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.
rgbatduke says:
March 24, 2012 at 8:42 am
“everyday people will be choosing to go PV electric where they can”
Your information shows you have spent many hours examining the PV issues and why you think this will be the thing of the future. I suggest you spend a few hours examining why this technology will NOT have a significant overall effect on the World’s energy use. The phrase quoted above includes the term ‘everyday people’ and this can be either ‘everyday-people’ or, perhaps ‘everyday, people.’ In the first sense, your statement is likely wrong. In the second sense you ought to write ‘everyday, a few people will.” Assuming, as you say, this technology becomes reasonable by 2020, will we see governments impose the technology on new housing construction? Will there be subsidies? Will such subsidies be seen as the “reverse Robin Hood phenomena”? Will communities not allow such installations for aesthetic reasons? Something like 2 hens are okay but no roosters. Of you can paint your house trim any color you like as long as it is a pale earth-tone. At this level there are many issues.
Then consider that during this same time frame there is interest in have more people live in apartments so as to increase density of settlements and reduce traffic, and so on. The ratio of PV-available space to residents changes. The problems can be solved, say, with side mounting, bigger and more batteries, and new businesses to service and maintain all the internal functions of the building’s energy system. Doesn’t this seem like a move back in time to heating homes with coal or wood and all that went with that?
At the end of the quote, you have written “where they can”, and this brings another set of issues. Clouds, snow, dust, shade, and latitude come to mind as things to be considered. [Beyond the community issues already mentioned.] You are aware of these, but let me just mention that many cities do not approve of a homeowner or builders cutting down trees. Inspections and permits with fees are required. Without getting approval for such, removing or even severe pruning of a tree can result in a fine. I recognize that these society aspects can be changed over time, but I think you cannot ignore them.
Thus, while what you write looks good as a paper and pencil exercise, there are many reasons why the impact of PV systems will be much slower to move the needle as a percentage contributor to large nation and/or World energy usage.
vukcevic says:
March 24, 2012 at 9:47 am
“Vuk, this is total nonsense [as you have been told too many times to remember].”
Svalgaard turns vukcevic’s reason into ridicule
No ridicule, just sadness about the futility of teaching you anything.
Thus, while what you write looks good as a paper and pencil exercise, there are many reasons why the impact of PV systems will be much slower to move the needle as a percentage contributor to large nation and/or World energy usage.
Well, as you note (and thank you!) I have indeed thought long and hard about this issue and we will have to agree to disagree. As I told Willis (who agrees strongly with you, I think) future prognostication is an open game, and I’ll place my bets on Solar against ever increasing Coal quite independent of what happens or does not happen on the climate science front. I, and a lot of other people, see an inevitable crossover between an inexorably upward line for fuel based power and inexorably downward line for solar power, and take further note that solar is suitable for DIY and distributed (non-centralized) installation.
I think the timeline I laid out is conservative — I actually think things will proceed faster than that. But we will, of course, see — if we live long enough.
rgb
Leif Svalgaard says:
just sadness about the futility of teaching you anything.
Hi doc
No room or reason for sadness. It is your ‘teaching method’ that inspired discovery of more than half a dozen unknown correlation, more than 250 novel graphs, seen by thousands through more then 125,000 web-page internet hits.
You have achieved far greater deal than you assert, and I am grateful for the inspiration.
With your knowledge and experience, guided by my intuition, we could present to the world solutions to the two great puzzles of modern world:
– the cause of natural climate change
– the solar activity’s role
As it happens I have got both, but I need an authoritative voice; I can assure you there is nothing there which contravenes any law of physics, but when one is engaged in a partisan (as in Norwegian ) hit and run exercise, then one has to use lot of camouflage.
Thanks doc.
vukcevic says:
March 24, 2012 at 11:39 am
No room or reason for sadness. It is your ‘teaching method’ that inspired discovery of more than half a dozen unknown correlation
The number of spurious correlations yet to be discovered has no limit. The sadness comes from the fact that you have learned no science at all.
But, but, but you guys keep on telling me that the volume fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.03% ( and it’s so heavy it stays near the ground) and so it can’t have any significant effect. If that is so, how can it reduce the upper atmosphere heating effect of a solar storm?
