Is Earth's Temperature Governed by Physics Alone?

[Xnn]

The temperature of the Earth is governed by physics, namely the Stefan-Boltzmann law which states that the amount of energy radiated is proportional to the fourth power of its temperature.

ERad = SB * Temp^4.
Or Temp = (ERad/SB)^0.25

Where:
SB, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is 5.670 x 10-8 Watt/meter^2 Kelvin^2
ERad, the amount of energy radiated to outer space in watts/meter^2.

For Earth at equilibrium, the amount of energy radiated should equal the amount of energy received from the sun. However, the Earth is not at equilibrium and is actually receiving slightly more energy that it is emitting. This is why the Earth is warming. If the Earth were in equilibrium, then the amount of energy being radiated would equal the amount received from the sun. That is ERad would be a constant and a function of average Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) and albedo (a).

ERad = TSI*(1- a)/4

TSI is 1365.5 Watts/meter^2
a, albedo which is 0.3 for Earth

So, ERad is approximately 237 Watts/meter^2. Putting this altogether yields an Earth Temperature of 254°K (-18°C or -1°F). This temperature corresponds to the atmospheres temperature at about 5 kilometers above the surface (16,000ft). It is at this elevation where the Earth radiates to outer space approximately the same amount of energy it receives from the sun.

Temperatures at lower elevations are generally much warmer due to the greenhouse effect, which makes it difficult for the atmosphere to radiate infrared energy at lower elevations. In fact, greenhouse gases inhibit radiation to such an extent, that convection of heat is the dominate mechanism for transporting energy from the surface to elevations where it can be effectively radiated to outer space. Keep in mind that the Earth radiates primarly in the infrared which is the predominate wavelength at 254°K. Infrared is invisible to humans.

Anyhow, if there were no greenhouse gases, then Earth's surface temperature would become so cold that the oceans would freeze. This in turn would raise the Earth's albedo and reflect more energy directly to outer space. In turn the Stefan-Boltzmann law would drive the temperature even colder and we would end up living on a giant snowball.

However, the Earth's atmosphere does have greenhouse gases. In particular CO2, which warms the atmosphere enough so that water can exist as a vapor. Since water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, together these greenhouse gases have warmed Earth's surface to about 287°K (14°C or 57°F). While CO2 may comprise just a small fraction of the atmosphere, it behaves like a dye in that it absorbs infrared energy very well.

Finally, the Earth's temperature is not in equilibrium. The Earth is absorbing about 1.5 watt/meter^2 more energy than it is emitting. This in turn is warming the atmosphere, oceans, land, snow and ice. By far, most of the extra heat is going into the oceans. The oceans have a tremendous capacity for storing heat and it will take a long time before they reach equilibrium. When equilibrium is eventually reached, there will be more evaporation of water and the atmosphere will become thicker from increased amount of water vapor. This will result in warmer surface temperatures and a higher elevation at which the Earth can radiate to outer space.

I’m not the first person to figure this all out. In fact, an intergovernmental panel of climate change scientist (IPCC) have been studying this subject intently for well over 20 years. The IPCC has carefully reviewed many scientific studies and have published their latest assessment here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ts.pdf

What has been concluded (TS.4.5 on page 64) is that the Earth's temperature is sensitive to changes of CO2 concentration. In particular, equilibrium change is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C per doubling of CO2, with a best estimate value of about 3°C.

 

[Gokul43201]

The temperature of the Earth is governed by physics, namely the Stefan-Boltzmann law which states that the amount of energy radiated is proportional to the fourth power of its temperature.

ERad = SB * Temp^4.
Or Temp = (ERad/SB)^0.25

Where:
SB, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is 5.670 x 10-8 Watt/meter^2 Kelvin^2
ERad, the energy radiated is the amount of energy radited to outer space in watts/meter^2.

For Earth at equilibrium, the amount of energy radiated should equal the amount of energy received from the sun. However, the Earth is not at equilibrium and is actually receiving slightly more energy that it is emitting. This is why the Earth is warming. If the Earth were in equilibrium, then the amount of energy being radiated would equal the amount received from the sun. That is ERad would be a constant function of average Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) and albedo (є).

ERad = TSI*(1- є)/4

TSI is 1365.5 Watts/meter^2
Є, albedo which is 0.3 for Earth

So, ERad is approximately 237 Watts/meter^2. Putting this altogether yields an Earth Temperature of 254°K (-18°C or -1°F).

Several points of dissatisfaction already, at this juncture:

1. What is the emissivity of the Earth? Why doesn't it figure in the first equation? Or is it assumed to be equal to 1?

2. It is distracting to use \epsilon for albedo, when that is the symbol typically used for emissivity.

3. Where does the factor of 1/4 come from? Your derivation makes no mention of it, and only someone that had done the derivation independently or seen it done elsewhere will understand its origin. Presumably, it comes from actually doing the flux calculation (using Gauss' Law or taking dot products and integrating - either way will give a factor of 4 between the effective radiating surface area and the effective absorbing surface are, barring albedo).

