- Joined
- Sep 15, 2013
- Messages
- 9,612
- Reaction score
- 5,049
- Location
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Pretty sure it doesn't matter what scale is used: 1.29 times 0.68K would be the same temperature change ratio as 1.29 times the equivalent fahrenheit amount. But a 1K change is the same as a 1C change in any case, which is what I used.
I'd be interested in seeing the correct maths. I readily admit that you know more about this stuff than me, but that doesn't mean I'll take you word for it - you've been wrong before
The air container was closed (hence isochore values, you seem to agree) and the CO2 container was kept ajar by the hose (hence isobar values). So the air should need 0.02476kJ per 1/29th kg K, and the CO2 should need 0.0192kJ per 1/44th kg K - that is, for equal volumes of the two gases.I would've thought that would mean that applying equal energy to equal volumes of the two would heat the CO2 1.29 times as much as the air (0.02476/0.0192).
Where and how does the 4th power come into it?
##
It's not 20%, unless its absorption at 9 microns (absorption index, kλ 2.9) is 290%. It's stuff like that which make me question your expertise
Optical constants of silica glass from extreme ultraviolet to far infrared at near room temperature (page 6 of the pdf)
I though we'd agreed that the red/near-infrared heat lamp used probably didn't radiate at the longer wavelengths of 14+ microns at which atmospheric CO2 is most effective: That was one of your earlier criticisms. But there are several CO2 absorption bands in the 2-6 micron range, which the lamp may well have covered, and at which silica glass does not absorb.
Even if the glass did contribute to retaining energy, that wouldn't change the fact that the CO2 did also, making it a genuine demonstration of CO2's IR absorption.
Last edited:
