Re: Hands and brains.

[KellySt@aol.com]

Subj:  Re: Hands and brains.
to: 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?

Clear advantage for what. I.E. what pushed us to do that much evolving into
our brains and tool making.

> >> 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.

Implies, not proves.  Atmosphers have many complex interactions, few of which
are well understood.  So even if the green gases did block radiation from
escaping and kept in heat.  Would that cause the system to heat or cool?
 Would it keep the heat in at night but keep it out durring the day?  Would
this change cause more cloude cover which would effect the balence (it isn't
known if clouds heat or cool).  How would global wind patterns change?

All this stuff interacts, and no one knows how.  So even if they knew what
the green gases did, they still couldn't tell what the total effect on the
system would be. Best you could do is check records for long term trends over
the last 200 year (i.e. industrial revolution time.), but that shows no clear
pattern, and the data has more holes than solids.

> >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.

See above


> >>>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?

The solar energy doesn't  change in bulk to heat.  The glass blocks solar
heat as well as soil heat.  Above all the heat radiation rates were not the
dominent effect in the system.

> >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.

The press and ecogroups often report the temperature increase.  Science and
climatology reports usualy report inconclusive results.  But the press and
advocacy groups hate that, so they skip over it.  

I know that NASA was called on the carpet for reporting their data.  Tenb
Senator (now vice president) Gore gets a lot of his image for his stance on
the environment, and in hearing he got VERY nasty to the NASA guys trying to
report facts that made him look like an idiot.  So they don't mention it
anymore, and the press never really picked up on it.  UInless you read the
journals (or worked at NASA headquarters ;) ) you'ld never have heard it.

> >>>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.

I was assuming the environments were large scale, even global.

Kelly