Layman struggles with Science

[Derek]

I have also read through the Dan Pangburn paper.
I particularly like the thermalisation description,
it sounds similar to an idea I tried to describe a bit back.

Infact, it has helped me develop the idea and pull some other seemingly contradictory things together.
I'll try to explain what I mean.

1) According to the physicists molecular view CO2 has a higher specific heat than other atmospheric constituents.

2) According to chemists mass based calculations CO2 has a lower specific heat capacity than other atmospheric constituents in a mixed atmosphere.

3) William Kinnimonth, amongst many others such as Hans Schreuder say that GHG's aid, or greatly increase the redistribution / loss of heat by radiation from the atmosphere.
(How can CO2 aid heat loss from the atmosphere but also warm the atmosphere. ? Surely CO2 can not do both, particularly at the same time.)

4) CO2 absorbs and looses the exact same photons.
(How can it do this without any work done losses ?)

If a molecule of CO2 has a higher specific heat than other atmospheric constituents then when they bump into each other,
CO2 will give up it's heat slower to the other constituents.
Infact it could well be hotter than the other atmospheric constituents, at least slightly.
CO2 can be heated by radiation that the other atmospheric constituents are transparent to, so
whenever a CO2 molecule absorbs it's particular wavelength of radiation it is made hotter than the atmosphere it is in.
As the other constituents bump into the CO2 molecule it looses heat a bit at a time to them.
Let us say that a photon of radiation to a CO2 molecule is worth 10 units.
AND, with each collision CO2 loosses 1 unit to the other atmospheric constituent.
For this example as all temperature is above absolute zero, let us assume our CO2 molecule has an energy level of 1,000 units.
The surronding atmosphere is also at a level of 1,000 units per molecule.

When the CO2 molecule absorbs a photon it's level increases by 10 units,
in this example to 1,010.
A short while later a.n.other atmospheric constituent bumps into it.
The CO2 molecule looses 1 unit, it is now at 1,009 units.
This happens again and the CO2 molecule looses another unit, it's new level being 1,008.
This continues untill the CO2 is at the same level again as the rest of the atmosphere.
This is the thermalisation Dan Pangburn describes, and is how CO2 could heat the atmosphere.

If the difference between the CO2 molecules level and the atmospheric constituents around it gets above 11 units,
then CO2 reacts by emitting a 10 unit photon.
So, as CO2 is heating the atmosphere if it recieves another photon it will be above the difference at which it has to emit a photon,
so it does, almost instantly.
This almost instantly is longer than the time it takes for another atmospheric constituent to bump into it,
so at least one unit will be lost, before a photon is emitted.

This scenario I think works whether the atmospheric temperature is rising or falling.
The exact units are proportions that are temperature dependent for the other atmospheric constituents, and the heat lost / conducted to CO2,
but the photon "size" always remains the same, because that it determined by the chemical bond snapping from one state to another,
which the energy for this is irrespective of temerature as such, but does determine the "size" of the CO2 photon.
---------------------------------

Does this seem reasonable, it does appear to me to tie all the above apparently contradictory "things" together.
Whether the atmosphere be heating or cooling, over the temperature ranges that exist within the atmosphere.