How does CO2 warming effect thermodynamic laws?

A study shows that 36% of US college graduates leave learning nothing. Now I believe this fact.

Lessee if I can explain this with mostly nonscientific terminology.

Energy comes to the Earth from the sun, mostly as ultraviolet and visible light. Ultraviolet and visible light will pass right through carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses. So, the energy from that light ends up on the Earth's surface.

When it hits the Earth's surface, a lot of it is absorbed and re-radiated as infrared light. That is, when it hits the ground, it turns into a different kind of light, losing some energy along the way as heat. Infrared light will *not* pass right through CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, that's what makes them greenhouse gasses. So, the infrared light that's coming up from the Earth's surface kind of gets "caught" in the CO2 in the atmosphere, and gets bounced around more or less at random. Some of that bouncing around will make it turn back and hit the Earth's surface again, making the surface warmer.

The more CO2 and other greenhouse gasses there are, the more infrared light gets caught and bounced back to the surface. If we absorbed all of the energy coming in from the sun, without releasing any of it, we'd be hotter than the planet Venus. There's more than enough heat coming in, it's just that greenhouse gasses keep that heat here.

So, yes, they are insulating rather than actually causing heat. But, in casual conversation, it makes sense to talk about "warming from CO2", since it is warming that is the direct result of having more atmospheric CO2, even if the CO2 is in no way the source of the additional energy.

CO2 warming does not effect thermodynamic laws. It is exactly what is expected from thermodynamic laws. CO2 absorbs infrared energy from the

In science, "Law" does not mean absolute. We take the word of scientists that something is a "Law," yet when these same scientists discuss evolution or global warming, many of us question or even reject what they say. Many say that the laws of thermodynamics prove that we can not make perpetual motion machines, but from a scientific viewpoint, we as supposed to believe the laws of thermodynamics because no one has built, demonstrated and marketed a perpetual motion machine. The laws of thermodynamics are falsifiable and a successful perpetual motion machine would falsify the laws of thermodynamics.

Actually, if global warming were actually disproven, the laws of thermodynamics could be in trouble.

edit

<Energy is not a greenhouse gas so how can a greenhouse gas cause warming if it is not energy.>

Green house gases are not energy. They absorb energy.

<You must be talking insulation rather than energy>

Yes.

Warming by CO2 has no effect on the laws of thermodynamics--it must obey the laws of thermodynamics. Typically the Earth is very close to being in radiative equilibrium. That means that the energy coming in from the sun is equal to what's reflected from the planet plus what is radiated and escapes Earth's atmosphere. If it is NOT in equilibrium, then it will either heat up (if more energy is coming in than leaving) or cool down (if less energy is coming in than leaving). Adding CO2 to the atmosphere shifts the balance slightly in favor of more energy coming in than leaving, since the atmosphere will absorb more of the outgoing infrared radiation. As a consequence, the Earth system will warm up. Since the amount of energy radiated by the Earth goes as the fourth power of temperature, the Earth will start radiating more and eventually a new equilibrium would be established at a higher temperature. That is, of course, if the amount of CO2 stops going up.

Note that carbon dioxide does not create energy, it just forces more of the sun's energy to be retained.

The carbon oxygen bond absorbs certain infrared radiation frequencies and then emits the energy in the micro-wave region. Thus converting the infrared to heating energy. As you know microwaves are absorbed by water and there is plenty of that around. It is water that produces the "blanket". Water has an extremely high energy co-efficient, meaning it takes more energy to raise the temperature of water than virtually any other substance. Also water turns to water vapour absorbing a large amount of "latent" energy. When the sun disappears the vapour turns back into water releasing the energy back into the atmosphere. That is why desert areas heat and cool far faster than ocean areas.

So all the CO2 is doing is converting infrared to microwave. In fact the carbon hydrogen bond absorbs more infrared and emits more microwaves and that is why methane is a far more effective "greenhouse" gas. So in short Carbon gas compounds do not store energy but convert energy just as glass transmits radiant energy but stops conduction. The glass itself does not store the energy.

