A misinterpreted claim about a NASA press release, CO2, solar flares, and the thermosphere is making the rounds

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.”

Solar Storms Dumps Gigawatts (Nitric Oxide Spike, 558px))
A surge of infrared radiation from nitric oxide molecules on March 8-10, 2012, signals the biggest upper-atmospheric heating event in seven years. Credit: SABER/TIMED. See also the CO2 data here: http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2012/03/22/both_spikes.jpg

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.

earths_energy_balance_589[1]

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:

Principia_bogus

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.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
126 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Quinn the Eskimo
March 29, 2013 12:31 pm

Phil. at 10:25 AM:
Query:
Manabe and Wetherald’s 1975 paper (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281975%29032%3C0003%3ATEODTC%3E2.0.CO%3B2) “explains” the stratospheric cooling effect of CO2 as follows:
“As pointed out above, large cooling occurs in the model stratosphere. This is caused by the increase in the emission from the stratosphere to space resulting from the increase in the concentration of CO2. Since the total amount of CO2 above a given level decreases with increasing altitude, the absorption of the emission from above also decreases correspondingly. This is one reason why the magnitude of the cooling increases with increasing height in the model stratosphere.”
p. 7. If the described mechanism of cooling in the stratosphere is operative, then why isn’t it also operative at every level of the atmosphere, with the same effect at every level of the atmosphere, since the property giving rise to this effect is true at every level of the atmosphere, namely that the concentration above is less than that below?
You seem to be saying that it is because collisional warming of adjacent N2 and O2 is the actual mechanism by which CO2 transfers heat absorbed from LWIR from the surface to the troposphere, not re-radiation, until you get to the stratosphere, at which point radiative rather than collisional heat loss predominates. Is that correct?

Dr Burns
March 29, 2013 12:37 pm

In the 2nd fig above, if clouds cover 70% of the Earth’s surface, why isn’t the “aborbed by green house gases” figure reduced by 70% ?
Shouldn’t convective heat transfer, not radiation, should be the primary heat loss mechanism for the majority of the Earth’s surface ?

John Francis
March 29, 2013 12:49 pm

I don’t understand everyone’s confusion.
The sun’s radiation causes the surface and sea to heat up, i.e. a surface or sea molecule stores energy.
Each molecule can lose energy by convection (by far the biggest effect) or by radiating a photon, i.e. it loses energy.
The photon can get absorbed by a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere, i.e it gains the energy the surface lost. Jim’s mechanism is correct.
–The CO2 molecule can either re-radiate the photon in any direction, i.e. it scatters the incident photon and thereby cools again, or
–It transfers the energy by conduction/convection to another nearby molecule, and thereby cools.
At no time is there more energy than we started out with, except from the sun and an insignificant amount from the earth’s nuclear furnace. At no time can the CO2 warm the surface more than it was previously while the sun is heating it up. At no time is the CO2 molecule able to retain the incident energy and also re-transmit it, as many seem to believe.
I would say that when the sun goes down, if the CO2 molecule still has its energy (a big if!) it could re-radiate to the cooler surface and thereby warm it slightly, and affect the minimum low surface air temperature that night, but my guess is that it’s insignificant. Of the course the latent heat of water vapour vastly outweighs these effects.
The GHGE can affect the average of the daytime high and the nightime low surface air temperatures ever so slightly, but it’s insignificant, and a relatively meaningless measure anyway. The energy diagram at the top of this post is clearly incorrect
Where am I wrong here?

Gary Hladik
March 29, 2013 1:14 pm

Boris Winterhalter says (March 29, 2013 at 12:15 pm): “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.”
Dr. Spencer covers the “stupid” case here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/what-if-there-was-no-greenhouse-effect/

Robert Clemenzi
March 29, 2013 1:17 pm

I agree with Boris Winterhalter that the following is wrong.

Without GHG’s, the lower atmosphere would be very cold.

We have had this discussion before – Greenhouse gases are what cools the lower atmosphere. Without them, the lower kilometer of the atmosphere would be hotter than 100°C and above that there would be no change in temperature with increasing altitude.
However, I disagree with Boris that it is stupid to talk about this. In my opinion this is a critical point in understanding how changes in CO2 affect the climate.
REPLY: See http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/what-if-there-was-no-greenhouse-effect/ – Anthony

davidmhoffer
March 29, 2013 1:18 pm

George Steiner says:
March 29, 2013 at 11:06 am
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The excited molecule can absorb in one of several modes and can give up the additional energy via collision or emission. A flame is nothing more than gases so hot that they emit in the visible spectrum.