4. Clearly, the temperature extracted here is some kind of average. What kind of average it is is obscured by the extent of hand-waving involved in the calculation. For instance, since half the planet receives virtually zero insolation at any point of time, so you are integrating over a period of some multiple of a one day to arrive at this number. Then, the insolation varies by latitude, even for the day half of the planet. But it looks like the integration over latitudes (not explicitly done) precedes the radiation calculation (which implicitly assumes that temperatures equilibrate across latitudes instantaneously, doesn't it?), rather than the other way round.

Personally, I find the above derivation to be too hand-wavy and irrigorous to be helpful. I have to read between lines and fill in too many missing steps, if I want to understand anything from this.

 

[Xnn]

1. Emissivity averages about 0.62 for the Earth and can be used to calculate surface temperature. It basically takes into account the greenhouse gas effect. As CO2 levels rise, emissivity will lower and surface temperature go up.

2. Sorry; I have edited it to an "a" in order to avoid confusion.

3. 1/4 is just a geometry measure that comes from the ratio of the area of a globes disk to it's surface area: pi r^2 to 4 pi r^2. pi r^2 cancels out leaving just the number 4. The Earth receives radiation from the sun in proportion to the cross sectional area of its disk. However, it radiates energy over the larger area of it's surface. Dividing by 4 takes into account the geometry of a sphere.

4. No hand waving; just simplification. A completely accurate Earth climate model requires lots of programming and a super computer to run. What is presented is just the simple overall physics for global warming. The temperature is what would be expected using the Stefan-Boltzmann law for Earth. 33°C (the delta between 287 to 254K) is the amount of warming on the surface from the greenhouse gases.

 

[WeatherRusty]

Excellent opening post!

"The Earth is absorbing about 1.5 watt/meter^2 more energy than it is emitting."

One quibble. Where does the 1.5W/m^2 figure come from. Hansen is famous for claiming 0.85W/m^2

 

[Xnn]

Thanks WeatherRusty!

The 1.5 watt/meter^2 comes from 2 places.

First, satellite mission called the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) as well as sensors on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites have directly measured the imbalance. They have found it to be about 1.4 watts/meter^2. Of course it varies over time.

Second, the IPCC in the Technical Summary on page 32 Figure TS.5 has calculated it and reported a value of 1.6 watts/meter^2 with a range of anywhere from 0.6 to 2.4 watts/meter^2.

So, theory and measurements are in good agreement.

 

[John Creighto]

I'm not convinced at this part:

ERad = TSI*(1- є)/4

TSI is 1365.5 Watts/meter^2
Є, albedo which is 0.3 for Earth

Why is Є the albeto. What I'd say Є is, is is the fraction of the outgoing radiation that gets back radiated. You could call it an albedo but it is the albedo looking back out to space for IR radiation at 5KM altitude.

With regards to the greenhouse effect I think the altitude of interest would be between 9km and 17km because bellow that convective forces control the temperate gradient.
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/tropo.html

The problem is that radiation emitted back into space is not emitted at a single point, It is radiated from various altitudes at various frequencies. Also if you want to talk about the radiation emitted from the atmosphere remember that the atmosphere is not a black body because it is not optically dense. It consequently has an emissivity less then one and therefore you have to multiply the right hand of Stephan Boltzmann equation by the emissivity.

 

[Tanja]

I have a comment and a question on the solar constant TSI:

The magnetic field and the solar wind of the sun are changing in a 11yrs cicle and also on a monthly and even daily basis. This magnetic field must be coupled in a certain way to the sun's temperature, since the magnetic fields arise from plasma movements which should be driven be temperature and pressure gradients. Therefore the Planck's function of the sun can actually not be constant due to the changing temperature. And the integral over the Planck's function, the so called "Solar Constant" can't be a constant.
Is there something wrong with my conclusion or is the name "constant" just missleading? Anyway, if the solar constant is used as a constant in climate models, I'm not surprised that they are wrong.

 

[Phrak]

However, the Earth is not at equilibrium and is actually receiving slightly more energy that it is emitting.

Prove it.

 

[Xnn]

John Creighto;

Correct; radiation is emitted at various locations and frequencies. Emissivity is basically a measure of this and is effectively the greenhouse effect. What has been presented is ignoring the greenhouse effect in order to calculate the difference between reality and what surface temperature would be without it.


Tanja;

1365.5 Watts/meter^2 is a typical value for Total Solar Irradiance. It does indeed change over time by about 1 watt/meter^2. Application of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation shows that this amounts to about 0.05 C.


Phrak;

First; a satellite mission called the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) as well as sensors on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites have directly measured the imbalance. They have found it to be about 1.4 watts/meter^2. Of course it varies somewhat over time.

Second; Temperature measurements of the atmosphere and oceans as well as melting sea ice, and the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps have shown that all major parts of the Earth are warming.

