John Cuthber

Can you let us know your explanation? Still waiting.

So what? Had anyone said they couldn't? Do you realise that humans did not evolve from chimps? Nobody really thinks they did. So, what you are doing is presenting a straw man argument. So, once again... since this is a science site, I expect you to provide the extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claim.

For teh sake of discussion, it's unlikely that Alex was ever told about a toy doll. But if you showed him a green doll and asked what colour it was then (so I'm told) he would tell you it was green, He could tell you that a coke can was red without needing to be told. What Green meant to Alex was the same as it means to you or me.

And, since this is a science site, I expect you to provide the extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claim.

It can be dangerous to make absolute claims on science discussion boards. "By the late 1980s, Alex had learned the names of more than 50 different objects, five shapes, and seven colors." Alex was a parrot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_cognition Being able to name the colour of an object means you understand the idea of colour. The crucial test is naming the colour of an object which you had not previously seen. I understand that Alex passed that test.

Science can't prove God because of this. https://ericthegodeatingpenguin.com/

Which is what I have been saying all along. You seem to have missed this. Can you let us know your explanation?

I'm still saying that, if the effect was big enough to matter, we would have found out about it. To be blunt, we would have found out the same way we learned that there was a problem with thalidomide. We would have noticed the victims. Let's flip this on it's head. If, as you suggest, the stuff is causing significant harm, how come things like the yellow card scheme (not to mention a stack of ambulance chasing lawyers) have not noticed it?

That's interesting. Surely the outdoors is outdoors and I shouldn't care what the temperature there is. On the other hand, if I'm worried about preventing condensation, those numbers make more sense. If it's 15% RH indoors, you will get problems of dry eyes etc.

That's debatable at best. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/the-science-says-there-s-no-difference-between-a-dry-or-a-wet-cold-sorry-1.6268564

Possibly because the reason why that area is misty is because it is cold. Why else would there be mist there, but not elsewhere? Because it's over a thousand times denser. Water vapour has a higher heat capacity than air, but a lower thermal conductivity. If it's cold enough that you are not sweating (significantly) then the rate of evaporation is irrelevant to heat transfer. At 10C that probably applies. It's well known that "other people's houses" feel colder for the same temperature- simply because you learn to avoid the drafts in your own house.

It's complicated but for most people (unless they are doing a lot of physical work, 10 degrees will be too cold. And that will be the case regardless of humidity. If you just heat up the air the relative humidity will fall and that will also add to comfort. The "wasted" energy from a dehumidifier will warm the room and be beneficial anyway. But a heater is cheaper to buy. There are books about this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_comfort

For plenty of animals "red is ripe but green isn't" is relevant.

Colour is not the same as wavelength: discuss. In the meantime , here is some music...

There are plenty of Left wing votes. The current government only got about 40% and you can assume they included pretty much all the Right wing. The problem is our electoral system. The biggest minority becomes an elected dictatorship.