• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

what's the deal with global warming?

(Sigh)

OK Gerald - As a starter please answer these questions so a poor ignoramus like me can try and grasp what you're on about.
  1. Who was the "certain scientist"?
  2. What are the two chemicals?
  3. Where were they found 20 years ago?
  4. For what reason (I presume you mean "purpose") were the fossil fuels put in the Earth?
    [/list=1]
 
To the more substantive issue - "Is GW human-influenced?"

I'm with Frostbite and bignickel - firmly in the undecided camp.
It seems the science is inconclusive so leaving too much room for personal feelings and politics to influence matters. I've only recently started taking a closer interest in this and obviously have some catching up to do.

Now, can people in both camps give us fence-sitters just a couple of references or links which set out the scientific case for or against?

Gerald - this request is not directed at you.
 
Dragon said:
  1. Who was the "certain scientist"?
  2. What are the two chemicals?
  3. Where were they found 20 years ago?
  4. For what reason (I presume you mean "purpose") were the fossil fuels put in the Earth?
    [/list=1]

  1. The chap Gerald is referring to is Walter Russell. He did indeed come up with an alternative table of the elements. In it, there is space for two new elements he called Udium and Uridium (the latter of which some of us may remember as the name of a computer game). These days we call them Neptunium and Plutonium.

    I don't know much about Russell, so if you want to know more I can only suggest you stick his name into Google, there's plenty out there. Meanwhile, you may want to check out this charming diagram of his table of elements.
 
I will try to answer questions three and four in this post and one and two in a following post. Too long.


3. “Where were they found 20 years ago?”

They were found more than twenty years ago and have been in use for many years. First knowledge of them was made known in 1927 and appeared on the new Periodical Charts of the Elements under the names “Urium and Uridium”. They were physically found about twenty-five years later, and in a historic letter from Albert Einstein to President FDR, deemed useable for the production of bombs and energy.

4. “For what reason (I presume you mean "purpose") were the fossil fuels put in the Earth?”

Fossil fuels or petroleum products can be unearthed for use as we have done. But NOT in the massive quantities in which we have relied on them. There are far better sources for energy/fuels that are cheaper, safer and more in abundance. Fossil fuels are a poor choice in light of the technology that has developed over the last sixty years. Many years ago, before the advent of new technology, fossil fuels was the natural choice. But not today.

The material that we use as “fossil fuels” or petroleum products were never just “put in the earth” if that is what you are asking. The earth’s body has not always appeared as it does today. Through the passing of millions of years, the body of the earth changes itself, which is a natural process. I can’t go in depth here (limited space) but will try to help you to understand.

If we build a new road today, within just a few years it begins to crumble and has to be replaced. No state of matter, regardless of how hard and solid it may appear, can withstand time left to the elements. It will disintegrate or radiate, which is a fancy way of saying that everything eventually falls apart. The body and core of the earth is the same way.

Millions of years ago, petroleum products were not in the ground to even be dug up. Time and pressure altered the core of the earth, which in turn created these products. Even gold did not once exist. Radiative pressures within the earth altered various states of matter and the end result was “gold”. There are elements resting within the earth that have tremendous radioactive power. In their natural positions, deep within the earth, we are safe from them. If we bring them to the top, they become deadly for they are literally dying states of matter.

The sole purpose of these deadly elements is that they destroy everything within their path. In their natural positions and this is good. They disintegrate granite and boulders far below the earth’s surface and over time, the top three feet of surface that is so important to us is created. Valuable water is also created. The sole purpose of Urium and Uridium is to disintegrate through radiation hard solid masses into useable more divided masses. A planet made of granite could not sustain human life. But millions of years under the tremendous radiative pressures of certain radioactive elements, that useless granite is weakened, divided, becomes softer and is altered into states of matter that are suitable for human life. Rich soil was not always here. It is the result of hard rock dividing, dividing and dividing even more under pressure.

Urium and Uridium are deadly elements when brought to the top surface of the earth where lower pressures exist. But they are perfect for the human race when left in their natural positions deep within the earth. There, they serve their true purpose and their reason for existing.

continued later.......
 
