create your own

Do you accept the greenhouse effect theory?

65
rate or flag this page

By Chef Jeff


To you, is the greenhouse effect a reality?

I want to make one thing clear so I don't get any ambiguity here.  I am not asking about global warming, cooling or anything else currently being debated in the hubs & blogs of the world.  I am simply asking, as it is presented, do you accept the greenhouse effect theory which states simply that the contents and quantity of certain gasses in the atmosphere are what currently keeps the Earth's temperature zone as they are?

Read on, please, before deciding to answer.

Here's the greenhouse effect theory in general.  As science has investigated the idea of a greenhouse effect, it noticed that greenhouses gathered and maintained solar heat during the day.  The light and heat energy went through the glass roof, but the heat did not escape back out, in effect causing a warming of the internal temperatures inside the greenhouse.

As scientists examined this further, and as planetary scientists began to gather data from Venus and Mars, it was discovered that Venus, with a thick atmosphere of so-called greenhouse gases, was much hotter than it should have been without such a dense layer of these gasses in its atmosphere. the cause, scientists say, is due to the same effect that we see and observe in a greenhouse.  The light and solar energy enter the atmosphere, but are not allowed to escape, and thus the heat builds up, much like a car on a hot day will get very hit inside when the sunlight warms the interior but the heat can not escape.

When scientists looked at Mars they saw the opposite effect, that is, the lack of a dense atmosphere allowed the solar heat to escape easily, and thus Mars has very cold surface and atmospheric temperatures.

Thus goes the idea of Greenhouse Effect.  On Earth we have a rather decent temperature range all over the globe because of the mixture of carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane and other gasses that will capture the heat trying to escape into space.  Too few greenhouse gasses and we begin to shift toward looking like Mars; too many and we make the shift toward the way Venus exists.

Now, again, I am not asking if you either accept or deny the global warming, global climate change, etc.  I am asking, do you accept the idea that greenhouse gasses work as science has shown us?  I believe that most people, once they understand how this effect actually works, do accept the greenhouse effect.  But I am curious, if you do not accept this scientific reasoning, what is there that could replace this idea and be shown to maintain Earth's temperature ranges?  That is, does anyone know of an alternative theory or idea that explains how Earth maintains the equilibrium we witness in our times?

Science has used the greenhouse effect to explain such large-scale weather and climate phenomenon as the ice ages, the ancient warm planet where dinosaurs dwelled, and so forth. The theory, as it applies to Earth, has been shown in models, and by comparisons with other planets we are beginning to explore.

So, do you buy it?  Do you accept that a greenhouse effect actually works, and is present on earth and possibly on other planets?

Thanks in advance for your comments and any information you provide in your comments.


Do you accept the science that explains the greenhouse effect?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Not sure
See results without voting

Do you believe the greenhouse effect maintains our current temperatures on Earth?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Not sure
See results without voting

Print   —   Rate it:  up  down  flag this hub

Comments

RSS for comments on this Hub

Melinda Winner  says:
5 months ago

Great hub thanks !

someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows  says:
5 months ago

Assuming the scientists are right about the green house effect.Trees and plants absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen.Scientists who have studied the atmosphere from 100,000 years ago by capturing the gas from bubbles of air in ice that is that old have discovered that their was more oxygen in the atmosphere then than there is today.We need at least 12 percent oxygen in the atmosphere to survive as humans.The oxygen then was probably 28 percent ,which is double what it is today.Of course there are at least two major reasons for this difference ,population and the polution they produce and the cutting down of trees to the extent we have in order to grow food.Although trees as well as cover crops should be seen as essential for preventing soil erosion as well as producing food year round instead of just during the growing season of certain crops,such as in a mono culture that is currently practiced by the mega-corporate farms.Trees especially should be seen for their major role in climate control as far as heat caused by carbon emissions from humans and animals.Carbon emissions from industrial polution is something else altogether which is why we need to learn to live in a world without a throw a way mentality ,when it comes to manufacturing.We can no longer continue to make things that are of inferior quality just so we can continue to sell year in and year out.Our way of life will change one way or another,if we are going to survive together as a planet it is not a matter of if,but when,and how fast these changes take place that will determine these changes will make enough of a difference to minimise the damage,to the earth and all of it's lifeforms ,both plant's and animal's.The simple approach,the financial markets seem to be taking ,by charging companies for the right to polute,will do nothing ,if the funds are not used wisely by investing them in the most practical ideas ,that will,have multiple returns on investment by not only preventing polution but creating energy and lowerng the cost of doing business as well,including cutting taxes as part of the process.Currently the tax on the retail price of gasoline is at least half.It's used to pave our roads.Well,if instead of having to pave all of the roads why can't we learn to live in smaller communities where the population is no more than say around 200,000 people.Each community of course would have all the amenities of the larger ones ,with the difference being,we wouldn't have to travel so far to get to work,or go to a park,or just about anywhere else.Some people today spend more time in their car than they do with their family at home.Many jobs today can be done at home.If the environment is going to change we have to be a major part of that change.

Georgiakevin profile image

Georgiakevin  says:
5 months ago

My feeling is that when you add poisons that are foreign to the environment something negative will happen to the environment whether it Greenhouse or something else. If poisons continue to be added without a way of making them harmless then logic tells us that something bad must happen to the envrinment. We cannot let greed rule out oer logic.

someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows  says:
5 months ago

The military is the biggest polluter,in the western world

Chef Jeff profile image

Chef Jeff  says:
5 months ago

Someonewhoknows, very interesting and informative comment. thanks, and I recognize your ideas. We do need to have a serious, non-political discussion of how and why we use carbon fuels as we do, and how we could get ourselves off the need for petrochemicals, or at least reduce the consumption so that we can it from local sources, not overseas markets. the volitile price of oil is a major cause of the up and down pricing we have seen. I also believe oil should be like any other product. It costs this much to make it, it costs this much to buy it, and stop the speculation that causes so much pain at the pump.

Georgiakevin, I agree that there can be a point at which the garbage in is greater than the garbage out, especially in the atmosphere. At times it takes centuries for a specific mo0lecule to climb up the layers of the atmosphere, but other times it only takes a year or so.

we saw the ozone depletion with a few decades of starting to use larger amounts of chloroflorocarbons, yet there are still particloes from volcanic eruptions three centuries ago that are up there. Once it goes up, it take a long time to come back down, especially because there is no precipitation at the highest levels of the atmosphere.

Melinda Winner, thanks for the encouragment!

Thanks for the comments, my friends.

Submit a Comment

Members and Guests

Sign in or sign up and post using a hubpages account.


optional


  • No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked
  • Comments are not for promoting your hubs or other sites

working