March 29, 2013 1:20 pm

Francis says:March 29, 2013 at 12:49 pm
Except that you missed the part about if the photon from one molecule hits a molecule of higher thermal energy, it is not absorbed, it is immediately re-emitted and will only be absorbed and re-emitted by a molecule of lesser thermal energy (1st and 2nd laws). Hence also why back radiation (down welling long wave radiation) cannot heat the surface if the surface is warmer than that which is back radiating. .. ergo, no GHE …

davidmhoffer
March 29, 2013 1:25 pm

Richard M;
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
CO2 also has more pronounced effects in deserts, arctic zones, and high latitudes during winter. All for the same reason, there’s less water vapour so the over all greenhouse effect is lower, but CO2 accounts for a more significant percentage of what it left, and has more of an effect when it increases.
Not that I’m advocating for the effect being catastrophic, or even significant, just extending your point.

davidmhoffer
March 29, 2013 1:44 pm

John Francis;
The energy diagram at the top of this post is clearly incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is not as much incorrect as it is over simplified. Incoming SW is not 100 w/m2 for example, it ranges from 0 to over 1300 w/m2 over the course of a day. Of course that is an over simplification too, because the lower range is 0 at all latitudes, but the upper range varies with latitude and season and orbital position (since the orbit is elliptical, not circular). You can’t average it because w/m2 varies with T in degrees K raised to the power of 4. Plus they are showing various processes happening at a given “spot” on the diagram. That is also an over simplification. Radiated energy from the surface for example doesn’t just travel from the surface to the TOA (Top of Atmosphere) at a given w/m2. A photon that escapes could have originated from the earth surface, or ten feet up, or 10,000 feet up or 1 mm below the TOA. We can detect how many w/m2 escape from TOAm but where any given photon originated is impossible to determine.
I could go on for several more paragraphs as to the deficiencies of this diagram. That said, I haven’t a clue how you could possibly depict the whole process accurately in a 2D drawing that is frozen in time. So it is not so much wrong as it is less right than it could be.
I highly recommend the series by Ira Glickstein on this site for those who want to get into the detail that would make that drawing half way understandable.

higley7
March 29, 2013 2:00 pm

As “GHGs” in the atmosphere transmit IR forward in the direction if came form, they DO NOT act to alter the down or up IR. Only in the upper thin atmosphere is Rayleigh scattering occurring and, there, the CO2 is too thin to accomplish anything.
Arrhenius’s conjecture of a greenhouse effect by CO2 was and has never been confirmed scientifically. It was adopted by Maurice Strong’s “scientists” who pretended that it was a real thing, with the goal of demonizing CO2, which they knew we could not stop emitting. They depend on a positive feedback mechanism by water vapor, but water vapor and the water cycle comprise a planetary heat engine that forms a huge negative feedback machine.
The greenhouse effect indeed does not exist as our basic atmospheric temperature is due to gravitational compression which is then altered by ocean cycles and solar activity. It beggars reality that a trace gas could drive our climate in any detectable way, particularly in the face of the water cycle heat engine which carries 85% of incoming solar energy to altitude, away from the surface. Radiation from the surface is a minor component (15%).

March 29, 2013 2:09 pm

Ron C:
“I had not seen that energy balance diagram before, though it is no doubt based on Trenberth et al.”
Yep, a trenberthian – all thermal. Explains why he’s still thrashing around trying to find the missing heat.
ALERT: The source of the diagram is given as the following link, but does not appear there:
http://serc.carleton.edu/earthlabs/weather_climate/lab_2.html
“In this diagram, the earth’s surface is heated by “back-radiation” twice as much as the heat from the sun. (98 vs. 47) How is this possible? Where do these numbers come from? What observational evidence is there to support this claim?”
Puzzles me as well. I live in a place where there is often over 600 watts/m2 coming down. “Dry” tropics. Sky is clear most of the time. Not sure of the units being used in the diagram, but applying the ratios, our “47” is being almost tripled by the “98” from back radiation?
If the diagram is correct, how the hell do we manage to live here ?

Westy
March 29, 2013 2:26 pm

Good luck because I think your asking for it with this – “Without GHG’s, the lower atmosphere would be very cold.” They say it’s not back radiation (GHE) but an insulating effect and the pressure gradient from gravity on atmosphere that holds the heat from sun warmed surfaces. Plus CO2 helps cool at the top. The debate goes on, far from settled.
REPLY: See http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/what-if-there-was-no-greenhouse-effect/ – Anthony

March 29, 2013 2:45 pm

Looks very much like CET deviations from normals for the period:
http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2012/03/22/both_spikes.jpg

March 29, 2013 2:46 pm

I feel sorry for the clueless Egyptians who worshiped the sun. Clearly, from the energy balance diagram, they should have worshiped back-radiating gases. We don’t even need the sun. Get rid of it and its measly 47W so we can bask in 98W spontaneously available from our atmosphere. In addition, let’s have some sympathy for the poor Sky Dragon Slayers. Their brains are not advanced enough to grasp this simple atmospheric physics.The surface radiates, the H2O and CO2 absorb and re-radiate to make the surface warmer than it was by 10% (33C). Sky Dragon Slayers? A = 2A. How can we make it simpler for them? It’s a sad situation.