Gerald - the questions

1. & 2. answered by JamesM above

3. You didn't really answer it but that's OK because now I know they are the actual elements neptunium and plutonium.
(BTW Einstein's letter to FDR, warning about the danger of the Nazis developing a nuclear bomb is so famous that even I knew about it)


4.
Fossil fuels or petroleum products can be unearthed for use as we have done. But NOT in the massive quantities in which we have relied on them. There are far better sources for energy/fuels that are cheaper, safer and more in abundance. Fossil fuels are a poor choice in light of the technology that has developed over the last sixty years. Many years ago, before the advent of new technology, fossil fuels was the natural choice. But not today.
Arguable, but lots of people would agree with you.

If we build a new road today, within just a few years it begins to crumble and has to be replaced. No state of matter, regardless of how hard and solid it may appear, can withstand time left to the elements. It will disintegrate or radiate, which is a fancy way of saying that everything eventually falls apart. The body and core of the earth is the same way.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics? No argument from me.

Millions of years ago, petroleum products were not in the ground to even be dug up. Time and pressure altered the core of the earth, which in turn created these products. Even gold did not once exist. Radiative pressures within the earth altered various states of matter and the end result was “gold”. There are elements resting within the earth that have tremendous radioactive power. In their natural positions, deep within the earth, we are safe from them. If we bring them to the top, they become deadly for they are literally dying states of matter.

The sole purpose of these deadly elements is that they destroy everything within their path. In their natural positions and this is good. They disintegrate granite and boulders far below the earth’s surface and over time, the top three feet of surface that is so important to us is created. Valuable water is also created. The sole purpose of Urium and Uridium is to disintegrate through radiation hard solid masses into useable more divided masses. A planet made of granite could not sustain human life. But millions of years under the tremendous radiative pressures of certain radioactive elements, that useless granite is weakened, divided, becomes softer and is altered into states of matter that are suitable for human life. Rich soil was not always here. It is the result of hard rock dividing, dividing and dividing even more under pressure.

Urium and Uridium are deadly elements when brought to the top surface of the earth where lower pressures exist. But they are perfect for the human race when left in their natural positions deep within the earth. There, they serve their true purpose and their reason for existing.

Pseudoscientific gobbleygook, I'm afraid. You don't even know a little bit of geology, do you?


Edited for spelling
 
1. Who was the “certain scientist”?

Dr. Walter Russell. He received his Doctor’s Degree of Science in 1946, for his many scientific contributions he gave to the world.

In 1921, Walter gathered the most notable men of science together in one historic meeting. Present at this meeting was, Albert Einstein, Nikloa Tesla, Thomas Edison, Charles Goodyear, Charles DuPont, Marconni and scores of others. The purpose of this meeting was to give the world a new workable knowledge of science. Walter was trying to advance science 1,000 years in one day. Important men, as these men were, would not appear at any meeting just to hear the ideas from just anyone. They knew who Walter Russell was and he was not or average man so they all attended the meeting.

Walter tried to give them the true nature of the electric current. This knowledge would give man absolute control over matter. The idea of transmutation would become a reality. This is the ability to create any state of matter from any other state.

When the meeting ended, Thomas Edison was partially convince and Nikola Tesla was fully convinced. It was logical for Tesla to be fully convinced though, he was a genius with electricity so he was more aware of what Walter was trying to teach. After the meeting Tesla told Walter that he should seal the knowledge in the Smithsonian Institue to the world could use it when the world was ready. Tesla told Walter that “your knowledge of science is at least 1,000 years ahead of what we currently have”.

2. “What are the two chemicals”.

They first appeared in 1927, in the book “The Universal One” under the names of Urium and Uridium. Almost twenty years later they were physically found and unearthed for use. The names were changed to “Plutonium” and “Neptunium”. After the names were changed, the title, “Father of the Atomic Age” was bestowed to a lesser scientist even though Walter was the scientist who first gave the world knowledge of the elements....along with a stern warning never to use them. Einstein suggest to use them for warfare and the result was the Atomic Bomb. Soon after, scientists determined they could be used for the generation of electricity and the nuclear reactors were born. How deadly are these elements:

First off, they have the shelf life of 250,000 years. This means, if left in the open, exposed, it takes 250,000 years for them to radiate their radioactive power away making them safe to be near. Science knows this very well.

Gather every known pollutant or contaminate that science currently attributes to being the cause of Global Warming and place them in a sealed garage. Call authorities and tell them what is in the garage and you will be warned not to go in there. But...you will probably be told to open the garage door and air the garage out for a few hours. The deadly chemicals will dissipate quickly and the garage will be safe to enter.

