Ok I’ll try to use the words that do not contain “hyperbolic sensationalism.â€
In order to do that I must establish the facts as I understand them.
I also must understand your perspective of the same facts.
First I will try to alleviate the concerns that some posters here have about my ability to learn something from these posts and the replies;)
Back in 11/7/2007 9:27:49 PM, ARRELL posted a series of mathematical calculations that he considers as “proof†that the effects that I am eluding to can not happen.
I have not checked his math to see if it is correct or not, simply because I have looked at the underlying physical principles and the noticeable effects that the said principles can explain.
Some concepts that ARRELL posted I agree with and some I do not.
For example, he wrote:
Energy has many different forms, the key thing to remember is that energy is always conserved.
I agree that “energy is always conserved†but my understanding for this “conservation†of energy seems to be somewhat different than yours or ARRELL’s.
My understanding of “energy†is that it is always kinetic in nature.
In other words the words potential energy should not be used without the word for in between the two words.
Potential for energy would be correct, or the effect could be called a force, tensor, affinity, or anything else except energy, unless there is movement of some type or another involved.
In other words, discounting the molecular, atomic, electronic, solar, galactic and universal motions of an object that is suspended and motionless above the Earth, there is no energy involved until the object starts to fall.
The potential for the kinetic energy is in the position of the objects.
In your post you indicated that:
No matter what the source of heat was, the downstream components were exactly the same.
If I understand your statement, you are basically saying that no matter how the heat is created the end result is the same.
I agree, but only IF we do not consider the larger scale potential effects.
As an analogy: It does not matter how a single tree starts burning in a forest, the result is still the same, we get light, heat and ash as a result.
But if the burning tree ignites every tree in the forest and the forest continues to be hot for thousands of years, then the result would not be so pleasant.
The fossil fuels, bio fuels, and renewable energy sources such as solar and wind, all depend on the energy that originated in the sun, if we use these resources we can only extract, at the most, the same amount that came from the sun. (Actually far less because much of it has or will re radiate into space.)
During the eons of Earths existence the energy supply from the sun and the energy outgo from the Earth has balanced.
Now (don’t get too excited ;-) I agree with RL when he wrote:
There is NOTHING magic about the energy from nuclear fission.There is nothing “magic†about the results caused by radioactivity either.
But if we extract the nuclear fuel from underneath the ground and spread it into the surface environment, then we are adding energy to the surface environment.
This added energy is above and beyond the energy that we normally get from the sun.
If we knew how large this added quantity of energy is, and if it is sufficiently large, then it would explain all the global atmospheric changes that we are observing these days. Also it could be used to extrapolate the future conditions on this planet.
Since you do not like the “alarmist slant†aspect of my posts I will refrain from mentioning the observed effects that can be explained by using this hypothesis.
Have a nice day
PS. I hope RL is right, I hate freezing at night and boiling during the day.