Green house effect

User login

New Green Jobs!

Click Here to see Green Jobs or Post a Green Job for Free

Navigation

Green Jobs

Green Job of Your Dreams

More jobs

Post a new green job

Green Talk

The greenhouse effect was theorized by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. It is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by atmospheric gases warm a planet's lower atmosphere and surface.
Recent increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). The monthly CO2 measurements display small seasonal oscillations in an overall yearly uptrend; each year's maximum is reached during the Northern Hemisphere's late spring, and declines during the Northern Hemisphere growing season as plants remove some CO2 from the atmosphere.Existence of the greenhouse effect as such is not disputed. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F), without which Earth would be uninhabitable

____________________
Tom

For Sale By Owner

Re: Green house effect

Submitted by reginag on Mon, 09/28/2009 - 02:57.

Considering nature or environment on construction is indeed a great job. It also adds accent on every aspect of the house design.
custom home plans

American Clean Coal

Submitted by MikeKateWilson_12k on Mon, 02/09/2009 - 23:10.

Coal is the enemy of the human race. It is corrosive to the communities and ecosystems where it is mined. Coal-fired power plants spew particulates and mercury pollution in to the air, cutting short some 30,000 lives a year. Those power plants are also responsible for 40 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions; electric power generation is the single biggest source of global greenhouse gases. The industry funds deliberately deceptive propaganda campaigns about global warming. Coal barons like Massey Energy's Don Blankenship openly purchase state government officials to fight off labor and environmental enforcement.

So-called " Clean Coal " is an improvement, if it is coupled with carbon sequestration. But, as I've argued, the full cost of coal liquefaction and carbon sequestration will make coal power uncompetitive with, for example, wind.

Re: American Clean Coal

Submitted by hari001 on Mon, 03/23/2009 - 23:01.

Hi friends

This is a very nice thought. I think that every member of this site should appreciate your thought.

Joseph

Re: American Clean Coal

Submitted by hari001 on Thu, 03/19/2009 - 00:12.

Hi friends

I want to decorate my living room. which kind of flowers is best suited.

Joseph

Re: Green house effect

Submitted by jstack6 on Fri, 11/21/2008 - 00:45.

almost, but the full story is:

water vapour concentrations is too short lived to change the climate !

If you were to read through the table of climate forcings in the IPCC report or at NASA's page about forcings in its GCM, you won't find water vapour there at all. This is not because climate scientists are trying to hide the role of water vapour, rather it is because H2O in the troposphere is a feedback effect, it is not a forcing agent. Simply put, any artificial perturbation in water vapour concentrations is too short lived to change the climate. Too much in the air will quickly rain out, not enough and the abundant ocean surface will provide the difference via evaporation. But once the air is warmed by other means, H2O concentrations will rise and stay high, thus providing the feedback. solar stacks

Re: Green house effect

Submitted by hari001 on Mon, 03/16/2009 - 23:38.

Hi friends

This is a nice thought. I think that every member of this site should appreciate your thought.

Joseph

Re: Green house effect

Submitted by ctyankee on Fri, 11/21/2008 - 07:40.

hey jstack,

These are good and valid points ;^) And in the realm of pure science, the ability to isolate such a tiny signal <0.2% out of the noise, is a testament to the reasoning abilities of the "climate scientists"*.

My point is that the feedback effects are the controlling element on the loop. The drift caused by the GHGs is nothing worse than a small drift in the calibration of the baseline. As long as the oceans are wet, and there is some dry land the water cycle will remain in control.

The net temperature of the Earth will be determined by the amount of energy emitted by the sun, and the amount intercepted at the 1AU distance. There will be excursions, that is undeniable.

The desire for a placid, stable, unchanging climate is primitive. It might be a comforting desire, yet it is an unrealistic expectation. The seas will rise and fall, desert will consume farm, forests will fall to the axe, and topsoil will erode. Sorry, that's the price for civilization.

Look at the bright side, Iran may now have the bomb... That means the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists might move the Doomsday Clock closer than it's current 5 min to midnight. It'll all be over soon.

Objoke:

*Climate Scientist - The modern PC term for a weatherman without the good looks necessary to make it out of the local UHF TV station.

Re: Green house effect

Submitted by BaskUU on Tue, 12/30/2008 - 04:31.

Due to the Green House effect the ozone layer is deleteing.So,we should reduce the use of carbon monoxide an carbon dioxide.

New Cars

Re: Green house effect

Submitted by dsanco on Fri, 12/05/2008 - 09:49.

