How in the world does increased carbon dioxide (CO2) and other "green house" gases make the earth warm up?

Question

I've never heard anyone answer this question. I've only heard them say, essentially, that there's a correlation. I want to know how the mechanism works. Why and how does CO2 trap more heat than oxygen or some other gas? Otherwise, if global warming is only correlated with a rise in CO2, couldn't you just as easily blame it on the existence of Al Gore? Since he's been alive, the earth has warmed up quite a bit.
There seem to be a lot of other theories that make more sense intuitively. All the black top we lay down absorbs and retains heat. All the billions of machines, appliances, and devices that operate daily (and weren't around 100 years ago) give off a whole lotta extra heat. All the cars and buildings with glass windows all over the world have sunlight shining into them and the heat gets trapped inside. They are all actually mini "greenhouses".

Okay, it's the structure of CO2 and it's properties? That makes sense. But what's special about the structure? Please get technical if you can. I want numbers and details if you can give them.
Also it seems to me that water vapor would be a better candidate because water has a high specific heat (it can hold a lot of heat). Maybe global warming is being caused by widepread irrigation. As we increase the surface area that water is spread out on, more of it evaporates an retains heat. Ever notice how it stays hot at night if there's a lot of humidity? What do you think?

Answer 1

Responder kslice is not correct. The density has nothing to do with it. The extent to which any gas absorbs radiation is a function of the possible energies of the electrons; an absorption takes place if the incident photon has enough energy to kick an electron to a higher state. Eventually the higher state will decay, usually with the emission of several photons of lower energy. The possible electron energies are a very complex function of the molecular structure, computation is difficult and the energies are usually measured.
Re-radiated energy may escape directly into space, be bounced back to earth, or be further absorbed and re-radiated by other molecules. The absorption and re-radiation is what is of interest here, because as long as this is going on, the radiation is not going into space and thus reducing the planet's temperature.
The following data are considered established facts:
1. The earth is warming. Glaciers are receding.
2. The level of atmospheric CO2 is rising, in an amount which suggests that human activity is largely responsible.

The following proposition, although popular, cannot be considered as an established fact:
3. That fact 2 is the cause of fact 1. Mathematical models suggest that it is, and it sounds reasonable, but a model is not the same as the real thing, as anyone who has tried to construct a mathematical model to predict the weather knows all too well. The earth's temperature has been fluctuating throughout its history (remember the Ice Ages?) and will no doubt continue to do so. Sooner or later, we will have to deal with climate change even if we were to totally eliminate CO2 production starting tomorrow.

It is important to understand the interaction between the ocean and atmosphere with respect to CO2. The atmosphere contains about 2,900 billion metric tons of CO2. The ocean contains about 145,000 billion metric tons, almost all of it hydrated to carbonate or bicarbonate -- about 50 times as much. There are a number of transport mechanisms which exchange CO2 between the ocean and air; some of these are slow and a disturbance of equilibrium can take years to resolve.

What, then, should be the influence of this on public policy? Attempts to reduce CO2 emissions have costs that are real, large, and now. Any benefits from doing so are uncertain, indeterminate, and future. Suppose that we started a fund to deal with global warming sometime in the future - say, 300 years out. If a dollar were invested now, at that time it would be worth over $16,000,000.

Answer 2

Sunlight is absorbed by these molecules and trapped here on earth in the form of heat.

It is trapped particularly well by certian gasses, i.e. CO2, because of their molecular structure, number of electrons, and general properties.

Sunlight is either directly absorbed into these molecules as it passes into the earth's atmosphere, OR it is prevented from escaping after it has been reflected off of the surface. The sunlight is transformed into heat energy, causing the molecules to vibrate more, and in turn increase the temperature. Albeit in small amounts, but over a large enough area, with enough mass, and enough time the results can be quite drastic.



