Earth's surface temp without atmosphere vs moon's

In summary: CSo for the Moon:T_{^\circ C} = \sqrt[4]{{\frac{{\left( {1 - 0.07} \right)\,3.827 \times 10^{26} {\rm{W}}}}{{16 \times 5.67 \times 10^{ - 8} {\rm{W/m}}^2 \cdot {\rm{K}}^{ - 4} \pi \left( {{\rm{149597870691m}}} \right)^2 }}}}... \approx -18^\circ CSo, a simple calculation shows that the Earth should be warmer by about 33 degrees. However, this does
  • #1
tonyjeffs
34
0
Without an atmosphere, the Earth's average surface temperature would be -18 C.

The moon's surface temperature averages -23 C. Is this 5 degree C difference due to heat from the Earth's core?


(I'm not a student; I'm curious about the climate debate, and trying to figure some things out my own way.)

Thanks

Tony
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
tonyjeffs said:
Without an atmosphere, the Earth's average surface temperature would be -18 C.

The moon's surface temperature averages -23 C. Is this 5 degree C difference due to heat from the Earth's core?


(I'm not a student; I'm curious about the climate debate, and trying to figure some things out my own way.)

Thanks

Tony
I believe heat from the Earth's core is negligible compared to solar radiation. I'm not going to check your figures, but I expect the Moon would be colder due to its higher albedo i.e. the Moon reflects more sunlight than the Earth, and thus is not as hot.
 
  • #3
The Earth would also receive more radiation because it is bigger, or more accurately, occupies more of the suns "field of view" as it were.

Claude.
 
  • #4
likewise it will also radiate more

I would bet good money that the two would cancel out. in fact I would imagine that ifthe albedos were the same the Earth would be cooler than the moon due to the fact that surface area increases faster than cross-sectional area with respect o radius.
 
  • #5
tonyjeffs said:
Without an atmosphere, the Earth's average surface temperature would be -18 C.

The moon's surface temperature averages -23 C. Is this 5 degree C difference due to heat from the Earth's core?

1 lunar day = 29 Earth days (approx) so the temperature range on the moon surface would be much larger than on the Earth surface. So the radiation from the "hot" parts of the moon surface would be greater than from the "hot" parts of the earth. Since radiation from the surface into "empty space" is proportional to T^4 (not a linear function of temperature), this would mean that relatively more energy was lost from the moon for the same average temperature.

The radiation received from the sun is independent of the Earth or moon temperature.

So if everything else was the same, this nonlinear effect would make the "average" surface temperature lower on the moon.

The different sizes of Earth and moon make no difference to the radiation balance. The total surface area for outward radiation, and the projected (circular disk) area for inward radiation, are both proportional to r^2. And the heating and cooling effects only penetrate to a small depth compared with the radius.

The heat from the Earth's core (which is partly generated by radioactivity) could make a difference.

BTW, I haven't tried to put any numbers to the hypotheses about the effect of day length - it would be a nice exercise in numerical solution of a differential equation, though.
 
  • #6
So in the middle of winter, when the outside temperature is 0 C,
if I have a cup of coffee at 100C and another at 50 C, the first will cool by 50 degrees a lot faster than the second

:-)
 
  • #7
tonyjeffs said:
So in the middle of winter, when the outside temperature is 0 C,
if I have a cup of coffee at 100C and another at 50 C, the first will cool by 50 degrees a lot faster than the second

:-)

Yes - though the reason isn't the same as the point I was making about radiation.

Ignoring radiation, assuming Newton's law of convection cooling (heat flux proportional to temperature difference), and assuming all the coffee in the cup stays at the same temperature because of internal convection, then cooling from 100 to 50 would take the same time as from 50 to 25 (and from 25 to 12.5, 12.5 to 6.25, etc...)
 
  • #8
This is a very crude simulation of the radiation effect I was proposing. Imagine an object with high thermal conductivity so its internal temperature is uniform. Cooling is by radiation proportional to T^4. Heat is supplied at a constant rate during the "day". The graphs show the temperature cycling once steady state has been reached for two different "day lengths". For short days, the temperature changes are almost linear with time. For longer days, the temp rise slows down as the amount of heat radiated away increases. The average amount of heat input is the same but the mean temperature is lower for long "days".
 

Attachments

  • radiation.gif
    radiation.gif
    13 KB · Views: 826
  • #9
Worzo said:
I believe heat from the Earth's core is negligible compared to solar radiation. I'm not going to check your figures, but I expect the Moon would be colder due to its higher albedo i.e. the Moon reflects more sunlight than the Earth, and thus is not as hot.
OK, I should have probably checked my figures before I said that. Albedo Earth = 0.36, Albedo Moon = 0.07.
 
