Re: Hands and brains.

[T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl (Timothy van der Linden)]

To Kelly,

>>So than the final question is what determines the complexity of the
>>connections?
>
>Yes and why it develops.

I think the latter is clear, being able to use your braincells more
efficient is a clear evolutional advantage. Or did you mean something different?

>> Ah, but in that experiment they didn't test the isolating properties of
>> greenhouse gasses. They tested the total result. So since greenhouse gasses
>> do keep the heat in (I'm sure that is tested) they should have conlcuded
>> that there probably were some other mechanisms reducing the effect of
>> heating up. (I've seen graphs showing the amount of CO2 rose significantly
>> since 200 ago)
>> For example a higher amount of CO2 increases the growth of plants, so in
>> total they absorb more light and store it in their leaves instead of
>> reflecting it as heat.
>
>To my knowledge no one has tested if "greenhouse gasses" do cause a warming
>of an isolated system.

I think that experiments have been done many years ago. I've read in several
books what I wrote before: Greenhouse gasses are more opaque planetary
radiation than for solar radiation. 
This implies that the volume in which the greenhouse gas is present becomes
warmer than if it was a normal gas.

>Even if they did, it would be irrelavant to the global climtae issue.

I can't follow that, or are you saying that Earth's atmosphere isn't an
isolated system in this context.


>>>Then again, it was only a few years back that
>>>someone showed the greenhouse effect dosen't work in greenhouses.
>> 
>>I heard this before but still don't know how they thought a greenhouse
>>worked.
>>Of course the glass walls are much better of keeping the convective heat in
>>than the greenhouse gasses are in keeping the radiative heat in.
>
>Glass, like greenhouse gases is opage to heat but not visible light.  So it
>was assumed the light heateed the siol, and the heat couldn't radiate out.

But why isn't that true then? Or is it because the heat can radiate out but
only not as fast?

>Never heard those claims.  The worst temp rise claims I hear expected a 1-3 C
>change in the next half century to century.  Never heard anyone claim a .2-.4
>C per year change.  NASA's equipment could detect a .2 degree change over the
>last 25-30 years, but didn't see any change.

It may well be that my numbers are wrong and should indeed be more like 4
degrees per century but anyhow, they are an increase. And I heard several
times that the global temperature was increasing (although not necessary
caused by the greenhouse effect). Now I only wonder why NASA's measurement
shows something different than other measurements of which I don't recall
the source.


>>>But in an alien environ those isolated patchs here, could be the norm for
>>>the planet. (It would be worth a lot of study, but no one would want to live
>>>there!)
>> 
>> Yes, but it would mean they could not have evolved to higher organisms.
>
>Not nessisarily.  A complex sizable ecology could evolve complex life forms.
> Just becuse its based on something very weird doesn't change that.

I meant that higher organisms could not evolutionize in small areas because
there would be not enough food for a population large enough to overcome
inbreading.

Timothy