And you persist wasting our time and yours being willfully stupid- despite the fact you promised to drop it 13 years ago:

You don’t even understand how units work, and you call people that make their living in the sciences ‘ignorant’?

Given 13 years you could have educated yourself on this topic, but all you did was remain a fool.

So no, I wont go through the math for you again, you aren’t worth the pointless effort- since you won’t put in the effort to listen or learn.

Radioactive atoms impart kinetic energy or heat onto their surroundings.

Atoms or ions that travel away from the Earth faster than the escape velocity can escape into interstellar space.

Nuclear explosions have been set off at high altitudes.

I responded: You object to the fact that I pointed out that; radioactivity imparts kinetic energy, or heats surrounding molecules, even if those molecules exist in the upper atmosphere.
You responded: If you are simply going to claim I am saying things I am not, then there is no point… by RL 2016-12-28 16:52:34
What I have been saying for “over the past decade and a half or more” as you so eloquently put it, is that: ”Radioactivity imparts kinetic energy, or heats surrounding molecules, even if those molecules exist in the upper atmosphere.”
It is true that they do not mention radioactivity specifically in that article, but they do mention many other ways in which the atoms in the upper atmosphere can obtain kinetic energy.
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13655
In the introduction they mention the following:
“Atomic hydrogen, as the dominant neutral constituent in the upper layer of the terrestrial atmosphere, is of critical importance for many disparate aspects of aeronomy and heliophysics, such as atmospheric chemistry and energetics, ion–neutral coupling and magnetospheric energy dissipation following geomagnetic storms1,2. Moreover, as the lightest neutral species in the atmosphere, atomic hydrogen requires the lowest energy to overcome the planet’s gravitational force and escape into interplanetary space. The permanent loss of hydrogen atoms, with an estimated global mean escape flux of ∼108 cm−2s−1, has a significant impact on long-term atmospheric evolution3. Ever since the introduction of the basic concepts of atmospheric evaporation in the pioneering works of Jeans4 and Spitzer5, decades of theoretical, modelling and observational efforts have been dedicated to understanding the distribution and dynamical transport of hydrogen atoms in the thermosphere (from ∼90 to 500 km altitude) and the exosphere (above ∼500 km altitude), a region collectively known as the geocorona.”
I specifically like this part: “, with an estimated global mean escape flux of ∼108 cm−2s−1, has a significant impact on long-term atmospheric evolution3.” That is what I tried to convey to you so many years ago. The reason I mentioned radioactivity was because it causes an increase in the surrounding atoms and molecules, and also because there has been many nuclear explosions in the upper atmosphere.
See the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_nuclear_explosion

The article had nothing to do with radioactivity and your claims regarding radioactivity.

It in no way supports the wildly inaccurate and incoherent claims you have been repeatedly making over the past decade and a half or more.

You are wrong. Accept it and learn from it, but don’t try to hijack other people’s real work to bolster your nonsense. THAT is what offends me.

http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13655

I consider the information on the link as scientific, if you have a problem with their assessment of the upper atmosphere then take the matter to them.
I only indicated that many years ago I had thoughts in line with their research.