Third, the IPCC in the Technical Summary on page 32 Figure TS.5 has calculated the inbalance and reported a value of 1.6 watts/meter^2 with a range of anywhere from 0.6 to 2.4 watts/meter^2.

 

[WeatherRusty]

The Solar constant or Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is not a constant at all. Over the 11 years sunspot cycle it is measured by satellite to vary by 0.1% or 1.3W/m^2. This is enough to cause a 0.1C (+-0.05C) change in temperature at Earth's surface. Since the mid 1700's proxies indicate the Solar irradiance to have increased by 0.1% to 0.2% overall. It has not increased since satellite readings have been taken, beginning in 1979 I believe.

When the Sun is more magnetically active the proportion of ultraviolet radiation reaching Earth is strongly enhanced, but most of this is absorbed in the upper atmosphere and thus not available to warm the surface directly.

http://www.physorg.com/news129483836.html"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation"

 

[Xnn]

By the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, 1.3 watts/meter^2 is 0.06C. No +-

 

[John Creighto]

John Creighto;

Correct; radiation is emitted at various locations and frequencies. Emissivity is basically a measure of this and is effectively the greenhouse effect. What has been presented is ignoring the greenhouse effect in order to calculate the difference between reality and what surface temperature would be without it.

The emissivity is not the measure of the greenhouse effect. It is a measure of optical density. Low optical density implies and emissivity near zero. Large optical density implies an emissivity near one. The greenhouse effect is a result of the optical density being different for IR radiation then visible radiation. For an object to be a black body it must have an emissivity near one.

 

[WeatherRusty]

The Moon is at the same average distance from the Sun as Earth and so receives the same 1366W/m^2. It has an albedo of .12 as opposed to Earth's .30...but harbors no meaningful atmosphere.

Mean surface temperature (day) 107°C
Mean surface temperature (night) -153°C

Lunar Mean surface temperature: -23CEarth's radiative equilibrium temperature: -18C (15C-33C greenhouse effect)

Why might Earth without an atmosphere be 5C warmer than the Moon without an atmosphere even though the Moon is the darker (albedo) object? The oceans? The oceans are the great reservoir of accumulated heat which maintain a higher than equilibrium temperature near Earth's surface. Where does the additional accumulated heat come from? The greenhouse effect! The warmed atmosphere baths the oceans in thermal radiation warmer than an atmosphere containing no greenhouse gases. Night time temperatures drop very little over the liquid oceans because of the large heat carrying capacity of the water, maintaining a higher average diurnal temperature than over a solid surface.

 

[Xnn]

John;

Emissivity is the measure of an object's ability to emit radiation energy compared to a black body at the same temperature. In the case of a atmosphere, it is largely a function of the concentration of gases that can absorb and emit energy in the infrared. These gases are commonly called greenhouse gases...

 

[Skyhunter]

I have a comment and a question on the solar constant TSI:

The magnetic field and the solar wind of the sun are changing in a 11yrs cicle and also on a monthly and even daily basis. This magnetic field must be coupled in a certain way to the sun's temperature, since the magnetic fields arise from plasma movements which should be driven be temperature and pressure gradients. Therefore the Planck's function of the sun can actually not be constant due to the changing temperature. And the integral over the Planck's function, the so called "Solar Constant" can't be a constant.
Is there something wrong with my conclusion or is the name "constant" just missleading? Anyway, if the solar constant is used as a constant in climate models, I'm not surprised that they are wrong.

The solar constant is not constant. In fact in all the universe the only constant is flux.

However, since average TSI flux over time is ~0, a constant value for TSI is used in simpler models.

The models are not right or wrong, they are tools for understanding complex chaotic systems.

 

[WeatherRusty]

The atmosphere emits because it has a temperature. The solar photosphere emits because it has a temperature. Both are composed of gases radiating thermal radiation produced during the collisions between the atoms and molecules in bulk matter. The Sun (mostly hydrogen & helium) predominantly in the visible because it is at 5,780K, the Earth's atmosphere in the infrared because it is at 255K. You can think of it as frictional heat, some of the kinetic energy of the gas atoms and molecules is radiated away when the atomic and molecular structure is disturbed during collisions with others. This means that oxygen and nitrogen are radiating IR, though by a different mechanism than the greenhouse gases do at specific wavelengths.

 

[Xnn]

The Moon is at the same average distance from the Sun as Earth and so receives the same 1366W/m^2. It has an albedo of .12 as opposed to Earth's .30...but harbors no meaningful atmosphere.

Mean surface temperature (day) 107°C
Mean surface temperature (night) -153°C

Lunar Mean surface temperature: -23C

The moon rotates very slowly which also contributes to the extreme differances between day and night. To calculate its temperature using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, I'd be tempted to not use the 1/4 geometry factor and just figure the max temperature. In doing so, I come up with a value of 108°C, which is reasonably close to the mean day temperature quoted. So, I suspect that those temperatures are closer to the max and mins as opposed to an average or mean value.

Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of good references to check and since the day/night temps are so extreme, it may not be an easy task to measure the average temp of the moons surface.

 

[Phrak]

Phrak;

First; a satellite mission called the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) as well as sensors on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites have directly measured the imbalance. They have found it to be about 1.4 watts/meter^2. Of course it varies somewhat over time.

Second; Temperature measurements of the atmosphere and oceans as well as melting sea ice, and the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps have shown that all major parts of the Earth are warming.

Third, the IPCC in the Technical Summary on page 32 Figure TS.5 has calculated the inbalance and reported a value of 1.6 watts/meter^2 with a range of anywhere from 0.6 to 2.4 watts/meter^2.

These data sources are science when practitioners are in a position to be objective. As the last is governed by a political body, it fails to meet this screening.

Provide critical sources for any of your remaining claims. Not the original reports, but the criticisms--pro or con if you can.

 

[Skyhunter]

These data sources are science when practitioners are in a position to be objective. As the last is governed by a political body, it fails to meet this screening.

Provide critical sources for any of your remaining claims. Not the original reports, but the criticisms--pro or con if you can.

The IPCC is a valid source. It does not conduct science, it assembles the body of research related to climate change every five years into a comprehensive assessment.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=280637

 

[John Creighto]

The IPCC is a valid source. It does not conduct science, it assembles the body of research related to climate change every five years into a comprehensive assessment.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=280637

When anyone does a paper they assemble research that supports their position. It is called references. The references (or papers in the case of the IPCC) may be valid but not the selection criteria. The report summery is biased and written by policy makers. Anyway, aren’t we getting off topic?

 

[Bored Wombat]

The report summery is biased and written by policy makers.

Not really.

It undergoes political review by government delegations, but the summary (at least of working group 1's report) it is written by scientists.

The political review process ensures that the IPCC reports are slightly biased to the conservative. But at least what they say is true. They leave out other stuff that might be true, so things could be a whole lot worse.

 

[Phrak]

Not really.

It undergoes political review by government delegations, but the summary (at least of working group 1's report) it is written by scientists.

No. The report is written by 'participants'. The 'facilitator' reserves the power to rewrite anything.

 

[Phrak]

The IPCC is a valid source.

Interesting opinion.

 

[Bored Wombat]

No. The report is written by 'participants'. The 'facilitator' reserves the power to rewrite anything.

It undergoes government review last, but the lead authors don't rewrite anything, unless bullied by the government review.

Who is this 'facilitator'?

 

[Skyhunter]

Interesting opinion.

Since the assessment reports are cited all the time by peer reviewed papers, the IPCC is a valid source for scientific information in regards to climate science.

 

[John Creighto]

Can I ask a moderator to move the parts of this discussion about the IPCC to the social science area. I really don’t want to derail this thread.

 

[Phrak]

The temperature of the Earth is governed by physics, namely the Stefan-Boltzmann law which states that the amount of energy radiated is proportional to the fourth power of its temperature.

It certainly is not. The Earth is not a black body.

Where are your references? It's fairly unbelieveable that they would use such a poor model.

 

[Phrak]

Can I ask a moderator to move the parts of this discussion about the IPCC to the social science area. I really don’t want to derail this thread.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Xnn]

... is biased ...

Huh?

The Physical Science Basis report contains all types of uncertainity analysis as well as assessments of where the current level of scientific understanding may be low and needs further study.

So, what part of the report might be biased?

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

 

[Bored Wombat]

It certainly is not. The Earth is not a black body.

Any coloured body is still radiates energy proportional to the fourth power of its temperature. It just has a different emissivity constant.

 

[John Creighto]

Huh?

The Physical Science Basis report contains all types of uncertainity analysis as well as assessments of where the current level of scientific understanding may be low and needs further study.

So, what part of the report might be biased?

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

I really think we should be discussing the science and not the politics but anway:

The IPCC involves numerous experts in the preparation of its reports. However, chapter authors are frequently asked to summarize current controversies and disputes in which they themselves are professionally involved, which invites bias. Related to this is the problem that chapter authors may tend to favor their own published work by presenting it in a prominent or flattering light. Nonetheless the resulting reports tend to be reasonably comprehensive and informative. Some research that contradicts the hypothesis of greenhouse gas-induced warming is under-represented, and some controversies are treated in a one-sided way, but the reports still merit close attention.

A more compelling problem is that the Summary for Policymakers, attached to the IPCC Report, is produced, not by the scientific writers and reviewers, but by a process of negotiation among unnamed bureaucratic delegates from sponsoring governments. Their selection of material need not and may not reflect the priorities and intentions of the scientific community itself. Consequently it is useful to have independent experts read the underlying report and produce a summary of the most pertinent elements of the report.