Tiger Striped Dog MD

Answer 3

You are right!... Why could carbon dioxide trapped the heat as they are accumulated up there of about a thousand miles above us, and been covering the whole world? The heat from the sun could not bounce up from earth to the universe. They bounce back down as they hit the carbon dioxide atmosphere and back to earth. Thereby, the cycle goes on and heat was accumulated between earth and the carbon dioxide atmosphere.

But for my answer, well... you should feel and know the difference of the subjects that you have mentioned. The positive and the negative effect of all the chemicals to our being. Also try to explore the reason why the earth could not have positive generation for its own survival.

Answer 4

It has to do with the absorption spectrum of the greenhouse gasses. Every type of atom and molecule absorbs radiation at a specific range of frequencies. Every object also radiates energy away in a certain frequency range, depending on how hot it is. The greenhouse gasses are the ones that absorb radiation at the same frequency that the earth usually radiates its heat away at. That prevents the earth from cooling off, so as more sunlight hits it, it keeps getting hotter.

The heating effect from greenhouse gasses is much greater than any of the other effects you described.

Answer 5

If you are only asking Why and how does CO2 trap more heat than oxygen or some other gas, then here is my answer:

CO2 is a thicker, and more dense gas than oxygen or many other gasses in the atmosphere. Not to mention, most gasses in our atmosphere are not dense enough, and float away from our planet. Some or less dense and just burn up the atmosphere. CO2 is not the ONLY gas that does this, but it is the most distributed gas that does. Because of it's desity, it can maintain it's state in the atmosphere.

Guess I learned something in Science this year after all...

Answer 6

GLOBAL WARMING/THE ENVIRONMENT IN GENERAL

Any and I mean any environmental cause or approach must be grassroots in nature. Having PhD's talk about global warming and having those representing industry interests debunk these present theories is a high level and almost an entirely futile effort. Don't get me wrong, it is great that someone with Al Gore's connections and exposure is getting the word out. However, people are people they want to see results.

Yes, the expression is now trite but still true, "Thing Globally, Act Locally". Watching the sky over a city, town or even a more rural area become darkened by smog has local impact, people take note and actually see A PROBLEM. A problem that can measured in terms of air quality or perhaps an AIR QUALITY HEALTH INDEX like the one that the provincial government in Ontario, Canada is in the process of implementing. You can measure results (however small) in terms of air quality and the affect it has on the health care system (those with breathing problems, doctor's visits, etc). It certainly speaks to the advantage of a UNIVERSAL health care system (however, actually implemented) as it actually makes sense to improve the environment as it keeps people healthy (a humanitarian cause) and when health care it publicly funded it affects the public coffers when people become ill therefore it even makes better financial sense to keep the environment a top priority.

Plus any approach must be entire with a complete overall plan (the big picture). Including recycling initiatives, energy solutions (alternatives/renewables can now present a real potential financial threat to the big oil companies and even power companies...), government involvement at all levels, public transit, greener vehicles in general (Hybrid, Hydrogen, Conventional electric, bio-diesel, ethanol), conservation in all energy arenas, ETC!

Economic viability is the real sell as many of these solutions are just that economically sensible (ensuring we look at the entire picture). Yes as more people use solar, wind and other renewable energy sources the cheaper the technology will get. Two of the newest billionaires have earned a large portion through renewables Solar (India I believe) and Wind (China I believe). Yes in many ways developing nations and economies will be the first and early adopters of such renewable tech as they are just building much of their infrastructure.

So what do we all need to do? GET INVOLVED ! Contact your local government about improving your recycling program, contact provincial/state/federal government about the adopting of these new technologies (renewables such as solar/wind), buy gas with ethanol in it and demand it, use and demand bio diesel, buy products with less packaging and demand manufacturers to reduce packaging and to offer a price break as a result. More ECONOMIC VIABILITY! After all energy diversity just like economic diversity is the safest and best bet for good long term results and return on investment.

Joe...


KEEP IT UP MR. GORE THE POLAR BEARS NEED YOU FIRST **GRIN**.

Answer 7

Easy. "Green House gases" trap the heat in the Earth's atmosphere, preventing them from being reflected back into space. What the Sun's heat is supposed to do.