Re: Hands and brains.

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

Kelly,
 
>> 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
>IR bands.

Yes, I know, but "earth-light" is even more intense in that band.
(more intense relative to the sunlight that finds it way to the soil)

>> 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.
>
>You keep assuming greenhouse gasses cause global warming.  That is an
>unproven theory.

No, I keep assuming that greenhouse gasses do keep the heat in and I've
never heard (except from you) that it keeps the heat out or has no effect at
all.

>> 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.

You are saying that greenhouse gasses don't exist, or in other words there
are no gasses that have a higher reflectivity for IR-light than for visible
and UV-light.

>> 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.

Indeed, it should heat up because that was what the data collected from
experiments with greenhousgasses showed.

>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.

Suppose you know that a mass falls, because you've done many experiments.
Now you see a mass and it is not falling. How is that possible?
Well there is only one solution you say, the theory and experiments must be
wrong somewhere.
NO, there are some simple solutions, it could be that the mass is hanging on
a wire or that the mass is lying on a table.

>> 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 assume that do mean the absolute amount of reflected heat and not the
reflection coefficient. Is it a coincidence that these absolute amounts are
equal?
I now don't understand anymore why does it become warm in a greenhouse?

>> Ah I see, the well know "media effect". :)
>
>Like they say, 'Good news, isn't news.'

In our family we always say, no news is good news.

>>  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.

I hadn't thought of Io which has vulcanism due to tidal-forces and strong
magnetic fields. About Venus, I'm not completely sure but there are only few
vulcanos there.

So indeed, Io which I hadn't thought of, could sustain non-photosyntetic
life for a long time.

Timothy