Quote:
For instance, the notion that, as Paul says,
"...at this point the object retains some of the heat energy
that it initially received from sunlight.
because the object released energy when it emitted the infrared light"


oh I see it now , so the object (atom) that absorbed the photon
emitted a photon with the same energy.

yes , I was thinking along a broader base when I wrote that
part as in many photons that could
be absorbed or reflected by the object ... we should just
use a single atom on the earth instead of an entire object
... and we dont need an entire object anyway we only need a single atom to examine this because we only have 1 photon.

so you got me on that one.

this changes a lot though this means that when the atom on the earth emits the photon that is sent to the co2 molecule
the earth does not retain any of the energy.

because from what I understand when an atom absorbs a photon
it must emit a photon with the same energy in order to return
to its previous energy level.

so what we have now is

1 incoming photon from the sun.
1 atom on the earths surface.
1 co2 molecule in the atmosphere.

and thats all we have.

so

t=1
the photon is absorbed by the atom on the earth.

Earth E=1
Atmos E=0

t=2
the atom on the earth emits a IR photon.
Earth E=0
Atmos E=0

t=3
the co2 molecule absorbs the photon.
Earth E=0
Atmos E=1

t=4
the co2 molecule emits a IR photon
Earth E=0
Atmos E=0

t=5
the atom on the earth once again absorbs the photon.
Earth E=1
Atmos E=0

the process repeats and there is never any gain.

nothing stored.

unless the co2 molecule collides with another
molecule in the atmosphere.

in which case we have

t=6
the atom on the earth emits a IR photon.
Earth E=0
Atmos E=0

t=7
the c02 molecule absorbs the photon
Earth E=0
Atmos E=1

t=7
the c02 molecule collides with another molecule in the
atmosphere and a energy transfer occurs.
Earth E=0
Atmos E=1

if there are more co2 molecules in the atmosphere then
the odds of the co2 molecules colliding are greater
than if there are fewer co2 molecules in the atmosphere.

so lets let them collide with each other.
we add another co2 molecule.

time passes ............1 second

t=408
the c02 molecule collides with the other co2 molecule
400 times in 1 second (and thats being lenient)
and a energy transfer occurs each time.
Earth E=0
Atmos E=1

( only valid if a collision requires .0025 seconds)

Earth E=0
Atmos E=1

no change from t=7

and we had 2 co2 molecules !!

I understand the point of the greenhouse effect

in the above the energy stays in the atmosphere longer.

where it would normally have been sent away from the earth.

that makes sense , but that doesnt warm the planet.

note: unless there is energy being created and being
added as heat into the atmosphere by the co2 molecules
colliding then there is no added heat due to the collisions.

if that were possible then my propane tank would heat my
entire city.
because the gas in the tank is concentrated @ 1,000,000 ppm

we currently have 400 ppm in the atmosphere.

so lets say that the odds of a photon being absorbed by
a co2 molecule is 400 to 1,000,000

the same as saying the odds are 2500 to 1 that a photon will be absorbed by a co2 molecule.

and those odds are only valid if all of the co2 molecules are
spread out in a really super thin perfect sphere that surrounds the earth.

the odds increase as the sphere becomes thicker.

anyway.

what we need to examine now I suppose is this question.

will added co2 in the atmosphere cause or will it not cause
any warming of the earths surface?

so far all of the added energy is in the atmosphere.

also: would it stand to reason that having more particulate
matter in the atmosphere such as co2 would cause the earth
to recieve less sunlight?

I remember an experiment that shows that co2 traps heat.

here it is.



ooops wrong video...

well this one shows that air traps heat much better than co2

oh well that would be good evidence in the court when they
start prosecuting the climate deniers.


whats relevant about this video is that the bottle with the
co2 in it heats up much slower than the bottles with air
only in them ........ and that the bottle with
the co2 is cooling much faster and to a greater extent
than the bottles with only air in them.


but still this does not prove to me that co2 warms or cools
as the bottle disappears from view too many times in the
video.

can the climate deniers prosecute the climate believers?
given that we DO have evidence and they have had decades
and a few gazillion dollars yet they havent produced a
single tid bit of valid evidence to date that shows
any warming due to co2.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.