes through cosmic muon spallation in KamLAND. Phys. Rev. C 81, 025807 (2010).
  12. Vogel, P. & Beacom, J. F. Angular distribution of neutron inverse beta decay, . Phys. Rev. D 60, 053003 (1999).
  13. Schreckenbach, K., Colvin, G., Gelletly, W. & Von Feilitzsch, F. Determination of the antineutrino spectrum from 235U thermal neutron fission products up to 9.5MeV. Phys. Lett. B 160, 325330 (1985).
  14. Hahn, A. A. et al. Antineutrino spectra from 241Pu and 239Pu thermal neutron fission products. Phys. Lett. B 218, 365368 (1989).
  15. Vogel, P. Reactor antineutrino spectra and their application to antineutrino-induced reactions. II. Phys. Rev. C 24, 15431553 (1981).
  16. Achkar, B. et al. Comparison of anti-neutrino reactor spectrum models with the Bugey 3 measurements. Phys. Lett. B 374, 243248 (1996).
  17. Kopeikin, V. I., Mikaelyan, L. A. & Sinev, V. V. Inverse beta decay in a nonequilibrium antineutrino flux from a nuclear reactor. Phys. Atomic Nucl. 64, 849854 (2001).
  18. Bahcall, J. N., Serenelli, A. M. & Basu, S. New solar opacities, abundances, helioseismology, and neutrino fluxes. Astrophys. J. 621, 8588 (2005).
  19. Aharmim, B. et al. Low-energy-threshold analysis of the Phase I and Phase II data sets of the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory. Phys. Rev. C 81, 055504 (2010).
  20. Herndon, J. M. Nuclear georeactor origin of oceanic basalt 3He/4He, evidence, and implications. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 30473050 (2003).
  21. Herndon, J. M. & Edgerley, D. A. Background for terrestrial antineutrino investigations: Radionuclide distribution, georeactor fission events, and boundary conditions on fission power production. Preprint at (2005).
  22. Korenaga, J. Urey ratio and the structure and evolution of Earth’s mantle. Rev. Geophys. 46, RG2007 (2008).
  23. Lyubetskaya, T. & Korenaga, J. Chemical composition of Earth’s primitive mantle and its variance: 2. Implications for global geodynamics. J. Geophys. Res. 112, B03212 (2007).
  24. Enomoto, S. Experimental study of geoneutrinos with KamLAND. Earth Moon Planets 99, 131146 (2006).
  25. Rudnick, R. L., Gao, S., Holland, H. D. & Turekian, K. K. Treatise on Geochemistry: Composition of the Continental Crust, Vol. 3 164 (Pergamon, 2003).
  26. Jaupart, C., Labrosse, S., Mareschal, J. C. & Schubert, G. Treatise on Geophysics: Temperatures, Heat and Energy in the Mantle of the Earth Vol. 7 253303 (Elsevier, 2007).
  27. Berger, B. E. et al. The KamLAND full-volume calibration system. J. Instrum. 4, P04017 (2009).

No comments: