Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
- Sep 4, 2014
- 30,837
- 20,610
Thanks Old Rocks. That paper clearly states that the excited states of CO2 last at least 10x longer than the interval between molecular collisions. The energy absorbed from IR is more likely to be thermalized than re-emitted as the same photon.
While this may seem to be a quibble, it means that a certain percentage comes out as radiation that directly escapes to space through the atmospheric window.
You forgot 'In a perfectly pure CO2 environment'. Alarmists and Warmists even luke warmer's refuse to see this very basic point. The thermalization is rapidly offset in earths atmosphere because the number of molecules in the atmosphere is insufficient to thermalize big areas of the atmosphere. This is why there is no mid-tropospheric hot spot which all of the CAGW crap is based on. The empirical evidence indicates that CO2 is not capable of the warming that it is being attributed because of the other componates of the atmosphere which do not act in a positive feed back way.
Thus while the CO2 may ( and i say this because we do not know for sure how this actually works and it is theroy) absorb and re-emit photons vibrating at sufficient frequency to be reabsorbed by CO2 the surrounding componates in the atmosphere change that by absorption and emitance at lower temperatures.
IF CO2 actually acted as shown in the paper cited there should be a massive hot spot in our mid-troposphere. There is not, so the premise, disproved by empirical evidence, is wrong.