Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (22183)	7/13/2008 5:30:35 PM
From: maceng2	Respond to of 36917

When Arrhenius developed his theory, (and making many assumptions and estimates that were necessary) it was knocked down and "disproved". The paper by Dr, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner mentions an experiment R.W. Wood conducted in 1909 that threw out the claim about greenhouses being hotter because they trapped radiation. earthobservatory.nasa.gov earthobservatory.nasa.gov The calculation by Arrhenius is a very simple one to arrive at though... enginova.com No need for undergraduate level vector analysis. No curls or Divs !!!!! Several of my posts should have indicated to you I am already aware that the simple ideas of a glasshouse isn't the bedrock of my thoughts on climate science. aka... Message 24721613 Anyway I digress. All science is imperfect, some theories fit the facts better then others, and if some really weird one (example Einstein's theory of relativity.. looking very much like a theory bent to fit the facts) looks to be making headway it's necessary to have another look at it. Arrhenius's theory was "disproved" and dropped like a hot potato straight off planet Venus. It started to make a comeback after the 1960's though, and it was not given an easy ride. One has to ask why... and be a little open minded.