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

Re: Hands and brains.

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

Then we mean the same, only express it different...

>> I think that experiments have been done many years ago. I've read in
>> 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?

I don't understand why you think it keeps the heat out during daylight?
As far as I know, it keeps the heat in day AND night.

>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.

In this whole discussion I was talking ONLY about the effect of green house
gasses. The word cloud never appeared in my writing, indeed it is not known
yet what clouds do exactly, but that wasn't what I was discussing.
There are probably many effects that compensate for the increased density of
greenhouse gasses, but it can be assumed that if the density of the
greenhouse gasses gets to big, like on Venus, other effects cannot
compensate enough.

So we can conclude one thing: the global temperature stays the same, but
since greenhouse gasses ALWAYS cause an increase of the temperature there
MUST be other effects that work against it.

The speculation is that the greenhouse effect can increase to a much higher
limit than the counter-effects can. When that happens one talks about a
run-away greenhouse effect.

>> 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.

Hmm, I don't see what is new. The amounts of reflection don't matter only
the reflection DIFFERENCES for solar and soil radiation do matter.

I notice that you are talking about solar heat and soil heat, I think that
is not correct, you should use solar radiation and soil radiation since both
have a very different distribution of the wavelengths (soil has more
infrared while the Sun has more ultra violet).

>> 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.  

Ah I see, the well know "media effect". :)

>> 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.

Oh, I thought you were talking about isolated pools, or are these "isolated"
pools close enough to "jump" from one to the other.

Assuming the geo-recycling of chemicals is global, the creatures using these
chemicals would have only relative short period to evolve, since large scale
geo-recycling(=vulcans) will exist for a not to long period.