<<How does CO2 warming effect thermodynamic laws?>>

It doesn't--the laws of thermodynamics are LAWS.

<<and there is nothing in the laws of thermodynamics indicating anything other than energy causes warming>>

After indicating that you have no idea what is meant by "the laws of thermodtnamics" you seem to think you know what are in them.

<<Energy is not a greenhouse gas so how can a greenhouse gas cause warming if it is not energy.>>

Energy is not a blanket, so how can a blanket warm you when you are sleeping.

<<Maybe if you used correct causes and effects a little sense might develop from all this chatter.>>

You seem unaware with whom the problem lies.

It's actually the other way around. CO2 like all other matter, abides by thermodynamic law.

CO2 isn't infrared energy, ofcourse. But it does, by it's molecular properties, affect the infrared energy produced by the sun that reaches our planet.

To put it simply, energy is not a greenhouse gas, but greenhouse gas affects the energy that reaches our planet.

CO2 is merely a measurable reason if the IPCC's version of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation with huge water vapor comments amplification is in certainty the way that climate purposes, there is although no evidence of that hypothesis. Idso's climate sensitivity function is merely as possibly to be actual, which might make doubling of atmospheric CO2 ranges reason some 0.2 C enhance in worldwide temperatures. EDIT: 1000's of climatologists eh, specific i'm specific climatology one 0 one became the nice and comfortable course to take ten years in the past, a ludicrous assertion. EDIT: JS A one hundred,000 isn't something, i might believe Exxon any day on any difficulty over the U.N., your straw guy attitude is amazingly telling of your character.

CO2, by 'absorbing' Infra red radiative energy, slows the rate of planetary cooling (alegedly). That's all. The surface & the atmosphere cool radically every night. CO2 simply has a slight dampening effect on that process. The heat eventually escapes though, by convection & re-radiation - so no need to get all excited or alarmist about it .

The application of thermodynamic principles defines how variations within the heat content of the atmosphere affect its dynamic characteristics, given that under most circumstances the atmosphere behaves as a fluid.

Changes to pressure and volume within the atmosphere are consequent to the addition or subtraction of heat from an air parcel or are consequent to work done upon said parcel within bounded parameters.

The laws of thermodynamics dictate the outcome when changes in heat content, pressure and volume occur.

As an example, the first law of thermodynamics provides that heat energy added to a parcel of air can increase the internal energy balance and / or cause an effect or work to be done on the surrounding environment. From this we can establish the adiabatic relationship, namely that any change in temperature within an air parcel is due to expansion or compression (contraction) provided always that there is no external loss or gain of heat.

Knowing that external heat can come from evapouration, radiation, eddy conduction or condensation allows the determination of a steady state of the adiabatic relationship and therefore the calculation of the influence of the loss or gain of external heat upon an air parcel.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

The warming within the atmosphere is a consequence of the increased retention of thermal radiation by the enhanced greenhouse effect. Put simply, the more greenhouse gas molecules are present within the atmosphere the more heat energy they are able to retain.

This is something that can be scientifically and mathematically equated and can easily be demonstrated using very simple apparatus. Below is a link to the results of a simple experiment I have performed several times which compares the retention of heat within normal air and within carbon dioxide, when both are exposed to identical amounts of heat energy:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/trevorandclaire/45588...

Thankfully the laws of thermodynamics do hold true. If they didn’t then not only would there be no manmade warming but there would be no natural warming either. Were that to be the case then our planet would have an average temperature of –18°C, it would be a lifeless ball of ice.

- - - - - - - - - - -

RE: YOUR ADDED DETAILS

In many cases it is easier to think of global warming as being the result of increasing Earth’s insulative blanket – i.e. the concentration of greenhouse gases within the atmosphere, this is an analogy which is frequently used; I’ve done it myself hundreds of times.

Also, the presence of greenhouse gases does not, in itself, affect the temperature of the atmosphere. As you said, greenhouse gases are not energy. But outgoing thermal radiation is. And with more greenhouse gases present there is more radiation being trapped by the molecules of these gases – this is the basis of global warming.