Finally, while the IPCC enlists many expert reviewers, no indication is given as to whether they disagreed with some or all of the material they reviewed. In previous IPCC reports many expert reviewers have lodged serious objections only to find that, while their objections are ignored, they are acknowledged in the final document, giving the impression that they endorsed the views expressed therein.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/ispm.html

This might also be worth taking a look at:
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/ipccflap.htm

 

[Xnn]

John Creighto;

So there is no specific part of the IPCC's Physical Science Basis report that is considered as possibly biased in a scientific sense. Just broad dismissals based on the opinion and insinuations of an Economics Professor.

 

[Phrak]

Any coloured body is still radiates energy proportional to the fourth power of its temperature. It just has a different emissivity constant.

So this is Earth Science? The Earth is not a 'coloured body'.

 

[John Creighto]

John Creighto;

So there is no specific part of the IPCC's Physical Science Basis report that is considered as possibly biased in a scientific sense. Just broad dismissals based on the opinion and insinuations of an Economics Professor.

Can you please reframe from expression your opinions in such an authoritative tone and get back to discussing the physics of global warming. If you object to a point in the summary I posted above then please quote it and we can discuss that point in another thread.

 

[mheslep]

...First; a satellite mission called the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) as well as sensors on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites have directly measured the imbalance. They have found it to be about 1.4 watts/meter^2. Of course it varies somewhat over time.

Perhaps I missing something, but shouldn't these radiation power figures be referenced to some power spectrum? That is, the measurement can not cover DC to gamma rays. The Earth Radiation Budget for instance measures 0.2 - 50.0 µ m and 0.385 - 1.02 µ m.

 

[John Creighto]

Perhaps I missing something, but shouldn't these radiation power figures be referenced to some power spectrum? That is, the measurement can not cover DC to gamma rays. The Earth Radiation Budget for instance measures 0.2 - 50.0 µ m and 0.385 - 1.02 µ m.

They are average quantities. Given that most of the energy lies between the IR and Infra Red wavelengths it is not necessary to measure the entire spectrum.

However, it would also be interesting to break it down by frequency.

 

[Xnn]

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/ceres/brochure/brochure.pdf

on page 12:

Each CERES instrument has three channels—-a shortwave channel to measure reflected sunlight, a longwave channel to measure Earth-emitted thermal radiation in the 8-12 μm “window” region, and a total channel to measure all wavelengths of radiation. Onboard calibration sources include a solar diffuser, a tungsten lamp system with a stability monitor, and a pair of blackbodies that can be controlled at different temperatures. Cold space looks and internal calibration are performed during normal Earth scans.

Spectral Channels: Solar Reflected Radiation (Shortwave): 0.3 - 5.0 μm
Window: 8 - 12 μm
Total: 0.3 to >100 μm

 

[mheslep]

They are average quantities. Given that most of the energy lies between the IR and Infra Red wavelengths it is not necessary to measure the entire spectrum.

However, it would also be interesting to break it down by frequency.

The radiation balance is being reported down to ~one part in 1366W/m^2. So just how tight is the most-of-the-energy-is-longwave assumption about the outbound radiation?

 

[John Creighto]

The radiation balance is being reported down to ~one part in 1366W/m^2. So just how tight is the most-of-the-energy-is-longwave assumption about the outbound radiation?

I ment to say between IR and UV. We can look at the black body distribution to see how much energy we are missing. I do question though if it is as accurate as reported particularly for modes of energy transfer which are hard to measure like convection and evaporation.

 

[Bored Wombat]

So this is Earth Science? The Earth is not a 'coloured body'.

Sure it is. It's a body. It's got a colour. So it radiates EMR as a function of its temperature. The power radiated is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature.

 

[Phrak]

Sure it is. It's a body. It's got a colour. So it radiates EMR as a function of its temperature. The power radiated is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature.

A mirror reflecting most energy from the sun has a radiation temperature of about 5000K. Clouds reflect light.

With plenty of variable cloud cover conditions, varying widely from year to year there is plenty of opportunity for data mining to support an adhoc theory.

Without something more solid than interesting opinions on the nature of human character, and poor science, without a single reference to some energy balance study, what are we doing here?

 

[WeatherRusty]

Maybe this will answer a few questions.

http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/index.html"

 

[Skyhunter]

A mirror reflecting most energy from the sun has a radiation temperature of about 5000K.

No it does not. Reflection is not emission.

With plenty of variable cloud cover conditions, varying widely from year to year there is plenty of opportunity for data mining to support an adhoc theory.

Pure speculation. Where is your references?

Without something more solid than interesting opinions on the nature of human character, and poor science, without a single reference to some energy balance study, what are we doing here?

Read your posts then ask yourself that question.

 

[Skyhunter]

I really think we should be discussing the science and not the politics but anway:


http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/ispm.html

This might also be worth taking a look at:
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/ipccflap.htm

John Creighto,

Your links are political not scientific.

If you want to discuss the politics of AGW please take it to the PW&A. I'll be happy to join you there.

 

[sylas]

The Moon is at the same average distance from the Sun as Earth and so receives the same 1366W/m^2. It has an albedo of .12 as opposed to Earth's .30...but harbors no meaningful atmosphere.

