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.
![earths_energy_balance_589[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/earths_energy_balance_5891.jpg?quality=83)
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.
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.
——————
Golly. Why does the discussion inevitably end up back here every time the slayers come up?
Better men than me have tried to explain this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/
If Dr. Spencer can’t persuade you, I’m unlikely to make any headway either, but I’ll take a crack at it. How about this: if I shine a laser at the Sun, why doesn’t the laser explode? Where do you suppose the energy goes in this case?
It would amuse me if we could agree to bundle the assorted collection of GHE theories and call the bundle The Mosher Effect. It’s difficult to zero in on the essential physics, but it’s whatever water vapor and CO2 do to block, trap, retard or store outgoing IR resulting in the Earth being an average of 33C warmer than it otherwise would be. The Mosher Effect–may it forever be immortal.
Martin Clark says (March 29, 2013 at 4:28 pm): “Nothing I could see that was off-topic, no significant flaming, most providing valid information and reasoned argument. Not so painful was it.”
Discussions on the so-called “greenhouse” effect tend to be “enthusiastic” and strain the long-suffering moderators’ patience, but generally peter out eventually, e.g.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/06/the-r-w-wood-experiment/
Other topics generate more heat than light, e.g.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/25/a-question-for-dr-michael-mann-would-a-professional-scientist-behave-this-way/
Here’s a question for everyone; I think it’s pertinent:
Assuming thermal equilibrium, is the sun hotter than it would be otherwise, because of the presence of the planets reflecting some radiation back to the sun? This is not a trivial question, and relates directly to the reality, or otherwise, of the GHGE. Pretend the planets are really enormous.
I forgot to add:
“Ignoring the nuclear reactors inside the planets”
And I did not ask “what about a binary star near the sun”. Just a reflector.
“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.”
Anthony, I am a member of that group and proud of it. Sorry if you do not want to hear that the “greenhouse effect has nothing to do with the average temperature of the Earth”, but that is my position and that of other well educated and experienced persons. I have tried rationally to explain this many times here without too many attacks on others.
Like statements by any group some of what is said is partially correct, fully correct, somewhat wrong or totally wrong.
Equating the effect described in this case as a “thermostat” is ridiculous and shows a complete misunderstanding of how a thermostat regulates temperature by supplying/not supplying thermal energy, or enabling/disabling the pumping of thermal energy from inside to outside (i.e. an air conditioner). Likely that term was chosen specifically to misrepresent the alleged ability of gases in the atmosphere to “force” the massive thermal capacity of the oceans into “equilibrium” (also a ridiculous misnomer).
I find it regrettable that you classify me with the derogatory term “denier”, but so be it.
And Yes, I have read Dr. Spencer’s ”Yes Virginia there is a greenhouse effect”, and I disagree with it on several counts. And none of Willis many explanations of how it (the GHE) works match reality.
If the Greenhouse Effect exists why did you debunk Al Gore’s demonstration of it ? It should be easy to verify it experimentally, it’s simple physics correct ?
If I might, I suggest you study up a little bit about how anti-reflection multilayer optical interference coatings (that purple looking film on the front of most camera lenses) work, there are many similarities between those and the layers of the atmosphere, EXCEPT to make more energy (visible light) stay in the lens optical interference is required. If you like I could explain the similarities for you.
Cheers, Kevin.
KevinK;
If the Greenhouse Effect exists why did you debunk Al Gore’s demonstration of it ? It should be easy to verify it experimentally, it’s simple physics correct ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Al Gore’s experiment did not and could not produce the results that it did unless it was faked. That is all that Anthony demonstrated. Further, that experiment could not possibly demonstrate the GHE in the first place, which is why they had to fake the results.
Greg House says (March 29, 2013 at 8:52 am): “Sorry, Anthony, but I can not find any trace of misinterpretation.”
Try reading with your eyes open. Anthony is correct:
The NASA article refers to upper atmospheric heating by “a coronal mass ejection (CME)”, i.e. “a plasma consisting primarily of electrons and protons”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_mass_ejection
and not shortwave or longwave radiation. The so-called “greenhouse” gasses didn’t “block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays”; most of the collisional “blocking” was done by the far more abundant non-greenhouse gasses. Far from being a “new discovery”, as the authors claim (perhaps sarcastically) upper atmosphere cooling by so-called “greenhouse” gasses is acknowledged as an integral part of the so-called “greenhouse” effect by by scientists on both sides of the CAGW issue, e.g. here
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/what-if-there-was-no-greenhouse-effect/
Anthony was actually easy on these guys, because the “misinterpretations” don’t stop there. If you scroll down the PSI article
http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html
you’ll find “PSI has proved that the numbers fed into computer models by Hansen and others were based on a faulty interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics.” Unfortunately, they haven’t actually proved anything, though if they’re right they could do so with one fairly simple experiment and win a Nobel Prize. WUWT?
