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

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
118 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tim Clark
May 24, 2013 6:19 am

With her apparent level of intellect, I’d wager she believes that death from carbon monoxide in a vehicle is due to the greenhouse effect.

tadchem
May 24, 2013 6:44 am

She is poor representative of the quality of education at U of Seattle. She should know enough to stick to Economics and keep her nose out of Physical Chemistry. I am a Physical Chemist, and I know more than a little about light/matter interactions. I would not presume to lecture her about the cognitive dissonance between real-world costs / benefits versus macroeconomic modelling. I will lecture her about the chemistry and physics of the Greenhouse Effect.

graphicconception
May 24, 2013 7:00 am

Thanks Kevin and Gary, I will take a look.
I already have my “Pin Ball Model”. The radiation from the sun comes straight in and then is deflected by the greenhouse gasses on the way out. This will cause the return of energy to be delayed and therefore should increase the energy in the system. It works for me but whether it is in touch with reality I can only guess.

jim
May 24, 2013 8:53 am

As I sent to Lars the following day after hearing the “live” broadcast … My dog is smarter than I am when it come to CO2 in the car. The age old mystery is solved as to why the family pooch has to have his head out the window while on a car ride!

May 24, 2013 9:06 am

So by the genius PHd’s logic, an occupied vehicle will heat faster than an unoccupied vehicle. This due to the respiratory CO2 of the occupants. An easy experiment, that.

May 24, 2013 9:16 am

Anymore, a PhD means about the same to me as a Nobel Peace Prize. By themselves they don’t signify squat. They’ll give them to anybody as long as they spew the correct propaganda.
( IMO. the PhDs here on WUWT have earned respect. They answer their critics.)

May 24, 2013 12:03 pm

Just another example of the advancing stupification of academia, an issue that far transcends the climate change controversy. Even as the tools available to humanity become more and more capable of destroying our civilization, and possibly our species and much of earth’s biosphere, the judgment of those “certified” and appointed to manage these tools appears to be degenerating to the point of simple lunacy.
Whether the next immediate threat is an asteroid impact, a deadly runaway virus, a crippling solar EMP event, sudden onset glaciation, or a string of nuclear accidents, we can be certain that the response of governments and their appointed talking heads will be be either tragically inadequate or totally inappropriate.
This is the fundamental issue humanity urgently needs to face, not only because of any imminent danger, but also because, if allowed to corrupt our institutions of learning sufficiently, it may become irreversible. We must find a way to firmly say “no” to academic “yes-men”.

William Wright
May 24, 2013 12:18 pm

[Principia/slayers nuttery – take it elsewhere – mod]

Shano
May 24, 2013 3:02 pm

I like the experimentation suggested by Karl W Braun. Only we need to test the courage of her convictions by allowing her to sit in the non greenhouse gas filled car for several hours while it bakes in the sun. Will the convection deminish her conviction? I wonder…..

DirkH
May 24, 2013 3:27 pm

graphicconception says:
May 24, 2013 at 7:00 am
“Thanks Kevin and Gary, I will take a look.
I already have my “Pin Ball Model”. The radiation from the sun comes straight in and then is deflected by the greenhouse gasses on the way out. This will cause the return of energy to be delayed and therefore should increase the energy in the system. It works for me but whether it is in touch with reality I can only guess.”
See
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/co2-heats-the-atmosphere-a-counter-view/

John Trigge (in Oz)
May 24, 2013 8:38 pm

The stoopid hit me at the 4:30 mark when she claimes we had a ‘nice, steady climate’ at 280ppm Co2.
Prior to this there were no cyclones, hurricanes, storms, floods (proving the story of Noah to be fallacy), droughts, heat waves.
Everyone lived in some mythical paradise.
Even though she is an economist, I’m glad she doesn’t do my tax return.

Lars P.
May 25, 2013 4:35 am

This just shows how far are wide parts of the society getting away from critical thinking and objectively analyzing facts. How little the scientific method is taught in areas which title themselves “science”.
Laurie, your beliefs of being on the “right side” have nothing to do with science. Science is about facts and objective truth. There is such, objective truth, ignoring it will just make it splash in your face again and again.
One can imagine how far away from reality are her environmental economics calculations, her cost benefits analysis, economics of climate change legislation! if all these are based on such poor judgment of facts but based on beliefs.
There is much too much money pumped into fake areas of science. There is much to much bureaucracy building up around such fake urgencies, draining the society of resources and hitting the most vulnerable members brought into energy poverty.

RS
May 25, 2013 11:34 am

Economics, it’s not a science, even though it pretends to be one.

DonM
May 25, 2013 11:31 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.
=============================================================================
David Suziki says “The interior gets warmer because of the carbon in the glass”, not because of the C02 inside the car.
But mebbe they are both right AND mebbe the feedback loop between the “carbon in the in glass” and the carbon in the C02 in the car creates the increase in temp that allows the confined space to reach 140 degrees. Now we need to get Hanson on board to model, and prove it… (he may be interested because the big money in the alternative energy “market” isn’t going to dry up as fast as the AGW money).
Who needs windmills … between Dr’s Suzuki & Johnson we just solved our energy production problems.
Don M.

Slartibartfast
May 27, 2013 6:19 am

Someone tell her that if you removed all of the CO2 from Venus’ atmosphere, it would be significantly cooler. Hilarity might ensue.
It’s true, but for reasons she probably would not anticipate.

May 28, 2013 12:20 am

Owners of Tesla EVs often have to leave notes in the windows of their cars asking passers-by not to smash in the glass to save the dog inside. The cars are remotely controlled by the owner’s mobile app, and run A/C indefinitely from the huge battery, keeping the interior cool.

May 28, 2013 12:26 am

Slart;
Yeah, there would only be wisps of trace gasses like HSO4 and H2 remaining. A near-vacuum.

Slartibartfast
May 28, 2013 6:33 am

Actually, there would be a substantial amount of atmosphere left. Venus’ atmosphere outweighs our own by a factor of nearly 100, so if you removed the CO2, there’s still be about 3x more atmosphere than Earth has.
But it would be cooler. Just not totally because the CO2 was missing.

1 3 4 5