Yes you have gone to far and are now completely wrong.
...
Paul simplifies that to the CO2 reverts back to its original state and gives the photon back. Yes that can and does occur but the elephant in the room he won't talk about is that is but one of a pile (probably hundreds) of other things that can and do happen as well.
...
“the photon re-emitted …doesn't need to be the same frequency as the original absorbed photon.”
That doesn’t preclude it could be the same frequency, but indicates that there are other likely options …especially since correcting that error (of thinking
it must be the same frequency) was the point of the comment.
How is that “completely wrong?” To me, it means the same as when you say, “the CO2 reverts back to its original state
and gives the [
an equal] photon back. …
that can and does occur but …that is but one of a pile (probably hundreds) of other things that can and do happen as well.” -
similarities emphasized--is that fair?Or maybe you were saying my focus on noting the difference between
atomic and molecular absorption was completely wrong
(since Paul had described what sounded more like atomic absorption/emission ... more like fluorescence or phosphorescence).
Well whichever was wrong, please feel free to say whatever, as I mentioned in my pm,
so long as it spurs you on into more of these “interesting and instructive” descriptions of yours.
My goal, from the OP, is realized; so thanks again!
~
The fun frequencies to look at for climate change are 7um where water is king and 15um where both water and especially CO2 play a role. What you call global warming is actually what is happening pretty much solely in those two frequency (wavelength) ranges.
...yes!
I've tried to explain the "atmospheric window" to Paul on several occasions, such as
in his thread
"Sex Climate Change and CO2 Trapping," but I didn't get very far.
~
