I loathe having to write this story because I truly dislike giving any attention to the people who are known as the “slayers” from the “Slaying the Sky Dragon” book. They now operate under the moniker of “Principia Scientific”.
But, somebody has to do it because some really bad mangling of the intent of a NASA press release by the “slayers” group is getting some traction. They have completely misread the NASA study and reinterpreted it for their purpose, claiming in a story titled “New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere” :
NASA’s Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry, (or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface.
Source: http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/165971/
The NASA story is about the thermosphere when it gets hit by solar flares. Here’s the Press release:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/
Here’s the relevant part from the press release:
=============================================================
“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.”
===========================================================
The two lines I bolded are what has the “slayers” in a tizzy.
Yes, of course the upper atmosphere is going to deflect and re-radiate the energy of solar storms, that’s why we don’t burn to a cinder when they happen. There’s nothing new here, this is what the upper atmosphere (thermosphere) does. CO2 (and other greenhouse gases – GHG’s) in the lower atmosphere also re-radiates long wave infra red energy (LWIR) as backradiation coming up from the surface of the Earth as it dumps the shortwave solar energy absorbed returns as LWIR (heat) and makes its way to the top of the atmosphere.
Source: http://serc.carleton.edu/earthlabs/weather_climate/lab_2.html
I’m writing this for the benefit of some who may have fallen into the trap of thinking the “slayers” interpretation was NASA’s position.
The claim by the “slayers” is the worst form of science misinterpretation I’ve seen in a long time. By itself I would have ignored it, but some of our friends in other blogs have picked up the story, and because of the NASA link, thought it was credible example as the “slayers” framed it. It isn’t, it is a twisting of the facts in a press release about solar flares and the thermosphere to make it look like the lower atmosphere works the same way. To some extent it does, but the direction of the source of LWIR energy is reversed, and CO2 and other GHG’s impede the transfer of LWIR energy to the top of the atmosphere where it is finally re-radiated into space. Without GHG’s, the lower atmosphere would be very cold. (Updated: For those who doubt this, see http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/what-if-there-was-no-greenhouse-effect/ – Anthony)
Because the “slayers” get as irrational in comments as some of the most strident AGW activists, and because it is late and I don’t want to deal with the angry dialog from some of their members who frequent here I know will happen, but would instead prefer a good night’s sleep, I’m not going to enable comments for this post. Maybe tomorrow.
Comments on now.
Update: if anyone wonders why I don’t take this group seriously, and don’t cover their beliefs here,one look at the sidebar or the Principia website tells the story in one image:
If there are any people in the AGW debate that deserve the label “deniers” surely this advertised denial of the existence of the greenhouse effect must qualify.
![earths_energy_balance_589[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/earths_energy_balance_5891.jpg?resize=589%2C410&quality=83)

My experience with many new alternative scientific websites is that many of them are modeled to be a sociocratic structure, which may start out with the best of intentions, but is going to be highly vulnerable later to the emergence of “thought leaders” who will use intimidation and social pressures to enforce their views. Principia Scientifica is a little overly enthusiastic about its structure.
If you want to invest your time, talent, and treasures in your theory, then be careful of joining groups that claim to be a “meritocracy.” Investment in a group that claims to give you the opportunity to share and discuss your theory is a good idea, but watch for structures, “minders,” and systems that encourage emerging leaders and authorities who appear to rise from within, but who may not.
The sociocratic structure claims to allow you to get credit and readership for your work, but you may regret the entanglement that requires when future leadership emerges with the power to reward and punish in front of your peers. It may be better to simply publish and give presentations on the web without being part of a structure at all.
Am I interpreting that image correctly? What exactly is the “back radiation” part? Are you telling me, with this depiction, that “back radiation” is heating the surface? Seriously?
If that were true, then I could heat my house by placing a candle in between two mirrors. Don’t try this yourself however, as you will likely cause a rift in the space-time continuum and destroy the universe by back radiation.
Wow, just wow…. do people not even think before drawing such stupidity?
squid,
Mosher is right, back radiation doesn’t warm the surface.
@_Jim says: March 29, 2013 at 10:21 am
So in your little thought experiment, can you tell us how a cooler molecule (atmosphere), through “back radiation” imparts heating upon the warmer ground (Earth) ?
@D.B. Stealey says: March 29, 2013 at 10:41 am
Agreed, that is exactly what I am saying. To think so, is sure stupidity.
