D -- I have noted the exchanges with Johannes below, who is convinced that the trivial amount of radiation released by manmade processes will somehow affect our atmosphere.

J -- In my view the quantity of radioactivity that has been released into the atmosphere is much greater than the quantity of 'greenhouse' gasses. If those gasses can have an effect on the environment then I figure that the 'nuclear gasses' also have an effect. I do admit that I may be wrong but so far I have not seen 'conclusive' evidence of that.

D -- I keep trying...don't know why. I mean, the flaws are so OBVIOUS.

J -- I'm glad that 'somebody' knows the details as to what has happened to all the alpha, beta, and gamma radiation that has been released into the atmosphere. Would you please tell me, then I will not need to wonder IF they are still imparting kinetic energy to the air molecules.

D -- He seems to be immune to correction, either by virtue of math or by virtue of sheer common sense.

J -- Your 'math' amounted to an explanation that the Sun's energy is greater than that of Earth's radioactive energy. And I agree with that. Then your 'common sense' is based on the same fact.
There is no 'experimental' evidence presented anywhere in the argument. See my post to R.L. below. By giving me accurate numbers for a 100 year period of barometric readings, you can convince me of your assertions.

D -- Does this make Johannes a dummy? By no means. I have seen a lot of people like him.

J -- Thanks for the compliment. (I think)

D -- This phenomenon is more common and more complicated that it looks. Someone does a lot of math, and a lot of thinking, and arrives at a conclusion that is totally plausible within the parameters set. It is also totally wrong, since some critical parameter is missed somewhere along the line.

J -- I agree that if ALL the pertinent information is not taken into consideration then a wrong conclusion can be arrived at. In fact I tried to explain that here some time ago. Remember the "pissing monster on Mars"?
Could you point out the 'parameter' that I have missed, and could you also point out what 'parameter' YOU have missed? Will you accept your missing parameter as a fact if I point it out to you?

D -- I used to smirk at the ancient Greek paradoxes, like Zeno's race between the tortoise and Achilles. His thinking was precise and held solidly to his rules of logic. Of course, any illiterate farmer would have told him that Achilles would blow the doors off the tortoise, but this paradox, according to the link, puzzled mathematicians for years. Cripes.

J -- That is a very good story on 'missing parameters'.
The way the story was told to me was: Suppose an athlete is able to run a mile in two minutes, then in one minute he will be half a mile away and in half a minute he will be quarter mile away and in 15 seconds he will be 1320 feet away and in 7.5 seconds he will be 660 feet away and 3.75 seconds he will be 330 feet away and 1.875 seconds he will be 165 feet away and he will need to travel 82.5 feet in .9375 seconds and so on.
The question then is, can a sprinter get to 82.5 feet away in .9375 seconds?
If not, then there is something wrong. Can you tell me what it is?

J -- Can you move yourself 10 feet away in one tenth of a second or 5 feet away in half the time?

D -- Now, it is important to note that Zeno was no idiot. So what's going on here?

J -- Perhaps Zeno was simply trying to point out that ALL pertinent data should be considered when trying to solve a problem.

D -- When I read Jules Verne as a kid, I was impressed by the amount of math he brought to his books. He sat down and carefully calculated the details of his submarine and his moon ship.

Yet, it was obvious even to me then that a submarine built like the Nautilus would have been flattened like road kill at the depths it traversed, and that shooting a cannon shell to the Moon--inhabited yet--was impossible. But I didn't know a lot of engineering back then, and I found no math errors in Verne's work (not that I was a math whiz). And Verne was no idiot either.

J -- I look at science fiction as entertainment, but you must admit that many of the ideas in the stories give engineers something to think about, and perhaps 'imagination' is the only reason that 'science' has advanced at all.

D -- Any engineer has had ideas that looked great on paper. But then...

Heck, Marxism works on paper.

J -- Once you know what does NOT work, then it is easier to know what WILL.

D -- Ayn Rand wrote that learning the nature of reality required both reason and observation, and that either one without the other can easily lead you in the wrong direction.

J -- I agree:
Have you 'observed' the life and times of 'alpha, beta, and gamma rays' lately, and do you know where they went and what they did along the way? I think that this 'parameter' is MISSING in the calculations of the 'power factors' associated with nuclear power plants.

D -- The notion of experimentation (observation) to validate a line of reasoning was not something the Greeks did, and frankly, I don't think Zeno would have cared if someone had outraced a rabbit right in front of him.

J -- Perhaps not, because he may have been more interested in pointing out the 'problem' associated with 'jumping to conclusions'.

D -- Zeno lived in that mental state where ideas outweigh reality, which is why you don't want people like that in charge.

J -- Was Zeno in charge of something? I sure hope GWB does not have ideas that outweigh reality.

Have a good day
Johannes