Sentences with phrase «photon emitted back»

Progress around the game board is hindered when your game piece (outgoing photon) lands on a slide (greenhouse gas molecule) that sends you backwards (photon emitted back downward), but eventually your game piece will make it to the finish line (space), it'll just take longer.

Not exact matches

When one of these excited electrons falls back to its original state it emits a photon, which in turn stimulates another electron to emit a photon, and so on.

What I'm saying is that TOA, as far as radiative energy is concerned, for CO2 or other IR absorbing gas, is effectively the altitude where the chance that a photon will be absorbed, and emitted back in a direction that will lead it to being absorbed again by a molecule in the atmosphere, becomes negligible.

Almost immediately (nanoseconds) they relax from their excited state by either 1) emitting that energy as a new photon, some of which will continue up towards space, some of which will go back downward to be reabsorbed, thus keeping the energy in the atmosphere longer, or 2) by colliding with another gas molecule, most likely an O2 (oxygen) or N2 (nitrogen) molecule since they make up over 98 % of the atmosphere, thereby converting the extra vibrational energy into kinetic energy by transferring it to the other gas molecule, which will then collide with other molecules, and so on, making the air warmer.

It is «pseudo scattered» because it merely raises electrons to higher energy states and then those electrons immediately drop back and emit an identical photon.

To say this back radiation might be real but a warmer surface can not absorb photons emitted by a colder surface is also wrong as the reality is that if you measure the rate of energy loss between two surfaces of different temperatures the rate decreases as the temperature difference decreases and increases as the temperature difference increases.

Gerlich and Tscheuschner, despite their apparent mastery of the mathematics of radiative transfer, don't know the difference between gross and net radiative flux, and they are apparently unaware of the concept of causality in an Einsteinian framework — a molecule of CO2 emitting a photon in a random direction can't know if there is a (cooler or warmer) surface in the direction of emission until time has elapsed for the photon to travel to the surface and back, and has no mechanism to remember from one photon to the next whether there was a source of photons in that direction, or what the apparent temperature of the emitter was.

So would this be «back radiation» from these photons if they have no chance to reach the ground unless they are emitted below your ankles?

* The ground is a little warmer than the atmosphere, so that factor will mean some more photons going up than down (but since the back radiation is mostly from low layers, the atmosphere emitting the back radiation will not be that much cooler than the land so the effect from temperature will not be TOO great) * The ground is close to a black body for IR (emissivity = 1 for all IR frequencies), but the atmosphere has bands where it does not emit or absorb well (emissivity ~ 0) and other bands where it does emit or absorb well (emissivity ~ 1).