Gases are composed of atoms that contain kinetic energy. This energy is not lost, but merely redistributed among other atoms during collisions (law of conservation of energy)... Also, energy exists between electron shell states of the atom (potential energy)...
>>Gases are composed of atoms that contain kinetic energy. This energy is not lost, but merely redistributed among other atoms during collisions (law of conservation of energy)... Also, energy exists between electron shell states of the atom (potential energy)...<<
I know that gases are composed of atoms, and that “temperature” is an expression of the kinetic energy of atoms in motion. I also believe that I may have once heard of that pesky “Law of the Conservation of Energy.”
I merely stated that the Green House Effect is not attributable to carbon dioxide “storing” (in the sense of absorbing and accumulating over time) thermal energy. (If it were to do so, that thermal energy would still somehow have to be transmitted (e.g. by convection or conduction) to the surface of the Earth.
Rather, the carbon dioxide absorbs and instantly re-radiates infrared rays. About half of that re-radiated infrared radiation is aimed at the surface of the Earth (the other half “escapes” into space), where it ultimately increases the Earth’s temperature.
This is, of course, an over-simplification. As someone else here pointed out, one could speak of the CO2 “trapping” the heat (but the use of such words can easily lead to misunderstandings). But I’m no meteorologist or atmospheric physicist.
In response to what a few other posters have claimed here: I believe that Venus would, indeed, be quite cooler (or “not so hot”) if it had no atmosphere. Likewise, I believe that Mars, though cold (by Earth standards), is warmer than it would be without its (predominantly CO2) atmosphere.
Just my 2 cents.