Right after that comes this gem, “PSI also recently uncovered long overlooked evidence from the American Meteorological Society (AMS) that shows it was widely known the GHE was discredited prior to 1951. [2]” If you check footnote 2, you’ll see a reference to Compendium of Meteorology, 1951, page 1016, and this note, ‘The AMS stated that the idea that CO2 could alter the climate “was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO2 is [already] absorbed by water vapor.’ Excuse me? The CO2 “greenhouse” effect is overwelmed by water vapor’s “greenhouse” effect? Their own footnote contradicts them???
In case there’s any doubt you can download the book here
http://archive.org/details/compendiumofmete00amer
and check page 391, where much of the heat on Venus is attributed to “the large greenhouse effect supplied by such an enormous quantity of CO2”. Far from refuting the so-called “greenhouse” effect, their own reference strongly affirms it!
At one time I suspected the so-called “slayers” were just misguided, but now I’m pretty sure that at least two of them (authors Schreuder and O’Sullivan) are either liars or off-the-chart moonbats. About the only way they could make their article dumber would be to bring up the R W Wood experiment. 🙂
KevinK says:
March 29, 2013 at 7:27 pm
—————
While I disagree with you on the science, you’ve otherwise got a point. If posting under this thread implied I approve of the use of the term ‘denier’ in this context, I apologize. This is not in fact my reasoned position, and I can only offer in explanation that I didn’t think the implications through before posting. I understand you were addressing Anthony, but I felt compelled to clarify my position regardless.
Regards.
John Francis wrote;
“Here’s a question for everyone; I think it’s pertinent:
Assuming thermal equilibrium, is the sun hotter than it would be otherwise, because of the presence of the planets reflecting some radiation back to the sun? This is not a trivial question, and relates directly to the reality, or otherwise, of the GHGE. Pretend the planets are really enormous.”
This echo’s a point I have made before, if the “GHE” causes the Earth to warm up then some of that “extra” energy would make it back to the Sun and thereby warm it (a wee little bit). If this process went on for billions of years it would result in a steadily hotter Sun and Earth. But our expectations are that the Sun will eventually use up its fuel and “go out”. And we did have those nasty little Ice Ages, I don’t think anybody is arguing yet that those did not happen.
Cheers, Kevin.
nothothere;
if the “GHE” causes the Earth to warm up then some of that “extra” energy would make it back to the Sun and thereby warm it (a wee little bit). If this process went on for billions of years it would result in a steadily hotter Sun and Earth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It never ceases to amaze me that people attempt to refute the GHE by attaching to it a claim that GHE theory does not make, and in fact specifically refutes. The GHE theory specifies a new equilibrium temperature that is higher by a given amount. That and no more. There is no “steadily hotter”. If there was, THAT would violate GHE theory.
Davidmhoffer;
In most fields of science a statement like; “Further, that experiment could not possibly demonstrate the GHE in the first place,” would mean that the “effect” in question cannot be demostrated and therefore should be assumed to NOT EXIST ; “which is why they had to fake the results”
Cheers, Kevin.
Anthony
I have the highest regard for what you have done for Climate Change Skepticism,which was sorely needed when you started. And your efforts every day fill me with admiration.
However I think your antipathy to the unfortunate strident and frequently insulting tone of some of the slayers (an antipathy which I share) has made you disregard the clear accuracy of the belief that GHGE does not come close to explaining the reality of the current situation (lack of warming). There are many thoughtful and persuasive arguments that the effect just does not exist, except as a third-order effect, at best. Many of us cannot fathom the argument that the earth would be 30-some degrees colder except for GHG. CO2 is clearly beneficial to life on earth.
Give us some credit, please. We care about this issue, and about the skeptical view.
I must say though, that your post on this issue, and Tallbloke’s recent efforts concerning Willis’s thought experiment, have an excellent outcome–we can talk about this! This is much better than the previous censorship of the whole topic.
I xompare this to the steel greenhouse proposition. I found it strange that people could accept that proposition and even argue it was correct mathematically and scientifically.
The planet and newly fitted shell now represent a surface radiating to space at 235 with internal heating of some sort.
Let’s add a second shell – by the logic proposed this one will heat up like the first and radiate out and in at the same rate,
But now the inner planet must double again from 470 to 940 to keep the maths right.
And the new ensemnle now looks like the original – a surface radiating 235 to space so let’s put another shell, then another and so on to infinity.
That doesn’t sound very likely – yet many defended the original proposition of one shell doubling the energy – if it is true for one then it MUST be true for any number but that leads to an absurd finality.
And neither does the above diagram seem very likely.
Who says all solar energy is converted to thermal radiation anyway ?
What about the enormous quantities of energy converted to mass on a daily basis ??
47.2% of radiation from a 6000 K source has less heating effect than 97.7% of a 255 K source – if such source comprising less than 40 grams of water and less than a gram of CO2 per cubic metre at 5000m or so in the atmosphere is capable of producing significant radiation.
