![Electric cars [500x500 - 314KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/LWSiRl.png){kind=link}
No, because the blood loss is causally related to the gunshot, where CO2 and H2O are causally unrelated.
If you accept that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, even if it's a fraction of water vapor, you have to accept that adding CO2 to a closed system will increase the equilibrium temperature. Higher temperatures mean more water vapor in the atmosphere.
You're starting to reach here.
closed system
Atmospheric water, or rather the atmosphere as a whole, isn't closed.
The most well known example is gas being lost to space, but the most relevant example is so-called carbon sequestration (e.g. it becomes a part of the physical structure of trees when they metabolize CO2, and is released when they die). Similar processes exist for water that e.g. drains to groundwater, enters aquifers, and is bound up in the living creatures and foliage of the earth.
And, worse, if we pretend the system actually is closed:
adding CO2 to a closed system will increase the equilibrium temperature.
This runs afoul of basic thermodynamics.
This runs afoul of basic thermodynamics.
So when you sit in a car parked in the sun with all the windows up it doesn't get hotter because that would run afoul of basic thermodynamics. Got it.
So when you sit in a car parked in the sun with all the windows up it doesn't get hotter because that would run afoul of basic thermodynamics.
That also isn't a closed system, because your car ('the system' in your case) interacts with its environment, both losing heat to, and gaining heat from. I was curious if you would catch your error, but you didn't: closed systems don't have equilibrium temperatures; by definition adiabatic systems are considered as if all losses and gains to the environment are negligible, and so are ignored.
The atmosphere and related aren't closed systems on any scale; this breaks the assumption you needed to suggest there was a causal link between H20 and CO2.
(post is archived)