Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to re: The question is

re: please do not quote RL's numbers
Yeti — (archived)

Why on earth not? They were by far the most accurate and well computed numbers (not that others have not tried to dissuade you) on this topic to date.

"The hypothesis that I have posted here (several times) can be used to explain all these"

Actually-no, it can't. Your 'hypothesis' (to call it that is abusing that term) can't even pass the basic tests we have proposed.... Namely:

1. What was the barometric pressure at sea level even 60 years ago, what is it now?
2. Why is radioactivity, as a heat source, any different than any other heat source, say caused by oxidation
3. No new radioactivity is created, only mined, concentrated and harnessed. How then does the process by which man harnesses the heat from natural radioactive source decay somehow heat the atmosphere more efficiently than several thousand million billion times the amount of the original radioactive source ores?
4. The amount of heat released into the atmosphere and/or environment from the harnessing and release of radioactive sources is absurdly small given the amount of heating imparted by the sun, or even by the amount of kinetic energy imparted by the tidal force of the moon. Why then, under your 'hypothesis' has our atmosphere not already oiled away?

Please, by all means, do a lindy and go screaming for the moderators or storm off in a huff, or accuse me of being an incomparable jerk for asking you to answer to rudimentary reasoning.

Or, maybe, you could answer to rudimentary reasoning...

But I'm not holding my breath.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (65 posts)