Maybe you should read it little better next timemitch212k wrote:
+1 ty 4 trying man, but i cant c if it says how long the theory has been around
Wikipedia wrote:
This effect was first described by Joseph Fourier in 1824, and first investigated quantitatively in 1896 by the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius[6], although the greenhouse effect did not enter into popular awareness until the 1980s.
That depends entirely on what sort of theory of global warming you are looking at. Global warming is not a theory, just like evolution is not a theory. They are both termed theories by many people who do not realise that they are actually a collection of many constituent theories.mitch212k wrote:
+1 ty 4 trying man, but i cant c if it says how long the theory has been around
Read all the above, some usefull stuff thereAbove Link wrote:
Now, back in the '60s, when global warming theory first got some of the serious first scientific articles on the issue, it was mainly scientists that knew physics and radiation and didn't know much about the weather that were advancing catastrophic theories of global warming. And it's because they were just looking at it from a radiation point of view. You've got sunlight coming in, you've got infrared radiation going out cooling the earth. Those two have to balance, but we keep pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, trapping more radiation. The planet should heat up
Last edited by pedigreeuk (2006-12-17 10:11:51)
god damn, put some effort into it you lazy bastard! it's YOUR education!mitch212k wrote:
+1 ty 4 trying man, but i cant c if it says how long the theory has been around
Last edited by R3v0LuT!oN (2006-12-17 10:12:10)
That's a very old article. I've only skimmed it, but lots of the ideas presented are not currently accepted. In fact in the conclusion they say that we should wait to see what scientific developments happen in the field, till we have a better understanding of the problem - which we now do (it being 9 years later and all).pedigreeuk wrote:
LINKRead all the above, some usefull stuff thereAbove Link wrote:
Now, back in the '60s, when global warming theory first got some of the serious first scientific articles on the issue, it was mainly scientists that knew physics and radiation and didn't know much about the weather that were advancing catastrophic theories of global warming. And it's because they were just looking at it from a radiation point of view. You've got sunlight coming in, you've got infrared radiation going out cooling the earth. Those two have to balance, but we keep pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, trapping more radiation. The planet should heat up