"Global Warming: Can Earth EXPLODE ?"

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Obviously a very fringe idea, but any geologists want to make a debunk out of this one?
Could be in the 'not even wrong' category.


The real danger for our entire civilization comes not from slow climate changes, but from overheating the planetary interior.

In 2000 Tom Chalko, inspired by Desmarquet's report, discovered that the solid nucleus of our planet is in principle a nuclear reactor, it is eccentric, and that our collective ignorance may cause it to overheat and explode. The discovery has been published in June 2001 by the new scientific journal NUJournal.net.

Polar ice caps melt not because the air there is warmer than 0 deg Celsius, but because they are overheated from underneath. Volcanoes become active and erupt violently not because the Earth's interior "crystallizes", but because the planetary nucleus is a nuclear fission reactor that needs COOLING.


It seems that if we do not do anything today about Greenhouse Emissions that cause the entire atmosphere to trap more Solar Heat, we may not survive the next decade. In a systematically under-cooled spherical core reactor the cumulative cause-effect relationship is hyperbolic and leads to explosion. It seems that there will be no second chance...

If you doubt whether a planet can explode - you need to see a witness report of a planetary explosion in our Solar system. Plato (428-348 BC) reported that the explosion of the planet Phaeton had been perceived by our ancestors on Earth to be as bright as lightning...


According to the current "scientific" dogmas, the planetary interior "crystallizes" and becomes less liquid as the time goes on. So, tectonic plate motion should become slower in time and quakes should become less frequent and less energetic. The evidence presented in the graph on the left demonstrates exactly the opposite.

In the period of time when the planetary climate changed by a small fraction of one degree, earthquakes have become 5 to 7 times more energetic. I wonder why no one on Earth makes any notice of this? WHY ???
What causes an 8-fold increase in Antarctic glacier melting in just 3 years? Sun does not deliver 8 times the energy under the Antarctic ice does it? Some scientists predict that effects of "global warming" will take many decades. Can they explain the increase of the melting rate of Antarctic glaciers 8 times in 3 years? Overheating of the fission heated planetary interior can...

"Climate change" cannnot explain why deep Antarctic Ocean gets less salty and less dense. Overheating of the fission heated planetary interior can... Antarctica is just about the only "heatsink" left available for the planetary interior.

The matter seems URGENT. Please forward this page (or the link to it) to ANY scientist or person of integrity whom you know.
Content from External Source
The idea that nuclear fission is going on underneath us is not too controversial.
Nuclear fission powers the movement of Earth’s continents and crust, a consortium of physicists and other scientists is now reporting, confirming long-standing thinking on this topic.
Content from External Source
The logic of the claim seem based on man-made nuclear reactors - they explode (they don't really, they overheat and melt through their containers) if not cooled, global warming is heating the earth, ergo, earth will explode!
Short answer: "No".

Longer answer....this seems (to me) to be a full-on Science Fiction-based meme. Might I point out....BAD "popular Sci-Fi"...not real Science Fiction.

ETA: I can envision, over possibly geological (thousands, hundreds of thousands of years...millions?) a situation where a planetary body is subjected to extreme....very extreme....gravitational gradients that can act to cause it to break up.

Citing the rings of Saturn as a "possible" explanation for their existence.
heres the paper I think:
its pretty old

NU Journal of Discovery, Vol 3, May 2001, NUjournal.net (c) Natural Uni, Chalko:’Can Earth explode..?’ - page 1 of 9
No second chance?
Can Earth explode as a result of Global Warming?
Dr Tom J. Chalko 1
, MSc, PhD
Submitted on 8 April 2001, revised 30 October 2004.
Content from External Source

Gemma says no

If they could, we would all be very worried! While some planets have boiling hot cores, this is not enough to cause a planet to shatter let alone suddenly explode. As far as astronomers know, there is no internal mechanism or other phenomenon that could ever cause a planet to fly apart. Contrary to science fiction, planets are stable and causing one to explode would require some chemical or nuclear process which can provide an explosive punch of energy.
For example, to detonate the Earth, a ball of uranium with a diameter of some three miles at the core would be required. While it is impossible to kick-start a fusion reaction at a planet’s core, uranium fission is possible provided no neutrons are absorbed. Of course, in the case of our Earth, dissembling its structure against its own gravitational binding energy would be difficult since its interior is teeming with neutrons which would stop fission in its tracks. Additionally natural processes alone would not be able to create such a pure and concentrated ball of uranium. http://www.spaceanswers.com/deep-space/can-planets-explode/
Content from External Source
Oh, OK....getting the implied reference now....the implication that a man-made nuclear bomb/warhead "explodes", and trying to equate it on a planetary scale.

