I will do my best to answer you quickly now and then later will try to get
you some references soon but I have to work on a project first.
There are * TWO! *outstanding, published physics resource letters about
global warming which is where I did research and learned about the amazing
and horrible SF6.
This article discusses CO2 and the physical aspects of the global warming
potential criteria;
A Demonstration of the Infrared Activity of Carbon Dioxide
TPT. 57, 246 (2019).
Let me know if you need a copy. It does not discuss SF6.
My wording "storing energy" is misleading, in this context.
Better to describe it as the "quantum mechanical atomic interaction of SF6
molecule with a particular IR band", the small IR that is most important
for measuring the global warming potential of a gas.
The value for the specific heat doesn't really help to understand the
Global Warming Potential behavior in this context. It is the vibrational
frequencies of a gas that couple with a IR frequency band and the electric
dipole moment of a quantum operator that participates in this interaction.
SF6 over a 100-year period is 22,800 times more effective at trapping IR
than an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide. My 40,000 number was wrong.
But my point was, order-of-magnitude, a correct point; A tiny bit of
SF6 has a disproportionate impact on global warming potential, compared
with CO2.
For years I did the standard greenhouse effect demo that most others also
do. It is a misleading demo that shows more about convection as a way to
trap heat. It is not really a true demo of global warming potential.
A better greenhouse effect demo is described in the published TPT article
cited above.
Best, - Jerry
--
Gerald Zani
Senior Engineering Technician
Brown University School of Engineering
(401) 863-9571