I have definitely seen papers in the past that touch on the subjects of conduction and convection, moreso convection because of its applicability to gases and water vapour (also considered a greenhouse gas). Most gases in the atmosphere have low thermal conductivity. There are known gaps in needing to better understand how the condensed states of water impacts the absorption and emission of radiation too. So, clearly the models are something still with gaps and evolving.
There are aspects to consider, for example heat by radiation doesn’t require a medium or proximity that conduction and convection do. Then depending on the molecular structure of the gas there are differences for convection and radiation, so the degrees of freedom and the ability for specific molecules to absorb and re-emit certain frequencies of electromagnetic radiation have to be considered.
From what I am aware I don’t believe there is any evidence of convection or conduction in the atmosphere reaching a sufficient level to excite different electron states in these gases so as to then emit photons, though I could be wrong on this.
Yes, well this being that the model that the radiation from greenhouse gases occuring pre the industrial revolution have always contributed to the Earths surface having a warmer temperature than expected. In the same way that Venus is hotter than Mercury due to the constituents of its atmosphere, despite Mercury being closer to the sun.
I have always been super sceptical about everything and never take any scientific hypothesis, theory or model as absolute. I think it is a complex area that I am sure will have more information to come to light to understand what is happening.
To me, I sometimes find it is useful to ask the question what has led them to this pathway to make such a hypothesis, i.e. of blaming these particular greenhouse gases. Then the important question is why are they trying to form this argument that these trace levels of gases can cause such vast temperature differences?
If we avoid the overloaded sort of apocalyptic meanings that come with global warming and climate change and just consider the terms as descriptors for evidence that human involvement has changed the climate then there are several other forms of evidence to indicate that human involvement has changed things and for wanting to try and understand why and how this is so.
It is clear that the surface temperature of the Earth has been increasing. I am pretty sure that you are not in disagreement with this. The temperature has increased since the industrial revolution and especially so since the mid 20th century. The problem is there has been no other model that has been able to accurately describe why this is happening.
We know enough about the orbit of the Earth and it’s rotation (including irregular wobbles) and the output of energy from the Sun to the Earth, to understand how this affects temperature and energy on the Earth’s surface. Well this energy level doesn’t adequately compensate and explain the increase of the surface temperature.
We understand now the general Total Solar Irradiance from the Sun, the energy it outputs to the Earth, measurements taken from the NASA satellite TSIS-1 for example. Considering the measurement precision, error and accuracy of the satellites used in taking this measurement, this still doesn’t explain the temperature increase either.
Even understanding the 11 year cycles the Sun comes under and other significant phenomena such as flares and solar storms that have happened, all of these can’t explain why the temperature has increased to this level we have seen.
We do know from ice cores that the quantity of CO2 and Methane are recorded and rates indicate the levels are now higher than any other time previously. These gases absorb infrared differently based on their molecular structures.
The radiative flux (Radiative flux - Wikipedia) has been measured for the different greenhouse gases via Infrared spectroscopy and gives an indication of the downward radiation power/energy over a given area for each type of greenhouse gas including other pollutants that have cooling effects. These being measured in different seasons and locations over the year. These then contribute to additional internal energy within the Earth.
I am not sure that is correct, I believe in this case the issue is the low emissivity of aluminium used as the material for the radiators and whatever other coatings and treatment is has. But aluminium responds well to changes in heat hence why we use it in radiators here on Earth too.
I think it is not the case that conduction and convection doesn’t add heat to the system but that those phenomena alone can’t explain the increased energy in the system (Earth, its surface, atmosphere and then nearby space being the system).