Hi Jody:

As you read from the above post, my assumption as ARRELL calls it is that;
“If more energy is inserted into a system than comes out of the said system, then that system will warm up.”
Then I am asking two questions.

1) First I am making a statement: The water level of the Great Lakes is down considerably, then I am asking a question; the question is why, then I am asking another question; could it be that mans doings have assisted nature in lowering the levels?
Notice that the “assumption” here is simply that man (or people) may be doing something that affects the environment to the extent that the level of water in the Great Lakes is going down.

2) Then I am asking another question: Could the heat from power generation and the low water levels in the lakes be related somehow?

I can not comprehend how ARRELL can possibly understand these questions as pseudoscience or worse.

I have given a possible scenario that seems to point a way in which the effects may be connected, this scenario involves the extra energy that is not responsible for heating the water that turns the turbines in a nuclear reactor.

ARRELL’s response to my questioning is an emphatic “no” served with a profusion of profanity and insults, he is saying that the amount of effect that the nuclear power, whether from bombs or power plants, is negligible.
He would prefer to point out that there is no effect at all, but even with his small calculated quantities he can not say that in all honesty.
It is true that small quantities over a long period of time will not affect anything as far as the balance of nature is concerned.
The radioactivity of uranium in the Earth has been going on for millions of years and will continue to do so for millions of years longer.
But at the same time we can not compare the destruction that can be caused by the accelerated activity of chain reactions taking place in a nuclear bomb or a nuclear reactor to the slow activity of uranium in the Earth.

The operative word that I am focusing on is balance.
The question is; how much more kinetic energy can the atmospheric molecules absorb before the balance is lost?

Naturally it is only when the change is greater than nature can cope with, that there will be drastic changes.
But how great does the change need to be in order to tip the balance of nature.

When potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, the potential side disappears and the kinetic side becomes the existing “excitation,” that excitation is considered as heat, but only when it affects the motion of molecules.

In nuclear reactions many types kinetic energies are released from the potential energy of mass.
Part of these energies interact with the molecules of the surrounding material and this interaction causes the molecules to move with greater vigour or energy. The greater the vigorous movement of molecules is, the greater the heat content of those molecules are said to be.

I have in the past given a allegory of a pot of water to the planet Earth.

If a pot full of water is heated sufficiently the water will boil away, in a similar manner if the atmosphere of the planet is heated sufficiently it also will boil away.

Since the temperature of the Earth has been in balance for eons, the questions boil down to:
How much extra energy is needed to increase the atmospheric dispersion into space?
Is the extra energy from nuclear power plants enough, or must that energy be combined with the greenhouse effect, or are both effects individually or together insufficient to increase this atmospheric disappearance.

By the way

Several years ago I predicted that the natural disasters will be more frequent and devastating.
My prediction was obtained from the extrapolation of the possible effects of atmospheric dispersion into space.
Unfortunately the evidence of such things are already showing up.

See this web site:
http://www.foxnews.com/specialsections/naturaldisaster/index.html

To be truly knowledgeable about these subjects DO NOT believe RL or me, but instead find the information for yourself, check RL’s calculations and see if science and nature allows a pot of water and the atmosphere to boil away.

And always feel free to ask questions.

Your Questions:
.

...are these your theories alone?..

The answer is no….. I read about them way back in the 1950’s.

Can you prove these theories?

It depends on what you will consider as proof.

If you are asking whether I have enough accurate information taken from appropriate instruments that are monitoring the said effects to convince everyone that the said effects are taking place, then the answer is no.

If you are asking whether there is circumstantial evidence indicating that the said effects are taking place, then the answer is yes.