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?
...
Paul, in this one post of yours,
you've referred to CO2 as an atom, as a molecule, and finally as a particulate!
No, co2 won't "cause the earth to recieve less sunlight,"
because co2 is not a particulate.
CO2 is a molecule, so it will absorb a photon, rather than reflect or scatter a photon.
===
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.
Yes, it does warm the planet.
It is mostly the troposphere that is warmed when "the energy stays in the atmosphere longer,"
and some of that heat bounces back down to the surface of the planet. It is especially noticeable at night.
Your numbers don't add up. You have a total energy of one, in steps 1, 3, 5, and 7,
but total energy of zero for the even-numbered stages of your description.
I think your sequence needs more detail or nuance to show where the energy is going
...unless you want to be the one creating and destroying energy out of nowhere every other moment.
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.
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.
...well I wasn't talking about heat transfer [not added (created?) heat] "due to the collisions"
...but I'm glad you can see how a sphere of co2 molecules could have an effect
...which would increase if the sphere got thicker.
...but if you're talking about "added heat due to the collisions" here, I hope you're not picturing collisions only occurring "horizontally" or side to side,
in that super-thin layer (up in the atmosphere?) somewhere.
I'm not sure why you think the sphere needs to be "super thin" and "perfect," but I suppose that is the simplest way to visualize or model the situation.
But whatever that layer is like, some of the extra heat bounces back down to the surface,
and it will warm anything on the surface of the planet,
or anywhere in between (the surface and your super-thin perfect sphere),
which absorbs that heat.
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.
...
gee, I wonder if anybody has ever asked this question before. Maybe we could do some research and see if anybody has checked.
But please don't focus too much on the greenhouse effect. This is just about following a photon.
...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.
CO2 is a molecule, so when it absorbs a photon, it is not causing a single electron to jump up into a higher atomic orbital
...in the way you seem to be familiar with atoms doing.
It isn't the same process, which is why the photon re-emitted
from any molecule doesn't need to be the same frequency as the original absorbed photon.
But I'd like to hear from an expert on the absorption of photons, by both atoms and molecules,
because I'm sure I've probably oversimplified too much too, or worse.....
~