From (what little) I know about actual nuclear devices...(that 'explode' as bombs)...this requires a measure of "FOCUS" on the nuclear reactant material, provided by very precise aiming. Difficult to imagine such a confluence of circumstances to occur naturally within the Earth's core, mantle, etc.
OT: but actually this guy seems like he'd be pretty fun at a party (as long as he takes that shirt off before I get drunk!)

The energy has to come from somewhere regardless of feedback or resonance or any of that. And it's a silly huge amount of energy. The figure Phil Plait uses in his book Death From The Sky is 2.25x10^32 joules. That's one of those numbers so huge that metaphors just don't work, like killing a mosquito with the combined global nuclear arsenal.

The planet has gone though far worse heating in the past.

And earthquake activity has not changed.

It's just nonsensical, barely worth addressing.
It's just nonsensical, barely worth addressing.

This caused me to recall the "ultimate future" of this planet, when it will be heated and incinerated by the Sun, as it uses up its fuel, and expands to the size of a Red Giant...the Sun will encompass all four of the inner "rocky" planets, during this phase of its life-cycle...and of course, the Earth will be heated FAR beyond what "global warming/climate change" can accomplish. This planet will merely burn to a cinder, and likely then break apart within the gravitational stresses of the dying Sun's immense fields.

Don't worry, though. A LONG, LONG time....perhaps 5? 6 billion years??

The Plato reference is about the hypothetical planet Phaeton, thought once to be the source of the asteroid field.

This is disproved by the different materials in the asteroid belt itself.

The fact that the asteroid belt has such a well-defined, high concentration of asteroids suggests two things. One, that they are fragments of a planet that broke-up long ago, or two, that they are rocks that never managed to accumulate into a genuine planet. Currently, scientists tend to favor the latter explanation. According to Eric Chaisson and Steve McMillan, the authors of the text book "Astronomy Today", 1993 edition, "There is far too little mass in the belt to constitute a planet, and the marked chemical differences between individual asteroids strongly suggest that the asteroids could not all have originated in a single planet. Instead, astronomers believe that the strong gravitational field of Jupiter continuously disturbs the motions of these chunks of primitive matter, nudging and pulling at them, thereby prohibiting them from aggregating into a planet. The existence and composition of the asteroid belt joins the general properties of the planets and their moons on our list of features that any theory of solar system formation must explain."
Content from External Source

This seems to be the actual Plato reference.
There is a story, which even you have preserved, that once upon a time Phaeton, the son of Helios, having yoked the steeds in his father's chariot, because he was not able to drive them in the path of his father, burnt up all that was upon the earth, and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt. Now this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth, and a great conflagration of things upon the earth, which recurs after long intervals; at such times those who live upon the mountains and in dry and lofty places are more liable to destruction than those who dwell by rivers or on the seashore."
Content from External Source
I don't know how that becomes proof that 1000s of years ago people were familiar with a planet that disappeared in a flash one day.

The story of Phaeton is one of the the best witness accounts of any cosmic event in human history. Documents can be altered, mistranslated and destroyed, but information carried through cultural traditions and heritage is very difficult to alter.
The fact that not a single scientist on Earth since Plato ever considered explaining how a planet can perish from the solar system is a sign of continuing decay of humanity on Earth.
Content from External Source
He's pretty much self-publishing.
Interesting ideas, but not really grounded in this reality.

I probably should have just left it well alone, oh well.
Ah....the long-ago disproved concept of a "missing" planet, where the Asteroid Belt currently (vaguely) orbits.

As I recall, this stemmed from Kepler's work (originally) as he strove to find some sort of "association" or "resonance" to the observed orbital distances or "periods" of the (then) known planets....and the "gap" between Mars and Jupiter (moving outwards from the Sun) seemed to "fulfill" his hypothesis.

I think, IIRC, that the problem was using our ONE example (of a star system, planets orbiting a star) as a "base set". Of course, in modern times, we have observed at least 460+ Star Systems with a huge variance in planetary formation patterns, in terms of relative sizes and distances from their host stars....as compared to our Solar System.

