Sam
So, potentially, we have this IR photon bouncing back and forth between the ground and a CO2 molecule …potentially for hours on end
…before the IR photon might finally “miss” the CO2 molecule and head blissfully out into deep space. Right?
in the example process I posted I only used 1 co2 molecule and 1 photon to show that there
is zero energy gain that occurs in the atmosphere due to any interaction between the co2 molecule
and the photon.
I also show that by repeating the process there is no build up of energy
on the earths surface and that is what basic physics says about it ... Im simply repeating
what physics says will happen during photon absorbtion and emmition.
Before the IR photon leaves the planet, especially while it is bouncing around down in the lower troposphere,
it will still function as heat if/when it hits a body or a thermometer. Won’t it?
think about a 1 dollar bill.
if you go to a store and buy something for 1 dollar then decide to get a refund
then you go to another store and do the same thing , and you repeat this over and
over and over ... you still have your 1 dollar even if you have went to a gazillion
stores and bought something and then gotten a refund as long as you get a refund from the last store that you visited.
and none of the gazillion stores have your dollar or any part of your dollar.
Wouldn’t anyone expect that “adding more co2 molecules to the atmosphere” would provide more chances
for the IR photon to get intercepted, and bounce back and forth between ground and any other CO2 molecules,
before finally getting lucky enough to head out into deep space, thus finally helping to cool the planet?
thats the reason why I only used 1 photon and 1 co2 molecule.
if there is zero energy gain in the atmosphere with only 1 co2 molecule then
there is no way that adding more co2 molecules will show a gain either.
any energy gain that is possible in the atmosphere due to the 1 photon interaction
with the 1 co2 molecule should be seen in the 1 co2 molecule but it isnt seen.
and adding more photons or co2 molecules to complicate the issue will not add any
energy to the atmosphere nor will it add any energy to the earths surface
due to the infrared light bouncing back and forth between the earths surface
and the earths atmosphere.
from what I can tell the only energy that can be stored in this process is the energy
from sunlight that remains on the surface of the earth after the object emits the photon
of infrared light.
and that stored energy is due to energy from the ultra violet and visible light not energy from
the infrared light.
as for non co2 storage the below solar irradiance graph
shows that infrared radiation is stored in H20 mostly
in water vapor , clouds and in surface water etc ... the
graph does reference co2 absorbtion as tiny amounts.
but we dont want to complicate the issue because the focus is
on the possibilities of co2 being a molecule that is having
such a dramatic effect on our climate.
even though the co2 molecule possibly has the least
effect on the climate.
and of course co2 is the only molecule that taxes or fees or blocks can be sold or issued for profit in the carbon credit scam.
Already, I think, we know that
it is not an “individual photon” that we are metaphorically following; but rather,
it’s the energy represented at various times, however it might be distributed and flow,
and from whence it came and to where it may go.
exactly!
but by following the photon we see where the energy
comes from and where the energy goes to.
and even if the energy flows to here or to there the
magnitude of the energy does not increase unless there
is some form of free energy developing in the process
somewhere.
so the title of the thread is correct.
