It's not my fault you can't read a scientific paper properly.

RL's answer to my "translation" was:

In that paper we were simply trying to evaluate what the physics was behind the fact that the data departed from a particular theoretical model-

The actual quotation was:
"However, using this model to calculate e-2e inelastic rescattering yields cross sections which are incompatible with the measured two-electron ionization."

English is my second language, perhaps the words; "calculate", "yields", "incompatible", and "measured", have a meaning other than what I have come to understand.

In my understanding the meaning of the words in this context are; "calculate" = To ascertain by computation, "yields" = To furnish as return for effort or investment, "incompatible" = That cannot be simultaneously true; mutually exclusive, "measured" = Determined by measurement.

The only conclusion I can obtain from that is: Their calculations did not match the actual measurements.
Where did I make an error?

Now read back through your responses to RL on this thread and the others.
If your posts are serious - janitor??? - then you have a problem bigger than I can adequately deal with.
If not serious, then you're being just as petty as RL.

I explain my actions on Community to Mary Anne. Petty and stupid yes, but if RL wants to play that game then I will go along and see who "wins."

"talk to RL about anything that he has not heard before, such as the possibility of radioactive particles being in the atmosphere"
???
where do you get that from?

First read my explanation here:
http://www.habitablezone.com/community/messages/427607.html

"Of course there are, and everyone including RL knows that."

That may be true but none of you know how much radioactive molecules there are in the atmosphere and if that quantity has increased since 1947.
[quote]" What everyone has been either patiently, politeley, or rudely telling you is SO WHAT?

"

" The numbers have been shown to you. Tom's analogy of pissing in the Atlantic and expecting floods in South Africa (paraphrasing) went over your head.

The very large numbers have been show to me, and yes, I understand the concept Tom was eluding to, but as you can see from RL's example above, calculations do not always tell the whole story.
Each atom of U235 gives off an approximate equivalent of 1W second of power.
How many U235 atoms are there in the atmosphere?
When I started posting about this subject, I made predictions on the assumption that IF the idea was true, what would happen.

One of the predictions was that the surface temperature of the Earth would increase and the air temperature would decrease.
From this NASA site you can see that
The:

Thermometer measurements indicate that the temperature of Earth's surface is warming, while the satellite data above show a recent cooling trend in the stratosphere, and virtually no trend in the lower atmospheric layer over the past 19 years.

In other words, the effect has not matured to the level of my prediction yet.

What exactly do you want to get out of persisting with this nonsense?

What I was hoping to get, what I got, and what I most likely will get, are three different things.

What I was hoping to get was intelligent discussion on the possibilities, even from the "what if" view point about this subject.

What I got was insults, infantile attempts at suppressing my views, and generally all types of stupid remarks.

What I most likely will get is the satisfaction of saying SO WHAT when your grand children (or great grand children) are suffering from the global changes.

It seems to me that you are thinking with RL's brain, don't you have thoughts of your own?

[/quote]