This means that a LOT of work is still ongoing into the mathematics and physics of star system/planetary dynamics and formation.

(I will add that in OUR Solar System, the presence of Jupiter is a HUGE influence, over some billions of years, or maybe only less than one billion??...we just don't know, yet... in stabilizing and influencing our current arrangement).

Last edited:
This caused me to recall the "ultimate future" of this planet, when it will be heated and incinerated by the Sun, as it uses up its fuel, and expands to the size of a Red Giant...the Sun will encompass all four of the inner "rocky" planets, during this phase of its life-cycle...and of course, the Earth will be heated FAR beyond what "global warming/climate change" can accomplish. This planet will merely burn to a cinder, and likely then break apart within the gravitational stresses of the dying Sun's immense fields.

Don't worry, though. A LONG, LONG time....perhaps 5? 6 billion years??


Soo... I guess I'll still have to pay back that car loan?

It's just nonsensical, barely worth addressing.

What do you mean? It's already happening :D


A popular road through Yellowstone National Park was shut down on Thursday when the asphalt started to melt.

The park says extreme heat from thermal areas is causing hot oil to bubble to the surface of Firehole Lake Drive, a scenic 3.3-mile loop that runs past Great Fountain Geyser, White Dome Geyser and Firehole Lake.

Yellowstone's Twitter feed included a photo of the melted road:

"It basically turned the asphalt into soup," park spokesman Dan Hottle told USA Today. "It turned the gravel road into oatmeal."
Content from External Source
Oh....a bit of humour?

The "mega-volcano" underneath Yellowstone National Park (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_Caldera) has been discussed for years...maybe decades. MIGHT continue to be discussed for centuries, long after YOU and I are dead.

That's the interesting part.....our planet Earth does not care. The "Yellowstone Caldera", if it "BLOWS" in the next few decades will make Hurricane Katrina (Circa August 2005, for future historians) PALE in comparison. So, it will DEVASTATE a large portion of the Western United States. So what??

(I say this AS a resident of this region, and also with a certain knowledge that it will not YET happen, in the lifetimes of those reading this....presently. Of course, this BEING the Internet....OTHERS will one day, likely, read this...no matter how many centuries in the future from THIS DATE....11 July 2014. Pacific Daylight Time).

(Same as 12 July, 2014....UTC).
He came to attention several years ago, because for some bizarre reason, CBS ran one of his articles.
AGW denialists were very amused.

CBS News sinks to new low; publishes crackpot global warming story, attributes it to Associated Press, kills it with no retraction
Posted on June 19, 2008 by Anthony Watts
Yesterday I posted a story from CBS News: Quake n’ Bake: Global Warming Causes More Energetic Earthquakes?

The main headline was this: Seismic Activity 5 Times More Energetic Than 20 Years Ago Because Of Global Warming

This drew a lot of attention because of the total lack of verifiable science associated with it. I posted some graphs of USGS data showing that the opposite was true, that recent earthquake energy was actually less that in the early 1900′s, and several commenters pointed out that the source of the story, a Dr. Tom Chalko, has some less than stellar associations with what I would describe as “new age” mysticism, such as Thiaoouba Prophecy and “reading your Aura”. He also writes a dandy piece entitled “Global Warming: Can Earth EXPLODE?” which is linked to a website he runs about “bioresonance” where you can buy a “bioresonant” shirt.
Content from External Source
But what other explanation is there for the decision by CBS and MSNBC to post on their websites a ridiculous story about a new scientific "finding" that global warming is causing an increase in the world's earthquakes--an item that was even linked for a time on the Drudge Report.

Now I am not a scientist, but the idea that a few alleged degrees of warming--with none apparently in the last decade--could cause an increase in earthquakes seemed pure quackery to me. So, I decided to perform Google and Yahoo searches of the "scientist" who had issued the finding, one Thomas Chalko, MSc, Ph.D. In less than five minutes I found that Chalko was perhaps the last person who should be quoted on the purported impact of allegedly man-caused global warming.

Chalko is best described as a pseudo-scientist--at least when it comes to the fields of global warming and earthquakes about which he was quoted by CBS and MSNBC as an authority. He is not a meteorologist. Nor is he a geophysicist or seismologist. His website reveals that he is into "self healing," "vibrations," and alien visitations.
Content from External Source
And it came up again in 2012.
I got this info from this website:

The planet Venus, named for the roman goddess of love, is often referred to as Earth's Twin or Earth's Sister. But, Venus does not bare much of a visual resemblance to Earth, so why is it called Earth's sister?

