Earth Blackbody Temp: How Albedo Affects Result

In summary, the article claims that if the greenhouse effect were to cease, Earth's surface would be chilled to a temperature of -18°C. However, my calculations show that this temperature is not actually possible without the greenhouse effect.
  • #1
cepheid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,199
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
  • #2
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:
[tex]T=[\frac{1400*(1-.37)}{4*5.67*10^{-8}}]^{1/4} = 250K = -23C[/tex]
 
  • #3
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.
 
  • #4
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:
[tex]T=[\frac{1400*(1-.37)}{4*5.67*10^{-8}}]^{1/4} = 250K = -23C[/tex]

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!
 
  • #5
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.
 
  • #6
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.
 
  • #7
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.
 

1. What is the Earth's blackbody temperature?

The Earth's blackbody temperature is the theoretical temperature at which it would emit the same amount of radiation as it absorbs from the Sun. It is approximately -18°C (-0.4°F).

2. How does albedo affect the Earth's blackbody temperature?

Albedo refers to the amount of solar radiation that is reflected by a surface. The higher the albedo, the more radiation is reflected, resulting in a lower blackbody temperature. This is because less solar radiation is being absorbed by the Earth.

3. What is the relationship between albedo and climate change?

Albedo plays a significant role in climate change. As the Earth's albedo decreases, more solar radiation is absorbed, leading to a rise in temperature. This can contribute to the melting of polar ice caps and other consequences of climate change.

4. How does human activity affect the Earth's albedo?

Human activity, such as deforestation and urbanization, can decrease the Earth's albedo. This is because these activities often involve replacing natural surfaces with man-made surfaces, which have a lower albedo. This can contribute to the warming of the Earth's surface.

5. Can we change the Earth's albedo to combat climate change?

There are some proposed methods for artificially increasing the Earth's albedo, such as painting roofs and roads white or using reflective materials in construction. However, these solutions may have unintended consequences and do not address the root causes of climate change. The most effective way to combat climate change is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Similar threads

  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
20
Views
1K
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
42
Views
3K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
365
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top