Register to reply 
Earth black body temperature wrong? 
Share this thread: 
#19
May3007, 03:00 PM

PF Gold
P: 5,459

I see I can upload zips
So here is the excel sheet to scrutinize. 


#20
May3007, 04:41 PM

P: 355

Dont you have to modify albedo as well ? The constant albedo is consistent only with the circular area of intercepted radiation.
Im still working and will be for a longtime , but I will have a crack at this when im off. 


#21
May3107, 08:13 AM

P: 355

Andre, your intercepting area and emitting area are not exact of what it should be, that introduces error. Also as I said above the assumption of constant albedo with sperical earth is very arbitrary one could argue and the temperature difference is not significant as you presume it to be given all that.
And a one technicall, why is the height in emitting area not corrected with the cosine lat? Is that not saying that the distance between 1deg lat at lets say 7071 is the same as at the equator? 


#22
May3107, 09:07 AM

PF Gold
P: 5,459

no, the effective height of the slice intercepting the incoming parallel insolation is corrected for the lattitude with the cosine, whereas the emitting surface area is indeed the complete surface, so the correction is not applied there.
I made an error not showing that in the simple drawing that I attached. I agree that the one degree slices introduce an error, which diminishes when it is replaced by the integral. I doubt if the error is large enough to explain the difference. Somebody interested to do the math? Also not sure about the albedo problems. Is anything changing in (bond)albedo between the two methods? 


#23
May3107, 09:16 AM

P: 355

I wrote a program with double precission of those cosine factors and i got 252.71 :D . I was thinking that it could be quite managable to do the integration using calculus technique of rotating curves around y axis. (I will do but when I get to the book, its been a while).
Albedo depends on the angle of incomming radiation. There is whole "science" to it and im not sure what the best approach would be. I do understand that when intercepting earth is presented as a solid circle, the assumption of constant albedo is not that bad. However, once you consider spericity which introduces difference in Temp. the immediate response of a sceptic (my role in this thread) would be the changing albedo. I have to think what it all means for a while it definitelly very interesting. 


#24
May3107, 11:58 AM

PF Gold
P: 5,459

meanwhile, assuming that albedo and slice problems will be sorted out, it may be an idea to ponder a bit about the consequences.
BTW. The first time, years ago, that I saw this scholar formula, I wondered if it was that simple, considering the arguments that I gave here earlier. I also realized that reversing the order, dividing radiation equally before transferring to temperature would give a warm bias. So if the reality was colder, then the greenhouse effect was to be stronger >33 degrees. I think I decided then not to pursue the issue further at that time. But then Skyhunter begged the question in another thread why I could not accept the alleged consensus on global warming in another thread. Obviously, because science is human work in progress and to err is human. I know, I make a lot of mistakes. There is also this issue about honesty in science, regardless if it suits your case or not. So, sceptism and honesty in science is the key to progress and I realized I should not have be silent about my black body dillema, regardless of whose case it would serve. The real Earth temperature appears to be about almost 35 degrees more than the black body temperature instead of 33 degrees. Apparantly there is more greenhouse effect. There is also this other planet with a blackbody  greenhouse problem. Greenhouse effect does not seem to exist on Mars despite the much higher CO2 concentration. Actually, the several sources declare it's blackbody temperature to be 210K and it's average temperature to be 63C. After a very difficult calculating process we discover that those two are equal. So why conceal that? using kelvin and celsius so it would not show so easily? So pondering about this, the slice method would get a lower black body temperature. So it seemed we'd finally get greenhouse effect for Mars after all, which is definitely not in the interest of somebody who wants to deny greenhouse effect, would it? So I googled a fact sheet for Mars: http://filer.case.edu/sjr16/advanced/mars.html The vital data: Bond Albedo 0.250; Solar Irradiance: 589.2 W/m2; In the scholar formula this gets us a black body temperature of 210.125K and the sheet says 210.1K. Not bad. Now we run the numbers in the degree slice model to get: 208.16K. So there you are, at last, about 2 degrees of greenhouse effect for Mars, No? Look at the fact sheet: Average surface temperature (Celsius): 65C, converted to Kelvin: 208K Those kinds of results tend to give me the goose bumps. Editted the BB temp slightly, made another mistake. No impact on the narration 


#25
May3107, 07:53 PM

P: 355

Andre, im uneasy about the emitting area. The schollary formula implies 4times bigger emitting area. Your formula has 10times biger emitting area (on average). [from 3times bigger to 180time biger at the poles]



#26
Jun107, 01:51 AM

PF Gold
P: 5,459

You are right, if you check the ratio of the sums of the area we get 3.97 instead of 4. I rechecked my original spreadsheet, that was right, this one is wrong.
So I decreased the step size to 0,1 degree with the original spreadsheet and made some refinements like using the average cosine of the area (area ratio now checks 5 decimals accurate) to get a black body temp of 251.78K. It's getting colder. For Mars I get 207.78K degrees now. I'll upload the spreadsheet later. 