From a strictly physical perspective Venus is roughly the same size, density and composition as our planet. It orbits at a similar distance from our Sun, and at its creation would have appeared nearly indistinguishable from Earth. As the two planets evolved over time however, they became vastly different. Ultimately, Earth's sister was molded into a desolate and unforgiving world.


The Venusian atmosphere consists mainly of carbon dioxide (~96.5%), while only containing about 3.5% nitrogen. This is in stark contrast to the Earths atmosphere, which contains primarily nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%). Clearly, we would not be able to breath the air on Venus. Moreover, the effect the atmosphere has on the rest of the planet is dramatic.

Global Warming on Venus
A great cause for concern on Earth is global warming, specifically the emission of "greenhouse gases" into our atmosphere. As these gases accumulate in our atmosphere, they trap heat near the surface, causing our planet to heat up. Because Venus has such a dense atmosphere, this same effect has occurred, though to a much higher degree. Global warming on Venus has caused the surface temperature to rise to nearly 9000 F, enough to melt lead.

I'd just say that if Venus hasn't exploded yet I'm pretty sure we are safe.
Complete nonsense. The Earth's internal heat comes from a combination of primordial (residual) heat and radioactive decay. There is no "nuclear reactor" inside the Earth - decay is not fission. Ultimately, we are talking billions of years, most of the radio isotopes will decay, the primordial heat will cool, and the Earth will become a solid rock. I won't speculate if it will be hospitable to life or not but the point may be moot as the Sun may start running out of fusion fuel before the Earth cools.


About 50% of the heat given off by the Earth is generated by the radioactive decay of elements such as uranium and thorium, and their decay products. That is the conclusion of an international team of physicists that has used the KamLAND detector in Japan to measure the flux of antineutrinos emanating from deep within the Earth. The result, which agrees with previous calculations of the radioactive heating, should help physicists to improve models of how heat is generated in the Earth.

Geophysicists believe that heat flows from Earth's interior into space at a rate of about 44 × 1012 W (TW). What is not clear, however, is how much of this heat is primordial – left over from the formation of the Earth – and how much is generated by radioactive decay.

The most popular model of radioactive heating is based on the bulk silicate Earth (BSE) model, which assumes that radioactive materials, such as uranium and thorium, are found in the Earth's lithosphere and mantle – but not in its iron core. The BSE also says that the abundance of radioactive material can be estimated by studying igneous rocks formed on Earth, as well as the composition of meteorites.

As a result of this model, scientists believe that about 20 TW is generated by radioactive decay – 8 TW from the uranium-238 decay chain; 8 TW from the thorium-232 decay chain and the final 4 TW from potassium-40. Fortunately, these decay chains also produce anti-electron-neutrinos, which travel easily through the Earth and can be detected, thereby giving physicists a way to measure the decay rates and ultimately the heat produced deep underground.
Content from External Source
That's the interesting part.....our planet Earth does not care. The "Yellowstone Caldera", if it "BLOWS" in the next few decades will make Hurricane Katrina (Circa August 2005, for future historians) PALE in comparison. So, it will DEVASTATE a large portion of the Western United States. So what??

While we are on the topic of geology....

The final effects of a super eruption of the Yellowstone Caldera are fairly accurately presented in the docufiction "Supervolcano" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervolcano_(film)). I met the volcanologist that was the scientific adviser for the film when I was at Colorado School of Mines (she gave a visiting lecture on a different topic). I challenged her on the unrealistic timeline from first indications of an eruption to a cataclysmic eruption and she agreed that the producers had to compress time to create a view-able story. All of the phenomena shown in the movie are realistic and based on evidence of previous eruptions found in the geologic record. Except that the events that are shown playing out over a few weeks would actually occur over 10's of thousands of years. Imagine the massive caldera-wide increase in geothermal activity shown in the opening minutes taking place over a thousand years, and the first minor eruption of lava happening 10 thousand years later and you can put the movie into a realistic geologic time frame.

I should add that another cataclysmic eruption in the vicinity of the Yellowstone Caldera will occur at some point. It may be shifted a bit to the northeast as shown by the temporal migration of the calderas associated with it:

From: http://www.photovolcanica.com/VolcanoInfo/Yellowstone/Yellowstone.html
Last edited: