Great moments in activist climate science – NRDC's Dr. Laurie Johnson: 'CO2 makes your car hot'

nrdc_logo[1]People send me stuff. This makes Bill Nye’s recent CNN fail look almost forgivable.

My friend Lars Larson, who runs a nationally syndicated radio show out of Portland, OR sent me this audio clip today. I had to listen to it to believe his claim, because who would guess that a credentialed scientist who is lecturing a national audience on climate change issues could misunderstand the greenhouse effect so badly. Here is the audio clip, with Dr. Laurie Johnson of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Have a listen:

The relevant passage starts at about 8:20 into the interview.

She says:

When you get in your car in summer, your car is hot because it has greenhouse gases in it. That’s why its hot.

I’ll have to hand it to Lars Larson, because after the obligatory “hold on a second….” he proceeded to explain how the greenhouse effect works in an automobile, though he mispoke and said “shortwave” instead of “longwave”, but he had the physical premise right.

After explaining that, he asks:

Are you telling me my car heats up because there is more CO2 in the atmosphere?

Unfazed, she insists:

I’m telling you your car heats up because there are greenhouse gases in your car.

And, she goes on to say, after Lars uses the example of sunlight streaming through the open windows of his home, making it hotter, and asks:

Is my house filled with greenhouse gas as well?

She says:

Yes! It has carbon dioxide in it!

Lars retorts:

Are you telling me my house now gets hotter than it it would 20 years ago because there’s now more carbon dioxide in it?

Dr. Johnson responds with:

I don’t know the exact temperature of your house, what I’m going to say is that the scientists…

And then goes on to talk about how “the military is concerned about it”, “scientists everywhere are concerned about it”, “12,000 peer reviewed papers” (channeling Cook et al) and other consensus building statements.

She seemed totally oblivious to the fact that she had just been pwned.

What does real empirical science say about why your car is hot when exposed to sunlight? It says nothing about the role of CO2 (or other greenhouse gases) of course which have a negligible effect at this scale.

From the Georgia State University physics department:

==============================================================

Greenhouse Effect Example

Bright sunlight will effectively warm your car on a cold, clear day by the greenhouse effect. The longer infrared wavelengths radiated by sun-warmed objects do not pass readily through the glass. The entrapment of this energy warms the interior of the vehicle. The trapping of the hot air so that it cannot rise and lose the energy by convection also plays a major role.

Short wavelengths of visible light are readily transmitted through the transparent windshield. (Otherwise you wouldn’t be able to see through it!)

Shorter wavelengths of ultraviolet light are largely blocked by glass since they have greater quantum energies which have absorption mechanisms in the glass. Even though you may be uncomfortably warm with bright sunlight streaming through, you will not be sunburned.

===============================================================

Source: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html

Of course, the role of convection gets immediately stunted when you roll all the windows down.

It is mind blowing that this PhD, doesn’t understand the basic elements of the greenhouse effect (as it applies to actual physical greenhouses, of which your automobile is a small working model) enough to realize when she’s made a major embarrassing blunder, yet persists to lecture the radio audience about the certainty of her position.

Maybe she should have taken some science to go along with that economics training. You’d think a learned individual would train themselves on the basics, apparently not.

dr_Laurie_johnson

For more on how automobiles heat up dangerously, please see the study by my friend Jan Null, who has quantified the effect and danger to children and pets. And remember, don’t leave kids and pets in the car, not even for a minute.

Hint: the hyperthermia danger isn’t from CO2.

Study of Excessive Temperatures in Enclosed Vehicles

Jan Null, CCM 1,2

June 2003

BACKGROUND
Every year dozens of children tragically die due to hyperthermia (heat stroke) after being left unattended in cars, trucks and vans.  Over the past five years in the United States 160 deaths of this type have been documented  (Kids and Cars and 4 R Kids SakeTM, 2003).  [For the current year see 2003 Hyperthermia Fatalities (Children in Vehicles)].  Hundreds of other children left in similar situations suffer great bodily harm and these numbers do not include similar consequences to infirm adults or animals.

More here: http://www.4rkidssake.org/Vehicleheatstudy.htm

(PDF version)

UPDATE: Dr. Johnson responds with an admission of error.

