[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Hands and brains

To: T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl (Timothy van der Linden)
> More reply to Kelly
> >> Are you sure or are you guessing? The story that David wrote, I had
> >> before. It was the reason why I thought (before I read otherwise) that
> >> elephant (and a dolphin) had a small brain too.
> >
> >Yes, elephants have very large brains with normal sized cells, but the
> >are not aranged in a complex structure, and are not as proportionally
> >as humans.  Dolphins brains are larger (in mass and proportion) then
> >and are more structuralu complex, but the complexity isn't in the
> >centers.
> So than the final question is what determines the complexity of the

Yes and why it develops.

> >> Of course I don't have the hands on an experiment that proved it but I
> >> it very hard to believe that no one has tried to figure out to what kind
> >> radiation the so called greenhouse gasses are most opaque. This very
> >> experiment would show the proof or rebuttal.
> >
> >It is not a simple experiment.  NASA tried to do some studies comparing
> >thermal emmisions from earth and space to get a ballence audit.  So far
> >info is frustratingly inconclusive.  Climatologists really have little
> >on what percentage of the earths heat comes from solar heat, or converted
> >light, or internal heating.
> 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.  Even if they did, it would be irrelavant to the
global climtae issue.

> > >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
> 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.

> >> Did these images show there was no temperature increase or did they show
> >> that there was no increase due to the so called greenhouse effect. If
> >> mean the latter, how can they distinguish between normal and greenhouse
> >> deviations?
> >
> >They showed no detectable global increase in temp.
> So all these stories about a global temperature increases of 0.2-0.4 C/year
> are not true?

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.

> >But in an alien environ those isolated patchs here, could be the norm for
> >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.