Now place a piece of Plutonium into the garage, which is the size of a typed period and barely visible and call the authorities. Within a few hours you will probably appear on national television as authorities rush to contain the contamination. If that small dot of Plutonium has been there for a few hours, your entire house will have to be stripped of carpeting, painting, pictures, clothing and everything else that will fit in 55 gallon drums. Plutonium spreads outwardly at near the speed of light and will contaminate anything near. Walls will not contain the radioactive damage for it will pass through them as they were not even there. Years ago, a small amount of Plutonium was left exposed and in a very short time every building within a twenty-five mile radius was stripped
and contents were stored in 55 gallon drums and thrown into the San Francisco Bay. So this process is not new.

Nuclear reactors exist around the world and in many countries. Using the dangerous elements is a dangerous proposition in itself. Remember the headlines recently fail reactors have made. But the greatest damage is in the stored U-235 spent fuel rods. They are no longer needed so they are sealed in 55 gallon drums and buried. There are now tons of this material buried around the world and they are still not safe to go near. Their shelf life is 250,000 and they are stored in 55 gallon drums. Now, what is the shelf life of those drums? They will soon be contaminated making these storage areas impossible to go near. And that radioactive power will be traveling outward from those areas at near the speed of light, contaminating everything in sight. The tons of radioactive material will eventually escape their 55 gallon drums by way of radiation and when they do, there will be no way humanly possible to go near them in an attempt to re-case them again. The threat of a nuclear ware will pale in comparison to what these unearthed elements will do next.
 
Dragon wrote:

"(BTW Einstein's letter to FDR, warning about the danger of the Nazis developing a nuclear bomb is so famous that even I knew about it)"

Great, many people do. So what I wrote was true.

(next...)

"Arguable, but lots of people would agree with you."

(then...)

"The Second Law of Thermodynamics? No argument from me."

(and lastly...)

"Pseusoscientific gobbleygook, I'm afraid."

You agree with everything and then write the above? LOL. Classic! See ya.
 
Gerald said:
First off, they have the shelf life of 250,000 years. This means, if left in the open, exposed, it takes 250,000 years for them to radiate their radioactive power away making them safe to be near. Science knows this very well.

I believe you are confusing the shelf life of the container with the half life of a radioactive isotope.
 
Whatever happens, as long as the politicians can save the economy and not raise my taxes its OK. This eliminates Kyoto and other emissions reducing efforts except finding a way to generate cheap renewable energy. Hint: Bush's 87 billion for Iraq is 870 years worth of the alternative energy research budget per year (100 million.) Shouldn't we be spending this money better?
 
Gerald,

Neptunium is man made - it is not found "in the earth"

Plutonium is a "rare Earth" metal and IIRC had to be manufactured to obtain sufficient quantities for nuclear weapons.

When you say "shelf life" in respect of radioactive elements, do you mean "half-life"? If so the figure varies drastically from isotope to isotope.
And the decay of U-235 and most of the plutonium nuclear waste products, for instance, is by the emission of alpha-particles which have trouble penetrating a piece of paper and travel at about one twentieth of the speed of light.
You don't know much about physics either, do you?
 
Dragon said:

Neptunium is man made - it is not found "in the earth"

Plutonium is a "rare Earth" metal and IIRC had to be manufactured to obtain sufficient quantities for nuclear weapons.
To be fair, like plutonium, trace amounts of neptunium are found in uranium ore - but not much.
 
Gerald said:
1. Who was the “certain scientist”?
In 1921, Walter gathered the most notable men of science together in one historic meeting. Present at this meeting was, Albert Einstein, Nikloa Tesla, Thomas Edison, Charles Goodyear, Charles DuPont, Marconni and scores of others.

That's a neat trick considering that C. Goodyear died in 1860.

And Who is Charles Dupont?
 
Gerald wrote...
Years ago, a small amount of Plutonium was left exposed and in a very short time every building within a twenty-five mile radius was stripped and contents were stored in 55 gallon drums and thrown into the San Francisco Bay. So this process is not new.
Sure sounds like BS to me.
That's about 2000 sq. miles of buildings in 55 drums.
How did they fit them all in the bay?
Was there only one not very large building in the area?

