Earth Blackbody Temp: How Albedo Affects Result

  • Thread starter Thread starter cepheid
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Blackbody Earth
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the calculation of Earth's average surface temperature without the greenhouse effect, initially claiming it to be -18°C. The calculations involved using solar irradiance, Earth's albedo, and the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, leading to varying results based on assumptions about reflectivity and emissivity. Adjustments to the geometric factor and emissivity values resulted in estimates ranging from -23°C to -17°C, indicating discrepancies in the original claim. The conversation highlights the complexity of accurately modeling Earth's temperature, factoring in elements like albedo, emissivity, and internal heat generation. Ultimately, the consensus suggests that greenhouse gases significantly raise Earth's average temperature, with calculations yielding an unblanketed temperature closer to -14°C.
cepheid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
5,197
Reaction score
38
I saw a claim today that without the greenhouse effect, Earth's surface would be on average at a chilling -18°C (note: this is not a climate change thread).

I set about trying to reproduce this result, so at first I assumed that Earth was a perfect blackbody, and that in order to be in equilibrium, it would have to radiate away as much power as it received. So I took the solar irradiance of ~1400 W/m2 and divided it by 2 (since I figured that the surface area over which it could be radiated away again would be twice the surface area over which it was received). Then I took this irradiance (or 'flux' in astronomy parlance) and divided it by the Stefan-Boltzmann constant in order to get the fourth power of the surface temperature that the Earth would have to have in order to have this surface flux (as a blackbody). The resulting surface temperature was T = 60°C.

Then I decided it was silly to assume that all of the incident solar radiation was absorbed, so I looked up the Albedo (reflectivity) of Earth on Wikipedia. Two numbers were stated: geometric Albedo of 0.367 and Bond Albedo of 0.306. Being too lazy to read more about them, I just tried them both. Assuming them to be the fraction of radiation reflected, I scaled my required output flux by (1-Albedo) and got results of 30°C and 22°C for the lower and higher albedos respectively. Neither of these is -18°C. What am I missing (aside from the obvious that Earth is not a blackbody). Shouldn't this method give something reasonably close? I assumed that an equally crude estimate was applied to arrive at the -18°C in the first place.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The area of sunlight that the Earth intercepts is pi*r^2, while the surface area that radiates energy away is 4*pi*r^2, so the ratio of the absorbing area to radiating area is 4, not 2. Figuring this, and the albedo of 0.37, gives a temperature of:
T=[\frac{1400*(1-.37)}{4*5.67*10^{-8}}]^{1/4} = 250K = -23C
 
Okay so I looked here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model#Zero-dimensional_models

and I see that I was

1. failing to take into account the effect of emissivity < 1
2. getting my geometric factor wrong (apparently the irradiated surface should be considered to be circular rather than hemispherical?)

I reproduced their result of about 15°C, but I don't know where -18 comes from still. They say that their albedo and emissivity are chosen to account for clouds and greenhouse effect already, so maybe that's it.
 
phyzguy said:
The area of sunlight that the Earth intercepts is pi*r^2, while the surface area that radiates energy away is 4*pi*r^2, so the ratio of the absorbing area to radiating area is 4, not 2. Figuring this, and the albedo of 0.37, gives a temperature of:
T=[\frac{1400*(1-.37)}{4*5.67*10^{-8}}]^{1/4} = 250K = -23C

I agree. It looks like if you keep the emissivity factor out of it (i.e. assume it is 1), more will be radiated away, and the temperature will be colder (-23°C), whereas if I take their emissivity value, less is radiated away, and the temperature reaches 8°C (the discrespancy between this and their value of 15°C is because they used a lower albedo of 0.3). So it all makes sense. Thank you.

EDIT: In fact if I use their albedo value of 0.3, but an emissivity of 1, then I get -17°C, which is close enough for me!
 
I got 6°C, using the fact that the reflectivity + emissivity = 1 (I'm not sure how they justify albedo + emissivity <1)

Of course, the Earth also *generates* heat by radioactive decay:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46592

but it's too early in the day for me to work through the (0th order) correction.
 
I think the interior heat is negligible in terms of the heat balance of the Earth. This article says that the heat flowing from the interior is ~ 4x10^13 W. The heat absorbed from the sun is ~ 1.4x10^3 W/m2 * pi * (6.4x10^6m)^2 * (0.7) ~ 10^17 W.
 
cepheid said:
I saw a claim today that without the greenhouse effect, Earth's surface would be on average at a chilling -18°C (note: this is not a climate change thread).

The consensus of informed opinion is that the blanket of greenhouse gases increases the Earth's surface temperature by an average of 39°C. That surface temperature is usually given as 288K (15°C). My calculations give an unblanketed surface temperature of -14°C, not -18C. You didn't specify your source.
 
Back
Top