Just how does the surface emit more than the initial heating from the Sun ?
I always thought it was the temperature of an object that produced the radiation.
At least this doesn’t try to justify quartering insolation as is proposed in other papers.
342 W/sq metre has much less thermal impact than 1368 W /sq metre.
I do not believe in the greenhouse effect because I find it difficult to reconcile creating energy from nothing and that a trace gases at low temperatures can provide energy.
KevinK says:
March 29, 2013 at 8:08 pm
Davidmhoffer;
In most fields of science a statement like; “Further, that experiment could not possibly demonstrate the GHE in the first place,” would mean that the “effect” in question cannot be demostrated and therefore should be assumed to NOT EXIST
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, it means that the experiment could not possibly demonstrate the GHE. If I throw rocks in the air and they fall back to earth, does that prove birds can’t fly? If I produce a video showing rocks flying, and it turns out the video was faked, does that mean birds can’t fly? The experiment had nothing in common with the GHE in the first place.
Davidmhoffer;
“The GHE theory specifies a new equilibrium temperature that is higher by a given amount.”
Yes indeed that is what the THEORY states, and one UNSTATED outcome of that theory is that there will be a slow inexorable increase in the energy flowing from the Earth to the Sun. Note: a body with a higher temperature emits MORE energy. This is the inevitable result of “Net Energy Gains” that occur anywhere in the system, that energy flows elsewhere in the system. We would have been TOAST a long time ago, not just in ten years.
Cheers, Kevin.
Rosco;
But now the inner planet must double again from 470 to 940 to keep the maths right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
No, it doesn’t. If you’re going to argue with the model and the math, have the decency to read it and understand it in enough detail to know what it ACTUALLY says. You cannot refute a theory by debunking claims that the theory doesn’t actually make.
Rosco;
I do not believe in the greenhouse effect because I find it difficult to reconcile creating energy from nothing and that a trace gases at low temperatures can provide energy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Then I suggest you do more reading to find out what the claim actually is versus what you seem to think it is.
Anyone care to answer my “planet” question? (Today at 6:41 p.m.)?
Willis, let’s hear yours. I’m pretty sure what it will be.
Rememember, the question stated “in equilibrium”. And also remember, that in the thought experiment I did not state the radius of the orbit.
Davidmhoffer;
“No, it means that the experiment could not possibly demonstrate the GHE.”
The experiment was specifically designed to DEMONSTRATE the GHE……….
It was not designed to show that “rocks can fly”, or “birds cannot fly because rocks cannot fly”.
Jeeze, just somebody design one experiment (not another computer model) that shows the GHE effect, you’ve had 3 decades and tons of money, PROVE IT…………….
I use many computer modeling tools in my field to predict how my final design will perform, nobody buys a prediction of how a product will work, they buy the PRODUCT.
Cheers, Kevin.
KevinK
Yes indeed that is what the THEORY states, and one UNSTATED outcome of that theory is that there will be a slow inexorable increase in the energy flowing from the Earth to the Sun.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I can’t help it if you don’t understand what “equilibrium” means.
I also can’t help it if you ascribe qualities to the theory that you yourself admit the theory doesn’t claim.
KevinK;
The experiment was specifically designed to DEMONSTRATE the GHE……….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Then the person who designed the experiment had absolutely no clue what the GHE theory actually is. The LW energy source came from outside the system instead of inside the system, so the whole thing was backwards in the first place. There was no SW energy source at all. The system was surrounded by material opaque to LW which is opposite to what it should have been. I could go on at length but those points alone should give you pause. If you would bother to understand the ACTUAL physics of GHE theory, you would understand that this experiment had NOTHING to do with the GHE in the first place, and debunking it says no more about the GHE than rocks do about the ability of birds to fly.
KevinK;
Jeeze, just somebody design one experiment (not another computer model) that shows the GHE effect, you’ve had 3 decades and tons of money, PROVE IT…………….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sigh. One more time, we’ve been through this before:
1. Venus is warmer than Mercury despite being further from the sun.
2. Earth is warmer than the Moon, despite being almost exactly the same distance from the sun.
3. If you want a lab experiment, I’ve referred you in the past to the Heinz Hug experiment which is rather conclusive.
Davidmhoffer;
Thanks, I fully understand what “equilibrium” means, it’s a nice notion for textbooks, but rarely exists in the “wild”. Don’t need your generous offer of help in that regard, thanks anyway.
The “theory” has qualities that naturally flow from it without my “acribing” them. A body with a higher equilibrium temperature WILL emit more energy even if the “theory” does not claim responsibilty.
Cheers, Kevin.
I attempted to link to the Heinz Hug experiment on John Daly’s site and discovered it has been suspended.
http://www.john-daly.com/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi
It would be unfortunate to lose all the content that was available on that site. I thought his family was still maintaining it? Does anyone have copies of the content?