The approach of hurricane season has raised public interest in a recent NRDC analysis showing that the U.S. government spent nearly $100 billion in 2012 responding to damage related to climate change. As an NRDC economist, I helped make sure the analysis was sound.

In discussing th

is recently with Lars Larson, I got outside of my area of expertise and made a mistake. Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are accelerating climate change, but cars get hot in summer when the sun warms the interior and closed windows trap the heat.

I regret that I misspoke. I apologize for any confusion I might have created. And I hope we can move forward, as a nation, with the action we need to reduce the industrial carbon pollution that is driving climate change and threatening our future.

Laurie T. Johnson, Ph.D.
Chief Economist, Climate and Clean Air Program
Natural Resources Defense Council
1152 15th St NW Ste 300
Washington D.C., 20009

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
118 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
milodonharlani
May 23, 2013 5:19 pm

Ross McKitrick says:
May 23, 2013 at 4:18 pm
This cretin is not the first global warming activist to have a weird theory about why cars are warm on sunny days: David Suzuki beat her to it by a quarter century. http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/pastedgraphic-1.pdf
——————————————————————-
That is shocking. Suzuki even has a degree in a scientific subject. His misconception is crazy enough just on its physical basis, but his chemical ignorance is yet more astonishing. There is no carbon in car windshield or window glass.
Silica glass is used for manufacturing automotive windshield and windows. Typical approximate composition of automotive windshield:
72% SiO2 as vitrifier
14% Na2O as flux
10% CaO as stabilizer
4% MgO as stabilizer.
Five elements; no carbon.

John M
May 23, 2013 5:26 pm

milodonharlani
“Five elements; no carbon”
Doesn’t take away from the idiocy of Suzuki’s comment, but actually, automotive windshield is laminated to make it shatterproof. The interlayer is polyvinyl butyral.
Of course, glass in a typical greenhouse…

Colorado Wellington
May 23, 2013 5:26 pm

Bless her heart.

john robertson
May 23, 2013 5:49 pm

Another CAGW expert who serves the case for sceptical policy rethought, everytime she speaks.

Gary Hladik
May 23, 2013 5:50 pm

graphicconception says (May 23, 2013 at 3:01 pm): “The car heating situation would make for a good experiment.
Have one car with ordinary air in it and another with greenhouse-gas-free air in it. Leave both in the sunshine and compare the temperatures. Will the car without the greenhouse gasses remain cool?”
Not necessary. Just note that the air outside the car is the same as the air inside, yet one reaches a much higher temperature than the other. Obviously the difference is the car. Duhhh.
“I have recently been trying to catch up with the greenhouse gas heating theory and have not found much useful via Google. Can anyone recommend some links?”
If you haven’t already, check out Willis Eschenbach’s “Steel Greenhouse” articles:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/the-steel-greenhouse/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/27/people-living-in-glass-planets/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/27/people-living-in-glass-planets/#comment-538665

tz2026
May 23, 2013 6:03 pm

So if I leave dry ice in the car it will be warmer than if I don’t?
I haven’t been inside a greenhouse recently, but I didn’t notice any strangeness in the gasses. If we ban greenhouses, or perhaps if we hermetically seal them wouldn’t that eliminate greenhouse gasses?

Thelonius Punk
May 23, 2013 6:39 pm

So this greenhouse effect means the Earth is surrounded by glass like a greenhouse, right?
Who knew!

May 23, 2013 7:32 pm

Gee, and I thought that Edith Bunker from TV’s All In The Family was a dingbat.

Marty Sorensen
May 23, 2013 8:47 pm

It has taken me several minutes to prepare my response morsel because I had to control my laughter to regain my composure. Apparently the University of Denver did not adequately delve into her academic credentials. Her students really got short changed. Her PhD = “piled high and deep”. “Dr.” Johnson: please find another line of work; maybe a crossing guard might work.

RockyRoad
May 23, 2013 9:06 pm

The average home has about twice the CO2 as outdoor concentration.
So according to this Laurie Johnson, if I turn off my heating system, shouldn’t the temperature of my home eventually become twice that of my outdoor thermometer?
If so, why; if not, why not; explain.
(I enjoy casting dispersions at complete and unadulterated idiots.)

