Hmmm….. Interesting, perhaps I am learning,.
Perhaps I should try acting on the lesson given by RL..
According to RL’s example, if I encounter a stranger that talks to me about their ideas, I must immediately say:

”You sad stupid ignorant fool, you are not capable of rational thought”

If I could only understand the hoped for outcome that this greeting is supposed to entice in the other person, then I would have more confidence in RL’s teachings.

The question that I asked on this board was not directed to RL but simply to point out to others the non-mathematical principle behind my assumption of atmospheric loss and perhaps its cooling.

RL is obviously of the opinion that we cannot discharge enough radioactivity or other radiation into the atmosphere to make any difference in the amount of kinetic energy that the air molecules have.

I on the other hand think that IF enough radioactive substances are released into the atmosphere the kinetic energy of some of the atmospheric molecules will increase, and this increase may influence the loss of some air molecules into space.

As I pointed out on the space board.

I respect your differing viewpoint on the idea of heat loss from the Earth’s atmosphere. If you would explain why you believe that your view is more accurate and scientifically sound, then perhaps I would learn something and accept that your view is correct and mine is not.

The theory that I am advocating is based on the assumption that the laws of physics that we observe in the laboratory, or even in the kitchen, do not change when larger quantities of mass and energy are involved.
For instance, in the laboratory I can take water and make it freeze and boil at the same time. In the kitchen I can take a pot of water and heat it until it boils, after it starts boiling, the water does not get any hotter no matter how much heat I put under the pot. After the water starts boiling the water disappears (evaporates) from the pot and the greater the amount of heat under the pot the faster the water disappears.

I believe that this heat transfer phenomenon through evaporation can also work on a global scale. In the global scenario, the air is the medium that can evaporate into space. The major heat source is the sun and all other chemical and especially nuclear energy sources contribute their share to the heat load. I can conclude from these simple physics phenomenon that IF the Earth’s atmosphere is heated excessively it will have the tendency to disappear into space.

I am not saying that one more nuclear power plant construction will destroy the Earth’s atmosphere, all I am saying is that the hotter or rather the more kinetic energy the atmospheric molecules have, the greater the atmospheric loss will be.

The moon and Mars have lost most of their atmospheres, why not Earth?

Johannes