The air inside is warmed by the sun in the usual manner but is kept inside by the glass barrier, preventing it mixing with outside air which cools.
A very thin glass layer permits this, if science permitted, you could use an impossibly thin piece of glass for the same effect.
CO2 and other byproducts form a similarly thin barrier in the atmosphere preventing some of the heat being radiated outwards.
So the greenhouse analogy doesn't work with the earth since convective mixing is exactly how heat transfers across the atmosphere.
Now if you said water vapour was responsible for trapping heat when it makes vast layers of reflective cloud then you might have an argument but your CO2 molecules are arranged in a random fashion not in neat layers or a shield or a blanket.
Lets minimise water vapour - we could all stop breathing, that would help but it would be inconvenient.
The oceans contain far more CO2 than the atmosphere and when the temperature of the water rises, more is given off into the atmosphere but the temperature rise is the driver for the CO2 release, not the other way round.
As I have said, I have no argument that we are polluting the planet - of that there is no doubt - but that pollution is a very minimal part of the climate change and the greenhouse argument simply does not hold water - it's a simple argument that seems sort of sensible if you don't look too deeply which is why politicians like it.
aa777888 -
Roscoe1 - if there is direct correlation between fossil fuel burning and atmospheric temperature, why was the earth less than a degree warmer than it is now in 1200 - 1300AD?