I think the hazards of plutonium are only present if you're within a few meters.

Walter Russell was into the metaphysical wasn't he? :rolleyes:

edit to add...
The half life of plutonium is about 24,300 years. After 250,000 years less than 1/1000th of the original quantity would remain.
 
Okay, what I'm hearing so far is

"if it ain't proven it ain't true"


And

1. It hasn't been proven that we haven't caused global warming/ozone layer depletion (I'm not saying global warming causes ozone depletion-just that CFC's and ethane at one time were included in the list of "greenhouse gasses")

2. It hasn't been proven the we have caused global warming/ozone depletion by releasing things like CO2 and CFC's into the air.


So, why bother quibbling and pointing fingers at 'fear sites'? I feel they aren't 'fear sites' but observations and proof one can't completely deny.

Until we can put it all together then don't call anything a 'fear site'.

I feel humans can and do alter our global environment, but we don't know yet to what degree. I'm sure we caused ozone depletion with some of our 'greenhouse gasses' (CFC's, ethane, methane, etc) and that all the CO2 released by cars, etc are not 'natural' states of CO2 release into the atmosphere.


We don't know to what degree the earth can 'compensate' for our contributions to the atmosphere.

Maybe some people do know, but I haven't seen that here. My main objective in my questions was to bring out folks who are more expert, but instead we have some tiffs instead. Ah well. We should all be only so lucky to get into a current ecology class with the most up to date information.


Any ecologists here?
 
Gerald said:
They first appeared in 1927, in the book “The Universal One” under the names of Urium and Uridium. Almost twenty years later they were physically found and unearthed for use. The names were changed to “Plutonium” and “Neptunium”.
The way this passage is phrased, it sounds like you're saying that Urium and Uridium (now called Plutonium and Neptunium) were actually discovered and dug out of the Earth as naturally-occurring elements.

As far as I can tell, this is not the case. Russell only left spaces for them on his periodic chart, as place-holders for hypothetical elements that hadn't been physically discovered yet.

Where on Earth can you find naturally-occurring Neptunium and Plutonium? As far as I know, these elements only exist in synthetic forms, e.g. you can only get Plutonium if yu bombard Uranium with neutrons in a breeder reactor.
 
Gerald said:
. Even gold did not once exist. Radiative pressures within the earth altered various states of matter and the end result was “gold”.
Errr.....

Whaaaaa?????????:eek:
 
Gerald said:



"Pseusoscientific gobbleygook, I'm afraid."

You agree with everything and then write the above? LOL. Classic! See ya.

I see that you think that smarta** quotes out of context will convince anyone here?

Let me put it this way, the comment about gold is pure and lasting BS.

The rest of it follows in the same vein. Were it physical, one could use it for fertilizer or perhaps deer repellent.
 
BobK said:
I think the hazards of plutonium are only present if you're within a few meters.

As long as it's not an explosion, either that or in you, it's a bad chemical poison as well as a source of harmful radiation.
 
Eos of the Eons said:

1. It hasn't been proven that we haven't caused global warming/ozone layer depletion (I'm not saying global warming causes ozone depletion-just that CFC's and ethane at one time were included in the list of "greenhouse gasses")


Among earth scientists, it is accepted that is HAS been proven that global warming is a real phenomenon and we are to blame. The most damning evidence to date is a paper by Dave Thompson pulished in Science that concluded via a statistical analysis of the temperatures over the last three centuries (edited to fix typo)


2. It hasn't been proven the we have caused global warming/ozone depletion by releasing things like CO2 and CFC's into the air.


CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that is accepted by climatologist. So are methane and CFC's. The consensus among earth scientists is that the top offenders for global warming are CO2 and methane emissions from industrialized nations.


We don't know to what degree the earth can 'compensate' for our contributions to the atmosphere.


We don't know what the consequences of global warming definately will be, but some of the scenarios are very disturbing; i.e. changes in the gulf stream.


Maybe some people do know, but I haven't seen that here. My main objective in my questions was to bring out folks who are more expert, but instead we have some tiffs instead. Ah well. We should all be only so lucky to get into a current ecology class with the most up to date information.


This isn't a question of ecology, its climatology and earth science. I would be happy to comment here, but be warned this discussion is VERY technical. Its a very complex subject.


Any ecologists here?

Amateur earth scientist.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom