Before this turns into a huge debate over the implications of climate change

>co2 is not ir active unless bent
>ir vibrates co2 into being bent

idk if the square is going to fit the circle on this one.

>co2 is not ir active unless bent
Source?

chemistry.illinoisstate.edu/standard/che362/handouts/362molvibs.pdf

But that's just a more detailed explanation of what said.

>For carbon dioxide, three of the four vibrational modes are infrared active: the antisymmetric stretch and the two degenerate bends. Therefore, those three should be observed in the infrared spectrum of CO2; however, since the degenerate bends occur with the same harmonic vibrational frequency, only two primary peaks will be observed. An example infrared spectrum for carbon dioxide is shown in Figure 9. The peak at about 670 cm corresponds to the degenerate bending modes; the other large peak around 2300 cm corresponds to the antisymmetric stretching mode. The small peaks observed in the range 3600 - 3800 cm correspond to combination bands
.

Doesn't mention anything about co2 needing to be already bent to be ir active. Being ir active means the molecule undergoes bending, which is what the longwave radiation does to the molecule.

This thread is really annoying because I did 1 Google search and found the fucking answer instantaneously by clicking on the first 2 fucking links.

But, since you asked so God damn politely,

1. Googled "how does co2 cause global warming" and "co2 chemistry greenhouse effect"
2. Here are the results:

skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html#.WJJiND3QfdQ

scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

3. Since you snuck in a shit ton of questions, I will let you read the first 2 websites by yourself because they have a shit ton of answers. For your main question, look at the pretty animation,

scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

You are just having us Google high school learning material for you. It's really infuriating.

Please jerk off, you're getting emotional.

There are other effects that magnify the effect of warming done by co2 which are the real causes for concern. Like increased retention of atmospheric water vapor which is a stronger greenhouse gas, and positive feedback loops due to albedo from reduced white ice cover and increased dark ocean cover.

My bad. I need to work on learning to chill some more.

It isn't a lack of understanding on how CO2 can contribute. It is its actual ability to do so. Which is completely blown out of proportion.

That doesn't explain the margin of error.

GHGs reradiates LW radiation in all directions, some of it goes back towards Earth.

It's IR active because of its irreducible representation (?). It's not much but it's there. If you want to look at individual molecules and their possible IR activity I guess you have to look into their point groups etc. I'm too lazy to think of the O2

You are dumber. Back to /b/.

Same question has occurred to me OP. I figured it has to do with the delocalised pi bonding along the CO2 molecule. IDK.

>Ranges of total warming contribution are around 9-24%.
What is "total warming contribution" based on and where are you getting these numbers?

>It isn't a lack of understanding on how CO2 can contribute. It is its actual ability to do so. Which is completely blown out of proportion.

Then read other damn links. Jesus fucking Christ. You people are sooooo fucking lazy.

As I understand it, just from memory, the dominant greenhouse gas is actually water vapour. Increaseing CO2 will, however, increase the earths temperature enough to cause more evaporation and hence increase the % humidity in a positive feedback loop. CO2, in essence, drives the greenhouse effect by driving more water vapour into the atmosphere.

So far in this thread: The mechanics of how global warming works, which are already understood. Yet nobody has answered the fucking question in the OP.

>So, at any given moment, how many CO2 molecules are currently "bent" due to vibration and is the effect negligible anyway because of how short lived the altered structure is?

This is literally the only that matters about the CO2 argument. Half of the people are just saying "hurr CO2 and IR man." Without understanding the two don't interact with each other unless the shit is fucking bent! If this isn't happening with the CO2, warming isn't happening either. Fuck!

This was already explained in the thread, moron.

So the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that has the bent structure (the ability to absorb IR) vs the normal linear structure (the inability to absorb IR) at any given time has been explained, because I don't think it has.

It's all just been blanket statements that CO2 contributes to warming. We fucking know this already. That isn't the question.

One of the larger concerns with CO2 is not just Global Warming. CO2 directly causes increased Ocean Acidification. This happens because as increasing amounts of CO2 is released into the atmosphere, it reacts with the H2O in the water to achieve chemical equilibrium. This process produces Carbonic Acid (the stuff that soft drinks are carbonated with actually). And Carbonic Acid although a relatively weak acid, then reacts with the water to produce a Bicarbonate and Hydronium ion. This means more H+ concentration, and therefore, more acidity.

At the rate we've been increasing, in just as short as 100 years the ocean will have more than doubled in acidity. This is particularly dangerous for Marine ecology as it is uncertain whether the organisms (including microorganisms) will be able to adapt in such a short period of time.

I also understand that you are concerned with the specific topic of CO2 and it's ability to contribute to Global Warming. But the acidification of the oceans is, as I believe, the biggest factor in why increasing amounts of CO2 emissions are detrimental.

>Luddite nonsense
Actually they are the real technocrats behind the global "life" taxation schema. It is because CO2 is critical to life and as a bonus a by product of the extremely valuable and very taxable hydrocarbon infrastructure we rely on to survive now. Cutting right to the chase in other words.

Heat is not strictly IR. The reason it "feels" like heat is because the light is inducing vibrations on your body, hence the warm sensation. IR could also induce stretching and other funky movements. Although I don't believe in the CO2 boogeyman, I would say it is just the radical reactions that could happen with the molecule that screw things up, similar to the case with methane (CH4).