Greenhouse used in a sentence

Greenhouse in a sentence as a noun

That is not photons eating a greenhouse gas like the title seems to imply. Lamp, as wickedchicken suggests, would be a clearer term.

Are these "businessmen" just growing illegal plants in a greenhouse, or are they also shooting their rivals outside schools? I guess it depends on the case.

Startup-land is a greenhouse arrangement that thrives so long as the temperature remains high. When the guy who owns the greenhouse cuts the power, most of those plants are gonna die.

Especially in light of the fact that Elon Musk's original plan was to send a greenhouse with plants to Mars. Perhaps I over-estimate the HN crowd.

If you're serious about building this system for your greenhouse in the next few months, I'd love to have you as a beta tester. My email is in my profile if you're interested.

A clear balloon containing an ecosystem would heat up due to the greenhouse effect. If it's sufficiently large and allowed to slightly expand it could float freely in the air.

This summer in the UK was unbearable in my new flat, which appears to have been designed as the most effective greenhouse in the world. I always look forward to autumn and winter.

Costs associate with pollution, greenhouse gases, moral hazard, etc. are all risks and costs that must be mitigated at the transaction level, otherwise the market fails.

So, cabs use the city's public streets as mobile parking lots, hovering close to potential fares, snarling traffic, and emitting greenhouse gasses until they snag one. Increase the number of medallions, and you have a corresponding increase in the amount of traffic in a city as cabs wander around fishing.

Greenhouse in a sentence as an adjective

So in theory, burning methane to produce energy, would give only half the greenhouse gas emissions, compared to burning oil. But, methane is 25 to 72 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2 [1], so even relatively small leakages during the production + transport + use of methane might be enough to spoil the advantage.

We've built up a ton of infrastructure -- a five-acre ranch [1], a greenhouse, mushroom farms, tree farms, strip mines, and monster farms, so we have easy access to virtually every type of resource. Everything is interconnected via rail lines or portals, so material transport is not an issue.

Forging aluminum is a hugely energy intensive process that produces significant greenhouse gases. It's a cheat to say the smelters use hydropower -- if this were to scale up to power the automotive industry it would require more dams which have major ecological impact. Plus there's still the greenhouse gas emission and transport problem.

Maybe I'm the ignorant one but are you conflating gas from oil with natural gas, which actually has been driven to record low prices[1], so much so that utilities have switched from coal to natural gas at such a fast pace that it reduced our greenhouse gas emissions by a considerable amount in 2012[2]?" Prices as high as ever and destroy the environment as a bonus" may be doubly wrong.

Something as simple as everyone paying taxes to provide for things such as air quality testing so we don't end up like Beijing are another example, along with mandating carbon controls so that we can at least try to arrest runaway greenhouse effect that would cause global warming down the road. Sometimes long-term freedom does require constraint on permissible action.

That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries.

I'm curious: why do you put "greenhouse gases" in scare marks? It's rather unclear what your goal is besides emotive outburst. Are you denying that the greenhouse effect exists? That chemicals exist that interact with various forms of EM radiation? That those chemicals can exist in a gaseous state? Maybe you're skeptical that they're man-made. If so, why not put the quotes around "man-made" instead of "greenhouse gases"?

Furthermore H20 has multiple effects - in the form of vapor it is a great greenhouse gas, in the form of clouds it is a great reflector of light, as it precipitates, it removes other things that can cause global warming, if it precipitates as snow, it causes cooling, etc. In any detailed modeling of climate, it is very important and difficult to get the impacts of H20 right.