  • #10
The Moon's albedo is lower, meaning it absorbs more energy per unit area than Earth. All other things equal, the Moon should be warmer.

Radius makes no difference. If radius accounted for the difference, then we would expect real strange answers for small rocks 1mm in radius.

Solar energy absorbed = infrarad energy reradiated

[tex]
4\pi R^2 \sigma T^4 = \pi R^2 \left( {1 - A} \right)F
[/tex]
where R is the radius of the Earth, sigma is the Boltzmann constant, (5.67e-1 W/m^2 K^04), T is temperature in Kelvins, F is flux at distance from the Sun, and r is Earth's distance to the Sun.

Pi and R2 appear on both sides of the = sign and thus can be cancelled. So radius has nothing to do with it. Flux is derived by:
[tex]
L/4\pi r^2
[/tex]
where L is the luminosity of the Sun (3.827e26 W).

Combining these 2 equations to solve for T gives:
[tex]
T = \sqrt[4]{{\frac{{\left( {1 - A} \right)L}}{{16\sigma \pi r^2 }}}}
[/tex]

Or in degrees Celcius:
[tex]
T_{^\circ C} = \sqrt[4]{{\frac{{\left( {1 - A} \right)L}}{{16\sigma \pi r^2 }}}} - 273.16^^\circ K
[/tex]

So for the Earth:
[tex]
T_{^\circ C} = \sqrt[4]{{\frac{{\left( {1 - 0.36} \right)\,3.827 \times 10^{26} {\rm{W}}}}{{16 \times 5.67 \times 10^{ - 8} {\rm{W/m}}^2 \cdot {\rm{K}}^{ - 4} \pi \left( {{\rm{149597870691m}}} \right)^2 }}}} - 273.16^^\circ {\rm{K = }} - 24.2263113319468
[/tex]

And for the Moon:
[tex]
T_{^\circ C} = \sqrt[4]{{\frac{{\left( {1 - 0.07} \right)\,3.827 \times 10^{26} {\rm{W}}}}{{16 \times 5.67 \times 10^{ - 8} {\rm{W/m}}^2 \cdot {\rm{K}}^{ - 4} \pi \left( {{\rm{149597870691m}}} \right)^2 }}}} - 273.16^^\circ {\rm{K = }} 0.152451815813947
[/tex]

Hmmm... I get a warmer moon.
Don't worry that your Earth temp and mine are off by a few degrees. Tinkering with the solar luminosity and albedo can account for this difference.

According to Astrobiology by Jonathan I. Lunine, this formula
approximates what would be measured in the mid-latitudes were the Earth without atmosphere and spinning rapidly enough that the day/night temperature differences would be erased.
So perhaps the Moon's slower rotation accounts for the difference.
 
Last edited:

1. What is the average surface temperature of the Earth without its atmosphere compared to the Moon?

The average surface temperature of the Earth without its atmosphere is approximately -18 °C (-0.4 °F), while the average surface temperature of the Moon is approximately -23 °C (-9 °F).

2. Why is the Earth's surface temperature without its atmosphere warmer than the Moon's?

The Earth's surface temperature without its atmosphere is warmer than the Moon's because of the greenhouse effect. The Earth's atmosphere traps heat from the sun, causing the surface temperature to be higher than it would be without an atmosphere. The Moon has a very thin atmosphere, so it does not have the same greenhouse effect as the Earth.

3. How does the presence of an atmosphere affect the surface temperature of a planet?

The presence of an atmosphere can greatly affect the surface temperature of a planet. In the case of the Earth, the atmosphere acts as a blanket, trapping heat from the sun and keeping the surface warm. Without an atmosphere, a planet's surface would be much colder because there would be no insulation to retain heat.

4. Can the Earth's surface temperature without its atmosphere be measured directly?

No, the Earth's surface temperature without its atmosphere cannot be measured directly. Since the Earth always has an atmosphere, it is impossible to measure its surface temperature without it. However, scientists can use computer models and simulations to estimate what the Earth's surface temperature would be without an atmosphere.

5. How do scientists study the surface temperature of other planets without atmospheres?

Scientists study the surface temperature of other planets without atmospheres by using remote sensing techniques and spacecraft observations. They can also use models and simulations to estimate the surface temperature based on factors such as distance from the sun, composition of the planet's surface, and the planet's rotation and tilt. Additionally, they can study the temperature of objects in our own solar system, such as moons and asteroids, to gain insight into the surface temperature of planets without atmospheres.

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
850
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
858
Replies
1
Views
587
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
21
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
42
Views
3K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
28
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
842
Replies
5
Views
421
Back
Top