#28
Jun107, 09:00 AM

P: 355

Also, the solar flux is now hitting spherical surface, ther should be correction for cos(zenith angle) [this will further cool us]. Albedo must be changed as well but thats the biggest uncertainty how. Its certainly not constant, it needs to be weighted since you get different fluxes and incident angles over different areas. This will indeed produce great discrepancies.
on different note: Why do you put so much significance to this formula BB earth approximation? Its just approximation for introductory text into subject. It is nowhere used for modeling or research. (If it is dont read that reasearch). Its very crude approximtion which only demonstrates concept. There is much better approximation using a homogeneous atmospheric layer above the surface and bellow TOA. That one produces 286K which is close to 288K. But any real GCM of atmosphere includes full radiative transfer which are nowdays upgradet to full blown nonLTE rad. transfer codes. Im involved with group that develops one for Mars atmosphere. (Note that temperature of Mars is not know with high accuracy. There is plenty of data that needs to be interpreted using nonLTE rad. transfer which is still being developed without the crude approximation that comes from LTE.) 


#29
Jun107, 09:23 AM

PF Gold
P: 5,459

BTW Also running the thread here: http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/foru...osts=8&start=1 


#30
Jun107, 09:40 AM

P: 355

You are making mistake to see your computation and the scholary one as two different computation models. They both wrong when it comes down to it. The fact is that the scholary formula is accepted as ONLY very crude approximation using the simpliest of parameters (flat disk, constant albedo, sol flux const, etc). Its correct in that respect. Your approach does the same thing differently. Thats currently my opinion, I did llok up some of my books and went over the deeper part of the BB temp, and must say that its correct given the assumptions it list. 


#31
Jun107, 02:05 PM

PF Gold
P: 5,459

Are you sure you're? I'm from the very old fashioned protocols that advises to generate your own cosine tables if you use it more than once, to increase speed. Note that the B column in the new spread sheet is generating the cosines and that the C and D column is all about jugling with b cells hence cosines. The C column even with a square because both the lenght and height are cosine functions. Note also that field B911 checks the ratio of the sum of the two areas, intercepting and emitting, to be 4,000002, where it must be 4 exactly. Talk about coarse approximation. There is no volation of the conservation of energy. You start just as easily with the temperature to get the same radiation sum back. 


#32
Jun107, 02:28 PM

P: 355

pi*R^2 (1A)*Flux = RHS, instead we need: pi*R^2(1A)Flux*cos(sol zenith angle) this is on top of that cosine(lat) you have ther already which corrects the height. However, I did not check your new spread sheet. Let me know if thats corrected there. Now what you talking about is , if and how can radiation at top of atmosphere be approximated as black body. Thats what we are discussing. What you describe is not balck body anymore, since it does not have uniform temperature. (it has average temperature but thats not strict BB). So be aware of this divergence in those 2. 


#33
Jun107, 03:28 PM

PF Gold
P: 5,459

Now, Planets are more near to perfect heat insolators than heat conductors and the sun emitting from a single source instead of onmiversal from all directions. Because that's what my little model is assuming. This makes quite a difference between a theoretical black body and a practical black body to figure out what the basic temperature of a planet should be. Note that assuming no heat transport over the surface that my little world is also in thermal equilibrium. After all even after billion years of dynamic proximations of sort of thermal equilibrium, our planets still have polar ice caps 


#34
Jun107, 03:42 PM

P: 355

agreed, but than do not say things like black body temperature is wrong, because its not. you just developed different model which presumably allows you to form ice caps at the poles, while having averaged temperature closed to black body. I applaud to you ,honestly, for the thought, but on the other hand the scholary formula does not aim at that, and from what I undestand it was not your intentional aim either.
The scholary formula really applies to top of atmosphere equilibrium not surface temperature. It can be said that it represents sufrace temperature since the emitting atmosphere is much colder usuallly than the surface. another point, dont call your model "practical black body", that term will cause confusion for ppl who are not familiar with your model. Black body is black body with clear definition. and scholary formula already exists for it. Your formula is not for black body, it assumes that slices of earth act as black body but have different temperature, which when averaged give you close to black body temperature. (yes, they still are at almost equilibrium but not with each other but with top of atmosphere radiative field). This fact could be advantage and disadvantage depending. is the temperature your model computes for, let say, poles approximate to measured mean temperature at poles? and mid lats? (this will make your model more credible in this sense, of cause if you add those 33K or more in your case) PS: how is it with the cosine zenith angle ? 


#35
Jun207, 04:29 AM

PF Gold
P: 5,459




#36
Dec809, 10:26 AM

P: 1

What is the reason we assume black body when solving radiation problem?



Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
What is absolute body temperature?  General Physics  4  
Low body temperature  Biology  17  
Body Temperature and Exercise  Medical Sciences  10  
Temperature of body in space  Introductory Physics Homework  7  
Black hole black body  Astronomy & Astrophysics  2 