_Jim says, (March 29, 2013 at 10:21 am): “The 12 easy steps to understanding the physics of the minor, but important, GHG effect. …
12. From insolation (incoming sunlight), to heating of the earth’s surface, some convective heating of the air near the surface (consult a meteorology text; the MAJORITY of the heating of the air is in the boundary layer), to radiation of LWIR from the earth’s surface, some LWIR is captured’ (excites or is EM induced into) various GHG molecules e.g. CO2 and H2O … and that ‘captured’ EM energy is re-radiated in all directions, *including, and this is very important: BACK to earth … some term this ‘back radiation’, perhaps after the close radio term, ‘back-scatter’ (as used in RADAR to identify energy ‘reflected’ or scattered back from a target).
And so there you have it.”
==========================================================
No, we do not have it, because your “back radiation warming” has no basis in real science. Note the emphasis on the word warming. And by warming I also mean “slowing down cooling”, in case you are going to argue about linguistics.
Phew.. I am so glad I am not the only one to find the radiation diagram to be BS… Didn’t wanna rock the boat too much so I just alluded to it. I am SO timid.. LOL
Zeke says:
March 29, 2013 at 10:26 am
What the heck are you talking about?
Doug Proctor says:
March 29, 2013 at 8:46 am
Richard M:
The more GHGs, the higher the thermal re-radiative effect: sure. But the more GHGs, the warmer the lower atmosphere.
The point is true but not pertinent. It is like saying the burner on your stove releases heat faster when it is glowing red. It does, but it is still red-hot. Our concern here is the stable temperature of the burner, not the rate that the burner loses heat in order to be stable at that temperature.
While I generalized to all GHGs the important question is the effect of increases in CO2. When we limit the discussion to CO2 the warming effect at the surface is dominated by water vapor. Hence, an increase in CO2 has a very small effect. Higher up the water vapor condenses out of the atmosphere and CO2 becomes the dominant GHG. Hence, increases at this level are much more important.
Your example is not relevant. There is no burner and we know the changes to equilibrium we are working with are quite small at both ends. The overall effect could be cooling rather than warming. It all depends on the relative strength of the two processes.
Did I say warmer? Was that a thought experiment? Can you point point out any fallacious principles in gas molecule ‘action’ at LWIR frequencies involving EM waves or EM energy (The field of “IR Spectroscopy” can provide some much needed insights on the various vibrational modes that gas molecules exhibit, in particular the polar molecules H2O and C02; this makes them ‘act’ like tiny tuning forks or antennas resonant at several frequencies depending on the vibration mode)?
Can you answer me how a reflector (as in a “parabolic reflector”) behind a feedhorn works? (Hint: The reflector is ‘cold’, i.e., not excited in the classical sense as the feedhorn is; the feedhorn is said to “illuminate” the reflector however.)
PS. What part about “re-rad” after impingement by LWIR EM energy do you not understand?
PPS. I’m coming at this from the perspective of antenna engineering/RF engineering involving EM (Electromagnetic) energy; this may involve principles not commonly understood or accepted by most ppl.
.
Ok, maybe a really “stupid” question but are there any thumbnails of how much energy gets released from the earth when we have all those lighting storms . . . .
it’s my ‘understanding’ that this feature is what helps make and maintain the “ozone” layer, as well as “lose” energy.
Technically, wouldn’t this “poke” holes in the greenhouse effect? (qualitatively as well as quantitatively)?
Really Greg; you don’t understand how a vibrating CO2 or H2O molecule interact with EM energy at various wavelengths?
This may be the cause of all your confusion and illiteracy on the subject..
.
My feeble understanding is that IR radiation, when absorbed by a molecule, causes molecular excitation in the vibrational mode. Thus the excited molecule has some more kinetic energy which it can give up by collision. Not by photonic emission.
Mkelly says: Q: What the heck are you talking about?
A: 1. Alternative scientific websites; 2. sociocratic structures; 3. meritocracies.
An example:
http://principia-scientific.org/14-editor-s-favorites/84-upstarts-lead-peer-to-peer-science-online-where-next.html
I think there are some fine scientists and good articles there, but find the meritocracy structure to be wide open to future problems. Alternative science is important as WUWT demonstrates, but I have seen several examples of alternative science (or just science groups) that have embraced this structure on the web. I have also found that the leadership does have an ideology that comes out only later in practice, although in theory it allows for a wide diversity of views.
Don’t anthropomorphize molecules. They hate when you do that.
_Jim says:
March 29, 2013 at 11:02 am ” Greg House says March 29, 2013 at 10:45 am
No, we do not have it, because your “back radiation warming” has no basis in real science.
…
Really Greg; you don’t understand how a vibrating CO2 or H2O molecule interact with EM energy at various wavelengths?”