Mean surface temperature (day) 107°C
Mean surface temperature (night) -153°C

Lunar Mean surface temperature: -23CEarth's radiative equilibrium temperature: -18C (15C-33C greenhouse effect)

Why might Earth without an atmosphere be 5C warmer than the Moon without an atmosphere even though the Moon is the darker (albedo) object? The oceans? The oceans are the great reservoir of accumulated heat which maintain a higher than equilibrium temperature near Earth's surface. Where does the additional accumulated heat come from? The greenhouse effect! The warmed atmosphere baths the oceans in thermal radiation warmer than an atmosphere containing no greenhouse gases. Night time temperatures drop very little over the liquid oceans because of the large heat carrying capacity of the water, maintaining a higher average diurnal temperature than over a solid surface.

I just saw this, and have recently addressed this very issue [post=2127367]in another thread[/post]. So I'll just add a late response here to have it on record also in this thread.

You ask:

Why might Earth without an atmosphere be 5C warmer than the Moon without an atmosphere even though the Moon is the darker (albedo) object? ​

You taking the -18C temperature expected for a blackbody sphere radiating the energy the Earth receives from Sun, and comparing this with the -23C average temperature observed for the Moon.

But these are actually different things. The -18C is for the Earth is a calculated value, obtained as (0.7*1366/4/σ)^0.25. The 0.7 is (1-albedo). The 1366 is the solar constant. The 4 is a factor for spherical geometry. The σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

The proper comparison for the Moon would be to repeat the same calculation using the Moon's albedo. You get (0.88*1366/4/σ)^0.25, which is about 269.8K, or -3.3 C. This is WARMER than the same effective radiating temperature of the Earth, which is -18C. The Moon is darker, and so absorbs more radiation, and has a higher effective radiating temperature.

A better question would be... why is the average measured temperature of the Moon (-23C) so much LESS than its effective radiating temperature?

This is a consequence of the variation of temperature over the Moon's surface. The -3.3C is the temperature you would get on the Moon if it was able to conduct heat freely over the surface so as to have a single uniform temperature. When you have non-uniform temperatures over the globe, but maintain the same total emitted radiation energy level, you raise the hot parts less than you have cooled the cold parts, because the energy is temperature raised to the fourth power. Put another way, the -3.3C effective radiating temperature is an upper bound on the average temperature. (This follows from inequality[/i][/url].)

Now the ocean plays a very important role for movement of heat around the Earth surface. The ocean does not act as a source of heat, but as a large heat sink, which helps to make temperatures more uniform. There's less difference between night and day on Earth, thanks in part to the effect of the ocean. It works by smoothing temperatures out by transferring energy around the surface, NOT adding more energy.

The problem is, smoothing temperatures out should only bring the average surface temperature up to a maximum of the effective radiating temperature. And we got -18C for the Earth's effective radiating temperature. Our surface is a lot warmer than this. So it cannot be explained just by smoothing temperature out.

The solution is that the Earth radiates into space mainly from high in the atmosphere. And up high in the atmosphere, in the regions that emit most of the radiation that escapes out into space, we do indeed have temperatures around about -18C... and it's comparatively uniform, because the atmosphere moves as a fluid and so is pretty good at moving heat around within itself.

The surface is warmer than the atmosphere, because the surface has to heat up the atmosphere to this effective radiating temperature, in contrast to the Moon, where the surface radiates directly to space.

 

[Skyhunter]

This is a consequence of the variation of temperature over the Moon's surface. The -3.3C is the temperature you would get on the Moon if it was able to conduct heat freely over the surface so as to have a single uniform temperature. When you have non-uniform temperatures over the globe, but maintain the same total emitted radiation energy level, you raise the hot parts less than you have cooled the cold parts, because the energy is temperature raised to the fourth power. Put another way, the -3.3C effective radiating temperature is an upper bound on the average temperature. (This follows from inequality[/i][/url].)

Nice post sylas.

Does not the fact that the Moon rotates once every ~28 days also a key factor in the large disparity of temperature?

[Edit] Never mind. I just read your posts in the falsification thread where you already answered my question.

 

[WeatherRusty]

sylas,

Your description of the atmospheric greenhouse effect is as detailed and well stated as I have come across anywhere. Thank you!

The ocean does not act as a source of heat, but as a large heat sink, which helps to make temperatures more uniform.

But the ocean is a source of heat. It radiates in the infrared because of it's temperature. The photosphere of the Sun is not a source of heat by your definition, it radiates only because of it's temperature. The source of energy in both cases comes from the Sun's core where it is generated.

The Earth's surface and hence it's atmosphere are warmer with large bodies of liquid water present than they would be without. Oceans absorb a whole lot more solar energy and dissipate that energy much more slowly than solid land. Is this not essentially the same effect as produced by the atmospheric greenhouse (albeit a different mechanism), slowing the release of accumulated thermal energy to space, in effect concentrating it near Earth's surface thus maintaining a warmer near surface temperature even as the source of energy (solar irradiance) remains approximately constant?