PiperPaul
May 23, 2013 9:17 pm

TomRude wrote, in part:
“Sustainability.” Whenever I hear that word (spoken by a non-engineer) and/or, “raising awareness” (spoken by anyone), my bullshitometer bends its pointer on the peg.

Nick in Vancouver
May 23, 2013 9:27 pm

Wow and i thought it was the tea spurting through my nose that was burning my nasal passages – now i know its the CO2 in the gaseous spluttering that was cooking me on the inside – thanks Laurie.

David Ball
May 23, 2013 9:39 pm

Free energy. She is brilliant. Solved our energy concerns, she did.

May 23, 2013 9:47 pm

I can’t help thinking that if clowns like this are truly the Earth’s best defence, then we’re really in deep shit.

May 23, 2013 10:17 pm

Pity the poor woman! I hope that she is well endowed ’cause nobody is going to love her for her mind. (I should apologize but these people threaten the future of my children and one weapon is ridicule)
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewstt’s evil twin)

Graham Jarvis
May 23, 2013 11:36 pm

Dr. Johnson – here’s a way to reduce CO2 levels in your home … stop breathing! Please, just stop!

May 24, 2013 12:07 am

This is why I have my manservant remove all greenhouse gases from my Prius before I drive it each day.

markx
May 24, 2013 12:25 am

Here is an example of ‘the consensus’ at work … she has not stopped to think about it, just accepts what she hears without comprehension, and Cook would count her paper if she published.

Les Johnson
May 24, 2013 12:32 am

Suzuki did exactly the same thing, except he attributed the warm air to carbon in the glass. Yeah, carbon. In the glass.
Suzuki made these 6 elemental scientific errors, in two short paragraphs. (link further down)
1. Carbon in glass? Maybe in the front windshield, sandwiched between 2 sheets of glass. As glass is mostly opaque to infrared (IR), its moot.
2. Carbon compounds may or may not trap heat. Polyethylene, for example, is transparent to IR.
3. Heat in the car is from modifying convection, not radiation. Decreased convection = increased radiation. Polyethylene vs glass in greenhouses shows no difference in heat retention, in spite of the different IR properties of the two barriers. The heat retention is from preventing convection.
4. Glass is mostly opaque to IR, not the supposed carbon in it. Suzuki assumes it’s not opaque, by needing the “carbon” in it to stop IR.
5. While some carbon compounds are transparent to visible light, some are not. Your black garbage bag, for instance.
6. Suzuki says carbon bearing compounds REFLECT IR. Some compounds allow IR through. The ones that don’t, ABSORB IR photons, then re-emit photons. They don’t reflect.
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/features/suzuki/story.html?id=4bee3fa9-9a10-46f1-9d6a-648a19710b30

May 24, 2013 1:04 am

Dilbert reads WUWT..
http://dilbert.com/2013-05-24/

johnmarshall
May 24, 2013 3:07 am

So this woman is an Economist!!! that says it all.
Her spoutings were so full of rubbish I thought her PhD was in knitting.
No comment on her claims needed.

Roger Knights
May 24, 2013 3:25 am

DirkH says:
May 23, 2013 at 1:54 pm
Many of the warmists believe sort of the same thing as Dr. Laurie. The media has for instance only very seldomly mentioned the postulated water vapor positive feedback; warmist scientists like Dessler have over and over again used the misleading term heat-trapping gases. The CO2AGW cult lives through disinformation of its own followers and tries to shield them from other information; the BBC and the German UBA try to do all they can to ostracize and silence skeptics – because we give real information. Cults can only thrive as long as they control what information their followers get.

That’s why a follow-up film to “The Great Global Warming Swindle” would have a big impact. It’s puzzling that the well-organized, well-funded denial machine hasn’t twigged to its possibilities.
Incidentally, most of the segments of Anthony’s 24 (?)-hour series of interviews with contrarians about 6 (??) months back have not been released for reviewing, as promised. WUWT?

Harry Kal
May 24, 2013 4:17 am

She is contradicting herself several times.

Mike Ozanne
May 24, 2013 4:42 am

I think there’s a TV clip of the lady in action….:

Justa Joe
May 24, 2013 5:08 am

Many people that fancy themselves as superior for embracing AGW “science” have a lot of incorrect ideas about it. For excample, many would be warmists believe that if in fact the global mean temperature is increasing then the temperatures everywhere in the world must be increasing.