=======================================================
Let me tell you for the like 10th time: radiation is there, but your notion about back radiation warming the source (or slowing down it’s cooling) has no basis in real science. Please, do not obfuscate the matter by shifting to existence of radiation or to what causes it.
Anthony, you write: Without GHG’s, the lower atmosphere would be very cold.
This is not true because a hypothetical atmosphere of oxygen and nitrogen would warm up via conduction from the surface warmed by the Sun and transported to higher altitudes due to convection. In reality your statement should be obliterated, because Earth is a water planet and H2O is a very potent greenhouse gas.
REPLY: Water vapor is a GHG, as are other gases. My point stands. – Anthony
For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed26 billion kWh of energy. …. 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.
A quick 5 minute search finds – http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/media_room/publications_presentations/Power_Trends/Power_Trends/power_trends_2012_final.pdf
Power Demands
Total Usage in 2011 ………………………………………………………………….. 163,330 GWh
Total Usage in 2010 ……………………………………………………………………163,505 GWh
I believe GWh is a little bigger than billion kWh, so NASA is a little off in their power comparison.
_Jim says:
March 29, 2013 at 10:21 am
—
13. Most of the radiation that hits the earth hits the oceans, and heats the water first. There are all kinds of consequences of that. You have to actually heat the water surface appreciably before that starts to affect the heat balance of the atmosphere.
14. Heat on the surface can move horizontally quite a ways before it finally gets back out into space.
15. If you think it’s simple, you don’t understand it. If you think you understand it, you don’t.
Mkelly: “What on earth are you talking about?”
The name of the website in the top paragraph, in the last sentence, is an alternative scientific group. So I was addressing some structures adopted by alternative science groups, including “meritocracies” and sociocratic structures. My comment assumes the understanding that that website is an alternative science website, and perhaps this was really not common knowledge. I am sorry about that.
Anthony – for the record – one of the major blogs that linked the original piece was Instapundit. They just linked piece this and issued a retraction and a mea culpa.
So I followed the link above to the earthlabs website, apparently a tool for teaching climate science to high schoolers. The source behind the diagram is a NOAA teaching site:
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmos/energy_balance.htm
The diagram is accompanied by a table with the math to show the incoming and outgoing energy balances at all levels, including this bit:
The atmosphere itself – Energy into the atmosphere is balanced with outgoing energy from atmosphere.
Incoming energy Outgoing energy
Units Source Units Source
+19 Absorbed short wave radiation by gasses in the atmosphere. -9 Long wave radiation emitted to space by clouds.
+4 Absorbed short wave radiation by clouds. -49 Long wave radiation emitted to space by gasses in atmosphere.
+104 Absorbed longwave radiation from earth’s surface. -98 Longwave radiation emitted to earth’s surface by gasses in atmosphere.
+5 From convective currents (rising air warms the atmosphere).
+24 Condensation/Deposition of water vapor(heat is released into the atmosphere by process).
+156 -156
Where is the evidence for these numbers?
Anyone notice that the NASA SOHO real time images of the sun site has been down for several days now?
Anthony, your reply misses the point. Without greenhouse gases (including water vapour, i.e. no water, no oceans) the temperature of the atmosphere could be much higher, because the oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere would warm by conduction (contact with the surface heated by the Sun in daytime). We would have winds because the surface temperature would vary due to different heat capacities making up the surface.
Since N2 and O2 are not greenhouse gases and thus not capable of radiative transfer of energy to space, the warm N2/O2 gas would rise to higher altitudes and remain there because of buoyancy. Howevre, what actually would happen is immaterial because we do HAVE OCEANS and hence talking about a hypothetical temperature without greenhouse gases is plain stupid.
REPLY: See http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/what-if-there-was-no-greenhouse-effect/ – Anthony
DD More says (March 29, 2013 at 11:31 am): A quick 5 minute search finds – http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/media_room/publications_presentations/Power_Trends/Power_Trends/power_trends_2012_final.pdf
Power Demands
Total Usage in 2011 ………………………………………………………………….. 163,330 GWh
Total Usage in 2010 ……………………………………………………………………163,505 GWh
I believe GWh is a little bigger than billion kWh, so NASA is a little off in their power comparison.”
Read the press release carefully: “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.”
I interpret “home” as detached single family housing. According to this
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36000.html
New York has about 7.2 million “households” of which about 50.5% are in multi-unit housing, i.e. not “homes”. Assuming (dubiously) that the average “home” uses the same energy as the average “household”, then 7.2 million X 49.5% X 4700 kWh X 2 years = 33.5 billion kWh which is at least in the same ballpark as NASA’s figure of 26 billion, i.e. “good enough for government work”. 🙂