Solar spectral irradiance at earth's TOA

  • Thread starter Thread starter everetthitch
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Irradiance Solar
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the challenge of reproducing the solar spectrum at Earth's top of atmosphere (TOA) using black-body radiation equations. The user notes that their calculated irradiance is significantly higher than measured data, specifically from the ASTMG173 standard. They detail the formula used to convert radiance to irradiance and express skepticism about the validity of adjusting the result with a cosine factor based on Earth's tilt. The user is seeking clarification on what might be missing in their calculations to align their results with the measured values. The conversation highlights the complexities of accurately modeling solar irradiance.
everetthitch
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to reproduce a plot of Sun's black-body behavior like this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
Problem is, after I convert the black-body radiance to irradiance, its curve is way too high as compared with measurement. The measurement data is taken from:
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/spectra/am1.5/ASTMG173/ASTMG173.html

The top of atmosphere (TOA) irradiance at Earth's distance is obtained in the following way:
radiance (W/m^2/nm/Sr) L=2*h*c^2/(lamda^5*exp(h*c/(kB*lamda*T)-1))
where:
c=3e8 m/s (speed of light)
h=6.625e-34 Joul Second (Planck's)
kB=1.38e-23 Joul/Kelvin (Boltzman's)
omega=pi*r_sun^2/D_sun_earth^2 (Sun disk solid angle as seen from Earth)
r_sun=6.96e8 m (Sun's radius)
D_sun_earth=1.496e11 m (1AU)
Finally irradiance is E=L*omega (W/m^2/nm) (and one needs to multiply 1e9 to be in nm)

My curve is roughly twice above the measurement, so if I do:
E=L*omege*cos(67-deg)
I can get something close to the picture in the wiki link. This 67-deg is roughly Earth's spin inclination. However I really doubt multiplying cos(67-deg) makes sense, as we are talking about TOA irradiance, not anywhere on Earth surface.

What I'm missing here?

Thanks!
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
try square root.
 
Chronos said:
try square root.

That doesn't work, making the spectrum broader, let alone w/o any physical meanings...
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
Both have short pulses of emission and a wide spectral bandwidth, covering a wide variety of frequencies: "Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) are detected over a wide range of radio frequencies, including frequencies around 1400 MHz, but have also been detected at lower frequencies, particularly in the 400–800 MHz range. Russian astronomers recently detected a powerful burst at 111 MHz, expanding our understanding of the FRB range. Frequency Ranges: 1400 MHz: Many of the known FRBs have been detected...
Back
Top