March 29, 2013 2:49 pm


The diagram is on the linked page, but you have to scroll to part B and click on Show me diagram and accounting.
If you continue to the NOAA source, you will learn that GHGs radiate downwards at twice the rate as upwards, and that evapotranspiration is only 1/4 of the heat transferred by radiation from the surface to the atmosphere.
I think they are just making stuff up.

March 29, 2013 2:54 pm

squid2112 says:
March 29, 2013 at 1:20 pm
Francis says:March 29, 2013 at 12:49 pm
Except that you missed the part about if the photon from one molecule hits a molecule of higher thermal energy, it is not absorbed, it is immediately re-emitted and will only be absorbed and re-emitted by a molecule of lesser thermal energy (1st and 2nd laws). Hence also why back radiation (down welling long wave radiation) cannot heat the surface if the surface is warmer than that which is back radiating. .. ergo, no GHE …

Not true, all that is required is that the energy carried by the photon exactly match the energy difference between the occupied energy level of the receiving molecule and another higher energy level.

DaveG
March 29, 2013 3:04 pm

Anthony. You got your nickers in a knot and have gone off half cocked. check your coffee. The dragon slayers are good guys. The same as you!

March 29, 2013 3:14 pm

Zeke says:
March 29, 2013 at 10:26 am
“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…” [etc.]
*
Thank you for this, Zeke. I didn’t know about this type at all and you’ve explained it very well. It sounds like there are some nasty traps out there in the making, something we should all be made aware of.

March 29, 2013 3:35 pm

And, BTW, the stuff they are making up is being taught to impressionable youth as scientific truth.

michael hart
March 29, 2013 3:35 pm

Phil March 29, 2013 at 10:25 am
If (IF) a GHG can thermalize IR at a given location, then it can perform the reverse and cool at the same location. Necessarily so. My original comment already made explicit reference to different physical locations in the wider context of atmospheric heat transport. I was not explicitly dressing the specific case here, just the general misconception that a greenhouse gas cannot cool. If it cannot cool by a given mechanism, then it cannot heat either.

March 29, 2013 3:37 pm

Phil. says: March 29, 2013 at 2:54 pm
So you are trying to say that thermal energy can flow from a colder object to a warmer object, which violates laws 1 and 2.

March 29, 2013 3:53 pm

C:
Thanks for the directions. As it happens I got to the NOAA source by a longer route, and while I am still dubious, the NOAA diagram is better. Helps to explain why those of us who engage in passive climatic design for the tropics emphasise the need to address the later afternoon heat gain, rather than the pre-noon sun angle, and are generally unconcerned about the first 15° of morning sun.

OldWeirdHarold
March 29, 2013 4:05 pm

Squid.
1. That doesn’t violate the first law. 2. The second law applies to populations of molecules, not individual ones (this is not quite true in macromolecules, but true for CO2).

davidmhoffer
March 29, 2013 4:10 pm

squid2112 says:
March 29, 2013 at 3:37 pm
Phil. says: March 29, 2013 at 2:54 pm
So you are trying to say that thermal energy can flow from a colder object to a warmer object, which violates laws 1 and 2.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, he’ trying to explain radiative physics to you which violates neither.

March 29, 2013 4:28 pm

Thanks for overcoming your reluctance Anthony. I think you have done the right thing here.
Did a quick assessment of responses, tried to avoid double-counting, and a “Cook & Lew” mess 🙂
“Pro-slayers” (conceding they have a point) – 20
“Anti-slayers” (stronger aversion, less ready to concede validity) – 9
“Others” ? – the rest. 62 so far. Nothing I could see that was off-topic, no significant flaming, most providing valid information and reasoned argument.
Not so painful was it.
A few conclusions:
– Energy balance diagrams are still more likely to be misleading than informing
– Averaging thermal balance globally can result in absurdity
– Even averaging thermal balance diurnally can be misleading (mea culpa)
– “Slayers” mode of operation is understandable but risky
I can say, I have learned more, and as a result know there is more that needs to be learned.