Is the greehouse effect the result of man building too many greenhouses?

Question

Could we cut down on the overheating of the earth by making it against the law to build and maintain a greenhouse?

Answer 1

yes it is and yes we should. You should be an elected official!

Answer 2

There are a couple of answers to your question that are germane. The first is that the equilibrium temperature of a body in space is governed by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is a term in this law identified normally with the Greek letter epsilon called the emissivity. This emissivity factor identifies how much incident radiation a body will absorb as well as how much it will radiate at a particular temperature. The greenhouse effect theory proposes that the constituents of the atmosphere around a planet alters the planet's emissivity factor. The second reference below provides the equilibrium temperature of a planet warmed by a star. It makes an assumption that both the star and the planet have an emissivity of 1, i.e., that both are perfect black bodies. If this assumption were true, then the equilibrium mean temperature of the planet would never change. However, if either the emissivity of the star or the planet changes, then the equilibrium temperature will change. The ratio of the star's emissivity to the planet's emissivity is the important factor for this effect. If the star's emissivity rises, then that ratio will increase and the planet will warm. If the planets emissivity rises, then the planet's equilibrium temperature will fall. Your question asks if the greenhouse effect can be "proven". The answer is yes. It is possible to measure the mean emissivity of a planet, although it is not trivial since it requires a fairly lengthy measurement. However, one needs to eliminate emissivity changes due to cloud cover and surface "color" changes (oil slicks, plankton blooms, large burned areas, etc.) in order to extract the change due to atmospheric constituency. Of perhaps greater importance is the question "can we scientifically prove that accessible changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels affect the temperature of the earth?" The answer to this question is also "yes". In fact, it is much easier to do this. The Vostok ice core data (see reference) shows an extended history of the temperature and atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide for the earth. In this extended (450,000 year) historical record, there has never been an incidence where carbon dioxide levels have changed before a change in planetary temperatures. That is temperatures rise before CO2 levels rise and temperatures fall before CO2 levels fall. So, the Vostok ice core data provides sufficient information to show that accessible levels of atmospheric CO2 concentration has essentially no effect on earth's emissivity. That is, essentially no greenhouse effect can be attributed to atmospheric CO2 concentration. ------------------- I find it necessary to amend this to address the post by Thomas K below. His post is accurate, but somewhat misleading. If the specific heat of the atmosphere was all that was in play, then the temperature of the planet would increase to infinity. That is, the radiant energy flux from the sun is ongoing, and the specific heat of the planet would simply convert that to heat. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is the controlling factor for the temperature of the planet. Not the specific heat of the planet's constituents. Oh, no. More eye glazing ahead. Thomas K detected a debate, but really his response is more of a clarification as was mine. I would label it more of a conversation than a debate. Thomas K correctly identifies ice or snow covered ground as key components in regulating the emissivity of the earth. My abreviated list of oil slicks and plankton blooms implied but could have specifically stated snow and ice effects. Anyway, the original question centered on the Greenhouse effect, which is purely atmospheric and my answer still stands. The Greenhouse effect can be measured, albeit with some difficulty, and accessible atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has no associated Greenhouse effect. The loss of ice and snow may very well be a "bad thing", as Thomas K puts it, but since the only proposed intervention is to regulate CO2 levels, which have no associated Greenhouse effect, there is nothing we can do about the situation except prepare for the effects.

Answer 3

the greenhouse effect occurs when light from the sun enters our atmosphere and then bounces back off of the stratosphere (or one of those sphere's) just like it does with the glass in a greenhouse (hence the term greenhouse effect). Plus it is inevitable, there is no controlling it! It is part of the nature of earth!

Answer 4

It's like a metaphor..... the greenhouse efffect is that the Earth is kinda turning into a greenhouse because of the gases

Answer 5

The builders of greenhouses try to keep all the heat inside of their greenhouses, so greenhouses are not related with greenhouse effect and such law wouldn't help at all. Read in en.wikipedia.org about greenhouse effect and its reasons.

Answer 6

The greenhouse effect is how the earths atmosphere traps gas like a greenhouse. That is why when you burn coal and drive cars you are hurting the earth.

Answer 7

omg no dude green house effect is carbon dioxide from cars not greenhouses its just called that cuz theyr alike

Answer 8

No. It is caused by Home Depot having too many sales on green house paint.

Answer 9

green the green house effet has to do with
the heating of the earth and the
gas and toxiens we relis into the air.
it has nothing to do with plant green houses.

Answer 10

No, but that makes just as much sense as some of the "real" causes.