Where would the energy to emit the next “almost highest energy,” or “next-highest energy,” photon come from?
the same place !!!
the atom continues to release its excess energy.
Is your single atom isolated and cooling only, or is it being constantly supplied with excess energy?
Some of your deductions make sense from only one perspective,
but then different conclusions you post only make sense from the other perspective.
Those hotter and cooler atoms radiate at frequencies that create the head and tail of the curve/spectrum,
while most of the atoms (the peak intensity for the curve) will be radiating at (or nearer to) the frequency
for that average temperature.
what would be the difference between examining one atom as it
cools and examining a group of atoms as they cool.
I would think that the one would represent the group.
Is the sun cooling? I think over the past few billion years the sun has been increasing its temperature.
If I recall correctly,
paleoclimatology shows that the “solar constant” is still steadily increasing.
So how do you get that continuous spectrum, covering a broad range of frequencies (and temperatures),
if you must wait for each single atom to cool enough to have lost all the energy that we see in every snapshot of the solar spectrum.
by examining a group of atoms all your going to do is
make the examination more difficult and harder to understand.
not that you would intentionally do anything like that.
Well....
It is the difference between examining reality,
or examining your speculations, based on oversimplified thought experiments, on how you see reality operating.
Though Paul, even if we accept your ideas about "hyperfine lines" your logic still doesn't follow.
its not mine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfine_structureIn atomic physics, hyperfine structure is the different effects leading to small shifts and splittings in the energy levels of atoms, molecules and ions.
Congratulations Paul!
It’s good to see you’re doing some real research.
That sounds like good information, and it seems like that might help explain a lot.
But do you think every atom goes through every possible combination of hyperfine divisions, as it cools, or just the isolated atom you’d be measuring?
I don’t think you can get the full solar spectrum from just one atom, even if you wait long enough for it to cool all the way to absolute zero.
the atoms we are discussing were not super heated by photon
absorption that caused the electron to increase its orbit
they were slowly heated after they cooled enough to hold
an electron.
and photon emission from the atom is due to a continuous
cooling.
the atoms in its proximity are also cooling from a
super heated / energized state and most likely cannot absorb
a photon so the photon is radiated away from the atom/atoms.
Well, I’m glad to see you’re maybe starting to see the need for a group of atoms,
if you want to describe what is really creating the solar spectrum.
And what does your point about how "co2 absorbs inbound radiation from the sun" have to do with anything
that I might not like about greenhouse warming?
I was just thinking that you wouldnt like it because it
isnt in line with your beliefs because the inbound
radiation causes the co2 in the atmosphere
to become saturated as they become energized and that
isnt what is being preached by the global warming cartel .
so all day long ( daylight ) the normal state (non energized)
co2 molecules in the atmosphere will be blocking the inbound photons from the sun that they absorb.
and the energized co2 in the atmosphere cannot
absorb another photon until they emit a photon.
but as soon as co2 in the atmosphere emits
a photon in the daytime it is re-energized by inbound
radiation from the sun.
The greenhouse effect is driven by the "upgoing" long-wave heat,
but not by the "downgoing" short-wave heat. What is your point?
my point is that this pretty much removes your entire greenhouse effect during daylight hours.
but if its any consolation to you and yours the co2 will
warm the planet at night if it emits a photon towards the
earth.
but all day long the co2 pretty much just blocks the radiation
from the sun.
so in order to debunk this the global warming due to co2 cartel
will need to show that the sun does not emit the full spectrum
and that it only emits photons from individual
atoms in all the required modes to produce all the required frequencies from the available atoms that actually are on the
sun that just so happen to only have the frequencies that would allow the greenhouse effect to work the way that they believe
or want it to work.
,
since your latest “just so” story is as flawed as most of your “interpretations” of how reality works.
By your logic here, a greenhouse shouldn’t work either, since it is blocking all that heat coming from the sun.
because if the sun emits the full spectrum then the co2 in
the atmosphere will absorb the emitted photons that are in
the required frequency.
we’ve talked about how “the full spectrum” is emitted, at least perhaps at some minimal intensity.But Paul, did you look at that spectrum of the sun you posted?
Do you see what those pictures posted on this thread show?
The only solar energy that is blocked by CO2 is shorter than (to the left of) 3 microns.
And there is very little “Intensity,” coming from the sun, at those wavelengths where CO2 would block any incoming part of the spectrum.
The planet cools by
radiating away the longer-wave heat (to the right of 3 microns) from the planet, as the graph I posted above shows.
It is this
longer-wave heat loss that is relevant to the greenhouse effect,
as the graph above shows,
since that
outgoing heat is being blocked more and more by higher CO2 levels.
Do you not see the huge difference, on that graph above, between the left (incoming) and right (outgoing) sides?
~
p.s.
It is good to hear you admit that "the co2 will warm the planet at night," at least. Even if the warming occurred for just an hour,
it apparently is enough to be warming the oceans and the crust,
as well as
warming the air and melting our planet's ice reserves, on average, 24/7/365 globally.
