[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
> >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
> >> warmer than if it was a normal gas.
> >Implies, not proves. Atmosphers have many complex interactions, few of
> >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?
> >this change cause more cloude cover which would effect the balence (it
> >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.
Climatologists don't agree on that. Sun light has a large component in the
> >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
> >the last 200 year (i.e. industrial revolution time.), but that shows no
> >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
> 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.
You keep assuming greenhouse gasses cause global warming. That is an
> 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.
Or we can, we equal validity given the data, assume that 'greenhouse gases'
don't cause a temperature rise, since no rise has occured after largescale
introduction of those gases to the atmosphere. We don't know! Not knowing
makes bad press, but its honest science.
> 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.
A speculation that was thought up after it was agreed that the globe isn't
warming. Greenhouse advocates, who previously all agreed that data would
show it was warming, then thought up a new theory to explain why they were
right, but were early. Again, no data exists to prove their theory.
> >> 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.
And I said the differnces didn't cause the so called 'greenhouse effect'.
I.E. the reflection of heat (from solar heated soil) back into the green
house, seemed to be matched by the amount of solarheat reflected away from
the green house.
> 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).
Solar heat would by definition be the IR band of sunlight. your nit picking.
> >> It may well be that my numbers are wrong and should indeed be more like
> >> degrees per century but anyhow, they are an increase. And I heard
> >> times that the global temperature was increasing (although not necessary
> >> caused by the greenhouse effect). Now I only wonder why NASA's
> >> shows something different than other measurements of which I don't
> >> the source.
> >The press and ecogroups often report the temperature increase. Science
> >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". :)
Like they say, 'Good news, isn't news.'
> >> I meant that higher organisms could not evolutionize in small areas
> >> there would be not enough food for a population large enough to
> >> 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.
I was talking about non isolated pools, or global ecosheres.
> 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.
Why do you asume that? Vulcanism on Earth is a localized and infrequent
phenominon, but other bodies in this solar system (like Venus or one of the
jovian moons) it seems almost constant.