If the lower troposphere is warmed adiabatically by the raising of the 255K infrared emitting layer due to additional greenhouse gases, over time will this not increase oceanic heat content independent of direct insolation as the atmosphere and oceans exchange energy?

 

[sylas]

Your description of the atmospheric greenhouse effect is as detailed and well stated as I have come across anywhere. Thank you!

I'm honoured! Thanks.

But the ocean is a source of heat. It radiates in the infrared because of it's temperature. The photosphere of the Sun is not a source of heat by your definition, it radiates only because of it's temperature. The source of energy in both cases comes from the Sun's core where it is generated.

The ocean is not a source of heat. Neither is the photosphere. They are both are in approximate energy balance, giving up only what energy they take in.

Because of its massive heat capacity, the ocean takes longer than the land to respond to changing temperatures. As a result, days are cooler and nights are warmer and there's a large flux of heat into and out of the ocean with the day and night cycle. The actual source of the heat involved is the Sun. This is stored and released within the ocean, but the net shift, in total, is zero.

Actually, that's not quite true. The ocean is at present soaking up a little bit more more heat than it receives, so there's a net effect on the surface of the Earth removing heat energy. It's a flux of energy corresponding to about 1 W/m^2 continuously over the whole surface of the Earth, going from the surface into the ocean. Roughly. It's hard to measure, but recent research is gradually pinning this down.

This is a temporary situation that follows directly from the fact that the ocean is at present warming up. If, for any reason, there is a long term net shift in temperature for the whole planet, then the ocean responds to that more slowly than the land. Until an equilibrium is reached, there will be a net flux of energy from the surface into or out of the ocean, depending on whether the net shift is up or down. This corresponds to warming, or cooling, the ocean to a new equilibrium temperature.

The Earth's surface and hence it's atmosphere are warmer with large bodies of liquid water present than they would be without. Oceans absorb a whole lot more solar energy and dissipate that energy much more slowly than solid land. Is this not essentially the same effect as produced by the atmospheric greenhouse (albeit a different mechanism), slowing the release of accumulated thermal energy to space, in effect concentrating it near Earth's surface thus maintaining a warmer near surface temperature even as the source of energy (solar irradiance) remains approximately constant?

This gets a bit subtle. Yes, there is a small net warming effect for a planet with an ocean, but this not because there's any extra heat going in or out. All that happens is that with an ocean, temperatures become more mild. Without an ocean, the cold parts of a planet would be colder, and the warm parts of a planet would be warmer. But the total energy flow out from the surface remains about the same.

This is where it gets tricky. The energy radiated from a body by virtue of its temperature is proportional to the fourth power of temperature. Hence, if the energy in any out remains precisely the same, but temperatures get smoothed out a bit, then the warm bit reduce by less than the cold bits increase.

This is where the example of the Moon is useful. The average temperature is about -23C. But if we made all the surface the same temperature, the average would be -3C. The total energy radiated back out from the surface would be the same as before; but the dayside would have cooled by 110 degrees, from 107C to -3C and the nightside raised by 150 degrees, from -153C to -3C. The calculations, which have to apply over the whole surface, are in the other thread, which I've linked above.

If the lower troposphere is warmed adiabatically by the raising of the 255K infrared emitting layer due to additional greenhouse gases, over time will this not increase oceanic heat content independent of direct insolation as the atmosphere and oceans exchange energy?

Yes, the ocean will be warmer, and hence it will have a greater "internal energy". In physics, the phrase "internal energy" is preferred to the term "heat content". The term heat is usually reserved for the transfer of internal energy by virtue of temperature difference. This is explained also in the physicsforum glossary.

It may take some time for the ocean to heat up to its new equilibrium temperature, because of the enormous heat capacity. That seems to be what is occurring at present. If we somehow held the atmospheric composition constant, then we should expect surface temperatures to continue increasing until this warming up of the ocean was complete, which would remove the small flux of heat down into the ocean. That is, there's another W/m^2 or so of additional energy which we haven't noticed because it is vanishing into the ocean. It's sometimes called "warming still in the pipeline".

I don't think the word "adiabatically" is appropriate there. A process is "adiabatic" if there's no change in the internal energy content. But with greenhouse warming, the internal energy of a given volume is greater than otherwise, for the atmosphere and for the ocean. It's just a new equilibrium state.

Cheers -- Sylas

 

[WeatherRusty]

The Earth's effective temperature of 255K is reached at approximately 16,000' above the surface on average. By raising this level, we effectively increase the temperature at all lower levels at the environmental lapse rate, ie. 6.5 deg C/1000 meters (3.6 deg F/1000 feet). This involves no vertical air motion, no loss or gain of energy across a boundary. It is solely the result of changing air pressure with changing altitude and is on average what you would experience if you ascended in a hot air balloon through dry air (relative humidity less than 100%).

