Oh, and since we're not planning to stop spewing CO2 any time soon, it's possible that we'll get its concentration as high as during the period when dinosaurs roamed the Earth and trees were growing near the poles. Are you sure that such sudden change won't overwhelm natural feedback mechanisms?
Oh, and Maxwell equations are known very well.
Then why do we Einstein made the mental leap that nobody before him was able to do - he actually said that the relativistic effects are _real_ and that if you consider them all together then they form a consistent theory. A weird theory where clocks run at different speeds and length and mass are not constant, which is why lots of physicists dismissed it at first.
So no, I don't think that this merits further investigation unless Rossi provides the clear instructions to prepare the 'fuel' to a third party.
Except that it's not so straightforward to do. Emissivity of materials can affect measurements by quite a bit - just look at a thorium lantern mantles or newer rare-earth mantles, they are very bright at fairly low temperatures. I don't see that anybody checked the "reactor" coating materials for rare earth dopants.
Then there's a question of the control experiment - Rossi had set it up himself, to avoid overheating the coils (?). Lots of potential for mischief right there.
We also know one important point from linear stability analysis. For the Earth's climate system to be stable at all, it has to respond to perturbations in forcing by opposing the change, not augmenting it.
Or maybe flipping between two extremes? How about that for a "null hypothesis"? Do you know that once there were trees growing in the Antarctic?
Oh, and since we're talking hypothetical shit without any real connection to the actual science, you MUST also mention the possibility of the Venus effect - runaway greenhouse warming. Why do you think it's impossible? After all, the Sun is growing hotter and this time _just_ might be nonlinearly different! If we think about the nonlinear systems then we MUST fail on the side of caution and stop ALL the CO2 emissions NOWNOWNOWNOW!!!!!!!111111
And reality check - we actually do know quite a bit about actual climate processes and we can model them with a significant precision. The models show that the global warming won't be catastrophic for the environment itself, but it'll cause wild upheavals in the human economy.
And what's your crap about the "null hypothesis" and "basic physics" has to do with it?
The Earth is warming. Rising CO2 concentration provides explanation why it happens. Both are facts.
The details of the warming, on the other hand, are extremely complicated.
Then we have a direct causative agent - the rising amount of CO2. It's directly measured without any integration or even differentiation needed! So what do you say to that?
No need to invoke Lyapunov or Kolmogorov. Do you think you're the only one here who knows that ODEs are?
Also think about it - you are flying a freaking high-powered nuclear reactor on a rocket. What if something goes wrong? Well, say 'hello' to your own mini-Chernobyl conveniently delivered into the upper atmosphere!
And once you're in space... You can use VASIMIR or good old ion engines for slow-but-steady high-specific-impulse propulsion. There's no need for high-thrust acceleration.