I loved the way James Russell described CO2 molecules as “natural thermostats”
Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth’s Upper Atmosphere
A recent flurry of eruptions on the sun did more than spark pretty auroras around the poles. NASA-funded researchers say the solar storms of March 8th through 10th dumped enough energy in Earth’s upper atmosphere to power every residence in New York City for two years.
“This was the biggest dose of heat we’ve received from a solar storm since 2005,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA Langley Research Center. “It was a big event, and shows how solar activity can directly affect our planet.”
Mlynczak is the associate principal investigator for the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface.
“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.
“The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.”
For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.
In human terms, this is a lot of energy. According to the New York City mayor’s office, an average NY household consumes just under 4700 kWh annually. This means the geomagnetic storm dumped enough energy into the atmosphere to power every home in the Big Apple for two years.
“Unfortunately, there’s no practical way to harness this kind of energy,” says Mlynczak. “It’s so diffuse and out of reach high above Earth’s surface. Plus, the majority of it has been sent back into space by the action of CO2 and NO.”
During the heating impulse, the thermosphere puffed up like a marshmallow held over a campfire, temporarily increasing the drag on low-orbiting satellites. This is both good and bad. On the one hand, extra drag helps clear space junk out of Earth orbit. On the other hand, it decreases the lifetime of useful satellites by bringing them closer to the day of re-entry.
The storm is over now, but Russell and Mlynczak expect more to come.
“We’re just emerging from a deep solar minimum,” says Russell. “The solar cycle is gaining strength with a maximum expected in 2013.”
More sunspots flinging more CMEs toward Earth adds up to more opportunities for SABER to study the heating effect of solar storms.
“This is a new frontier in the sun-Earth connection,” says Mlynczak, and the data we’re collecting are unprecedented.”
Stay tuned to Science@NASA for updates from the top of the atmosphere. Author:Dr. Tony Phillips|
h/t to WUWT reader AJB
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
NO is a diatomic molecule, hence must have a very different absorption spectrum than the GHG gases we normally deal with. I tried to find something about it on the web, but wasn’t successful. I did find http://www.heliosat3.de/e-learning/remote-sensing/Lec7.pdf which is a very good introduction and reference, but no mention of NO. It does mention CO which may be similar to NO. (The lecture does have references to rotational energy and dipole moments, which N2 and O2 don’t have.)
Any pointers? I’ll write James Russell. and invite him to explain here.
tallbloke says:
March 23, 2012 at 2:49 am
///////////////////////////////
Absolutely. I endorse that.
On NASA’s own figures, only 5% of the energy received was effectively absorbed by the atmosphere and/or radiated downwards as DWLWIR.
At the very least, this suggests that in the upper atmosphere CO2 does not work as the warmists portray CO2 worlks in the lower atmosphere.
Surely this cannot be a matter of the oft laudeted ‘basic physics’ of the CO2 molecule? The basic physics of the molecule remain the same no matter at what altitude the molecule may reside.
The exact workings require further study and explanation.
Looks like that the GOES the Xray flare monitoring has a problem
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/Xray.gif
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/Xray_1m.gif
Yet another nail in the CAGW coffin and a BIG ONE! If CO2 can be detected to re-radiate enormous spikes of heat from a flare then it must be doing the same thing all the time at normal levels of solar radiation.
It seems to say that CO2 is an agent that STABILIZES earth’s temperature by helping to keep in some of the heat trying to get out and repel some of the heat trying to get in.
Well no, I’d say it works exactly the same – IN REVERSE.
vukcevic says @3:47
Maybe the reason the aurora lights up so fast is it similar to an electric current where when you turn on a switch to a light bulb it comes on almost instantly. Just like a tube filled with marbles, if you add an extra marble at one end , a marble at the other end will pop out.
Actually solar storm added some energy into Earth’s Upper Atmosphere, but the TSI at same period is dropping.
http://i43.tinypic.com/k3oyog.gif
So the net effect on the Earth climate will be cooling.
Vukcevic just said: “…Looks like that the GOES the Xray flare monitoring has a problem”
Hey – remember, that is GOES-15 which is still (I think) in “Safe-Hold-Mode” due to a command error. While it is there, it isn’t doing much of anything till the controllers get it recovered. Till that time, the plot will stay blank & we will have to rely on GOES-13 info till then.
Jeff
Add heat and get a lower temperature? I’m gonna have to think about this one for a while.
Waiting for Lief’s (sic) comment that the increase in IR radiation is nothing significant.
The title says this: “Whole lotta watts added to the atmosphere”
From the scientist we have this: says Mlynczak. “It’s so diffuse and out of reach high above Earth’s surface. Plus, the majority of it has been sent back into space by the action of CO2 and NO.”
majority = 95% So 5% did not immediately go back to space. Where did it go? Is it gone now? If not, why not? It seems to me these are the sorts of issues Leif might help with.
Sorry all.
@ur momisugly 6:50 I should have had this at the top
Katherine says: at 3:34 am Says this:
Could you elucidate when it was that moving electric particles (e.g. protons and electrons) in ‘free space’ (outside of a conductor) become classified as ‘electric current’?