Not to nitpick, but the Earth's surface is the source of energy warming the atmosphere. The source of your body heat is the food you eat. That this can all be traced back to an origin at the core of the Sun is in fact true, but not really relevant as to why your body or the surface radiates infrared. In the context of global warming, a warmer sea surface is a prerequisite to a warmer atmosphere since it is the surface that for the most part warms the atmosphere. However if the sea surface is not first warmed by increased solar irradiance, the slightly greenhouse gas warmed lower atmosphere must be warming the water as it exchanges energy with it tending toward thermal equilibrium, everything else remaining equal.

 

[sylas]

The Earth's effective temperature of 255K is reached at approximately 16,000' above the surface on average. By raising this level, we effectively increase the temperature at all lower levels at the environmental lapse rate, ie. 6.5 deg C/1000 meters (3.6 deg F/1000 feet). This involves no vertical air motion, no loss or gain of energy across a boundary. It is solely the result of changing air pressure with changing altitude and is on average what you would experience if you ascended in a hot air balloon through dry air (relative humidity less than 100%).

Correct. More or less greenhouse effect is a shift in the equilibrium. No matter how how or how high or low the effective radiating level, no matter what the mean surface temperature, there is still a balance of energy at equilibrium.

Not to nitpick, but the Earth's surface is the source of energy warming the atmosphere.

Yes. That is what I have said also, consistently in all discussions of the greenhouse effect.

The present equilibrium is roughly as follows (rounding some figures a bit):

• 170 W/m^2 from space absorbed at the surface.
• 65 W/m^2 from space absorbed into the atmosphere.
• 40 W/m^2 from the surface direct out into space. (The infrared window.)
• 450 W/m^2 from the surface up into the atmosphere. (Special heat 100 and radiant heat 350.)
• 320 W/m^2 from the atmosphere back to the surface (backradiation).
• 195 W/m^2 from the atmosphere back out to space (atmospheric emissions).

If you add up those figures, you'll see there's energy balance at surface, atmosphere and space. The total flux in from space is 235, which is equal to the total flux out into space.

You can also check the net flow between any two of surface, atmosphere and space. It is:

• Net flow from space to surface = 130 (170-40)
• Net flow from surface to atmosphere = 130 (450-320)
• Net flow from atmosphere to space = 130 (195-65)

Roughly speaking, if you increase greenhouse absorption you increase surface temperature and surface radiation. Suppose the surface radiation increases by a factor of 10%. (That's a large increase as temperature, about 7 degrees.) Assuming atmospheric absorption of solar input is unchanged, and albedo is unchanged, there's no change to the flows out of space. The flow direct from surface to space becomes 44. This means the flow from the atmosphere to space will be less, at 194. The net flow from space to surface becomes 126. (Being hotter, the surface is radiating more effectively.)

The flow up from the surface will increase, but not by 10%, because some of that flow is special heat, which should stay roughly the same to a first order approximation. Suppose we have 100 as the special heat, then the 10% increase applied to the remaining 350. That is, the total flow from surface to atmosphere increases from 450 up to 485. Because the atmosphere is in balance, the backradiation increases to 485+65-191 = 359.

In the new equilibrium state, you still have energy balance. All the input ultimately comes from space, and it is balanced by the longwave emissions. The difference between the radiant energy in and the radiant energy out at the bottom of the atmosphere is 350-320 = 30 in the original equilibrium. In the new equilibrium it reduced to 385-359 = 26.

The source of your body heat is the food you eat. That this can all be traced back to an origin at the core of the Sun is in fact true, but not really relevant as to why your body or the surface radiates infrared. In the context of global warming, a warmer sea surface is a prerequisite to a warmer atmosphere since it is the surface that for the most part warms the atmosphere.

Exactly. A stronger greenhouse effect results in a warmer surface, which also results in a warmer atmosphere... at least, for altitudes below the effective radiating level!

However if the sea surface is not first warmed by increased solar irradiance, the slightly greenhouse gas warmed lower atmosphere must be warming the water as it exchanges energy with it tending toward thermal equilibrium, everything else remaining equal.

Yes again. As the greenhouse effect increases, there's no particular effect on the solar input (ignoring secondary effects like ice-albedo feedbacks). What does increase is the atmospheric backradiation.

If you have an instantaneous change in the absorption characteristics of the atmosphere, but hold the surface temperature steady, then what changes first is the difference between upwards surface radiation and downwards backradiation. Basically, the backradiation to the surface is coming from lower down in the warmer parts of the atmosphere, as the thermal optical depth decreases. So you get an increase in backradiation, but no change (yet) in surface temperature. The excess 4 W/m^2 in the above case will be being soaked up in the ocean. Once the ocean has warmed up to the new equilibrium, you'll be back at the case of balanced energy flows. Until this occurs, there is a net flow of energy from the surface down into the ocean depths. the extra energy has come from increased atmospheric backradiation, which came ultimately from the Sun. But the actual solar input at the surface is unchanged.

Are we confused yet?

Cheers -- Sylas