All of this talk about the environment, wow, I mean, talk about fitting our lives into the bubble of what the environment should be... Are we to be controlled by the environment or are we going to really do something about it? We have the technology and ability to make of the warming/cooling situation anything we want. Vortex Tube theory alone suggests a way to cool the local and wide area temperatures using the Coriolis effect as the only driving force. A simple segmented berm fence 20 to 30 miles in diameter angled in such a way that the rotation of the earth causes air to accumulate inside, will push air up into a high pressure zone and naturally cause the hot air to dissipate. By the way, this updraft will also be usable for fuel-free transportation. Another berm fence arranged so that the air is taken from the circle causes a low pressure zone, and suddenly you have a air highway for gliders.

Re: Green house effect

Submitted by ctyankee on Fri, 12/05/2008 - 10:31.

Sorry dsanco, let's say 80 miles in diameter, that's less than 1 ten thousandth of the earth sunlit surface.. it's like saying one bird-splat on the ide of a barn changes the color of a barn -- the barn is still red :^) Have a nice weekend.

The Light is Green!

Re: Green house effect

Submitted by dsanco on Wed, 12/17/2008 - 08:33.

Thank you ctyankee

I am certainly not limiting the design to just one, but just one would be enough to lock in the jetstreem to that location. Or push it away if that is the desired configuration. What I am getting at, is we have engineering on our side. We all have seen the power of one small tornado, or hurricane. I am talking about a tornado that covers over a thousand square miles. Maybe slower wind speeds for safety, but locked in place. Left handed for heat, Right handed for cool. The basic principal is the vortex tube. Throw in some Ionic breeze air acceleration...

Re: Green house effect

Submitted by ctyankee on Wed, 12/17/2008 - 10:55.

um... wow. We really need to work on some basic understanding of scale.

Re: Green house effect

Submitted by dsanco on Thu, 12/18/2008 - 05:52.

I know it's a bit out there but it is nowhere near the feet of the Hoover Dam. I also know that it would take concerted effort, and the land space of a smallish city... The U.S. is almost 10million sq mi, and 40 mi divided by 2 then squared and multiplied by pi gives us about 1200 sq mi, like you said about 10,000 to one. That's a little better than the drain in my bathtub, and unlike the bird splat in the previous example, this would be active like the drain, moving the air up to the edge of the troposphere 10 mi up. This columb of disturbance would attract or repel the jetstream possibly pull it down. The result would lock the arctic air up nouth or with the flip of a switch pull it south for the summer.

wind power texas

Submitted by Jeorge on Tue, 11/18/2008 - 21:48.

You can also implement the right energy efficiency steps by calling in an energy inspector, to check the way you consume home energy.

Re: Green house effect

Submitted by ctyankee on Sun, 11/02/2008 - 11:27.

Hi Tom,

And did you know the most potent greenhouse gas is... <drum roll> Dihydrogen Monoxide... aka H2O

Yes water vapor, not CO2, which has a GHG value of 1.0 (the default) not Methane GHG=2, not SO2 GHG=4, and not SO3 GHG=-50 (aerosol sulfates)

Water has a GHG value of 23,000, and instead of existing in the atmosphere at a few hundred PPM, H2O varies from almost zero to several percent and saturates the atmosphere at times (rain).

:^) The Light is Green!

Re: Green house effect

Submitted by Billy345 on Mon, 03/16/2009 - 09:05.

You may find this interesting and relevant to your argument if you keep an open mind- this is from the organization which is setting reporting and policy standards and addressed your H2O issue: - Drum Roll....

Water Vapor.

Water vapor is the most abundant naturally occurring GHG and, therefore, makes up a significant share of the natural, background greenhouse effect. However, water vapor emissions from human
activities have only a negligible effect on atmospheric concentrations of water vapor. Significant changes to global atmospheric concentrations of water vapor occur indirectly through human-induced global warming, which then increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere because a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture. Therefore, changes in water vapor concentrations are not an initial driver of climate change, but rather an effect of
climate change which then acts as a positive feedback that further enhances warming. For this reason, the IPCC does not list direct emissions of water vapor as an anthropogenic forcing agent of climate change, but does include this water vapor feedback mechanism in response to human-induced warming in all modeling scenarios of future climate change. Based on this recognition that
anthropogenic emissions of water vapor are not a significant driver of anthropogenic climate change, EPA’s annual Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks does not include water vapor, and GHG inventory reporting guidelines under the UNFCCC do not require data on water vapor emissions.

The Climate Registry
523 W. 6th Street, Suite 445

Used Toyota Prius for sale