Could it be you guys lied to me?
Rod says:
March 22, 2012 at 11:36 pm
“Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space”
What, no 50% radiated down to heat the lower atmosphere?
————————-
Yeah I noticed this to.
I’ll have a stab at an explanation. No guarantees I’m correct, just shooting from the hip here.
The heating effect is taking place in the upper atmosphere. Any IR radiated outward is obvious lost straight away. 50% is lost.
But any IR radiated downward, also 50%, is absorbed by the slightly denser atmosphere below that height. This of course warms that part of the atmosphere. There again 50% is radiated up and 50% is radiated down.
So , nominally speaking, another 25% is now lost. The remaining 25% warms up some even lower part of the atmosphere.
Continuing, at this lower part of the atmosphere 50% is radiated up and 50% is radiated down. Now, nominally speaking 12.5% is lost and 12.5% heats some even even lower part Of the atmosphere.
Blah, blah, blah , you get the picture. Ira’s little einsteins should remember his bouncing balls.
Here is the thing you guys will love. The NO and CO2 are acting to prevent the energy from the solar flare from penetrating into the atmosphere. In other words green house gases act to increase the resistance of the atmosphere to energy flow.
This is of course the exact same effect that acts as resistance to energy transfer, when energy absorbed at the surface of the earth is transferred to outer space.
Isn’t it wonderful how consistent physics is?
Cal says
I know that climate scientists are not keen on measuring anything in case it undermines their models but this would be a very good thing to know given that, in the absence of a cooling tropopause, an increase in CO2 would lead to increased radiation loss and a cooling surface.
————-
How is it that you can say this while looking at a satellite image showing IR emissions of CO2? That satellite, amongst many others, cost millions of dollars and was put up by climate scientists for the specific purpose of checking their calculations.
Please get a clue.
Ric Werme says:
March 23, 2012 at 5:17 am
NO is a diatomic molecule, hence must have a very different absorption spectrum than the GHG gases we normally deal with.
———–
Offhand it has one absorption band corresponding to the NO bond stretch. Google nitric oxide.
But the actual spectrum here says otherwise
http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C10102439&Mask=80#IR-Spec
Paul Bahlin says:
March 23, 2012 at 1:50 pm
Wouldn’t the difference of net (vertical) radiation be due to the exponential that results from continually splitting flux. I know I’m leaving a lot to be desired semantically here. But if you assume, as a very crude model, multiple layers of opaque gasses that absorb unidirectionally and then re-emit isotropically, each downward ‘hit’ at a layer results in a 50% split (in the vertical component). Half continues on down. Half gets reversed.
—————-
I reckon that’s correct.
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/22701/1/97-1224.pdf
More than you ever wanted to know about NO and it’s spectrum in the thermosphere.
It’s the latest HITRAN data set description for NO, as used in atmospheric modeling calculations.
A quick comparison between the HITRAN and NIST spectra says the extra lines of note in the NIST spectrum are due to hot bands.
This is of course the exact same effect that acts as resistance to energy transfer, when energy absorbed at the surface of the earth is transferred to outer space.
Provided one is in the right band of wavelengths.
rgb
Clearly this work by James Russell of Hampton University means that we should be increasing emissions of CO2 and NO by building more coal fired power stations.
The dynamic equilibrium in the upper atmosphere replenishing CO2 and NO lost to outer space must be maintained by increasing emissions down here on Earth.
LazyTeenager says:
March 24, 2012 at 3:52 pm
I challenge you to find any comment I’ve made to you or others asserting any of your above statements. (Including the 0.04% – If I used percent, I would have rounded up.) The closest you will come will be to a tongue-in-cheek claim that all the argon has settled to sea level and we’re all dead.
You may have been trying to be cute, but you referred to “you guys” and that includes me. If you want to suggest people have been lying to you, I suggest you take it up with them.
I have a reply from James Russell:
From the .pdf Lazy posted, the longest wavelength involved is 5 µm, for reference, the blackbody temperature that most strongly radiates there is 300°C. The thermosphere starts at about 80 km and reaches interplanetary space at some 500-1000km.