Where is the ‘return current’ that must exist if this is truly an electric current, as according to Kirchhoff’s current law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff's_circuit_laws
.
add this to the cooling effect of moisture/clouds in the daytime, of course slow cooling at night and the net is closing in on co2 acting as a coolant as well as moisture – as suggested by Hans Shreuder- “I love my co2”
They did (that which was ‘intercepted’ anyway); are you overlooking other factors, such as discrete (wavelength) absorption/re-radiation bands, and the fact that those molecules don’t comprise 100% of the atmosphere?
You’re not also denying the applied field of IR Spectroscopy, are you?
.
cal says: March 23, 2012 at 2:45 am
I have to agree that the jury is out on just what CO2 does. Disregarding the time lag in the ice cores, and what we think we know about how it acts, it has always seemed as logical to me to argue that high CO2 causes the temperature to crash at every CO2 peak; as it does to argue that it causes temperature increase.
“My god, don’t let the alarmists get ahold of the idea that CO2 can cause cooling, or in the decades to come they will be telling us we need to reduce to prevent global cooling.”
AGAIN?!
vukcevic, it would help if you would also monitor the operational status of the platforms/sensors whose ‘data’ you are observing:
Overall GOES satellite status: http://www.oso.noaa.gov/goesstatus/
. Goes-East (13) .. up
. Goes-West (15) . down (all systems)
Then drill-down to the individual ‘sensor status’ e.g. that for Goes-East where you will find:
http://www.oso.noaa.gov/goesstatus/spacecraftStatusSummary.asp?spacecraft=13
SEM – Space Environment Monitor – – YELLOW [In standby or OFF]
SXI – – Solar X-Ray Imager – – – – – – – – YELLOW [In standby or OFF]
.
Scientists using REAL data from REAL measurements. How refreshing.
“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
——————————
Well, what do you know. Exactly what I have been saying for the last couple of years. And, it’s all the atmosphere, not just the thermosphere.
The reason it is not 50% is obvious once you look at the structure of the atmosphere. While each CO2 molecule radiates away energy in a random direction, the path length before the energy is reabsorbed is shorter for radiation heading towards the surface. This is because of the higher density at lower elevations. Hence, once you look at the energy flow probabilistically, you see a net flux of energy towards space. Only very close to the surface does 50% of the energy head downward.
So, there is a GHE close to the surface where energy gets reabsorbed by the surface. However, the higher you go the higher the percentage of radiation that is lost to space. A natural cooling effect. You add more CO2 and you enhance the ability of the atmosphere to cool itself while at the same time enhancing the GHE. Which one wins? IMO, the GHE wins at low concentrations of GHGs, but at concentrations we find on Earth (due to partial saturation of the GHE), it is probably a wash.
A little while ago I did some brainstorming over at the air vent. During that period it appeared to me that GHGs really do operate as thermostats. You have two effects occurring in any local area of the atmosphere. You have net radiation being absorbed and partially thermalized AND you have radiation being emitted.
If the local space gets warmer than “normal”, the excess energy gets radiated faster due to T^4. This cools the local space. OTOH, if the space starts to get too cold, the emittance drops off and the thermalization becomes the stronger effect. This warms the local space. The net result is that the atmosphere tends to find a “normal” temperature. That “normal” temperature creates a lapse rate (based on the IGL) and we end up with a surface temperature higher than it would be otherwise.
More GHGs in any local space just makes it more efficient at maintaining the “normal” temperature.
In the video they show at time 3:35 the sunspot curve (10.7 band) for when max is to arrive along with the measured, but use a chart updated on 3 Jan 2012. Oh ya they say sunspot activity is increasing and an updated chart would show it declining below the red curve.
Compare the video chart with the link on WUWT from a few days ago.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/14/noaa-swpc-updates-their-solar-cycle-graphs-3rd-straight-month-of-dropping-sunspot-numbers/
_Jim says:
March 23, 2012 at 7:04 am
vukcevic says on March 23, 2012 at 2:50 am
CMEs that emanate out of the sun, are linked to it by combination of electric current and magnetic field …
Could you elucidate when it was that moving electric particles (e.g. protons and electrons) in ‘free space’ (outside of a conductor) become classified as ‘electric current’?
Where is the ‘return current’ that must exist if this is truly an electric current, as according to Kirchhoff’s current law?
Jim are you saying that a DC circuit has two way flow (return current)?
I think Anthony really enjoyed writing that headline – Whole lotta Watts added to the atmosphere.
If I was good at Photoshop shop I would paste a lotta head shots of Anthony up there in the atmosphere.
_Jim says:
March 23, 2012 at 7:19 am
> Overall GOES satellite status: http://www.oso.noaa.gov/goesstatus/
> . Goes-East (13) .. up
> . Goes-West (15) . down (all systems)
http://www.oso.noaa.gov/goesstatus/spacecraftStatusSummary.asp?spacecraft=15
Looks like it’s crawling back to life. That page says only SOUNDER and COMM
are Yellow, the rest green.
Also, http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/Xray.gif is showing new data.
cal says:
March 23, 2012 at 2:45 am
In fact the opposite is the case. In every one of the last six cycles (that is 12 increases/decreases) the warming has been during periods of low CO2 and the cooling has been during periods of high CO2.
===================================
ain’t that something……….LOL
That’s my take on it too cal