Understanding the Polar and Equatorial Temperature Differences on Planets

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the temperature differences between the poles and the equator on Earth, primarily caused by the angle of sunlight exposure. The equator receives direct sunlight, while the poles receive sunlight at extreme angles, spreading energy over larger areas. Historical context reveals that Earth's poles were ice-free over 2.58 million years ago, but they are currently experiencing the fifth ice age. Altering the planet's axial tilt is the only method to potentially reverse the temperature distribution, allowing for warmer poles.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of solar geometry and its impact on temperature distribution
  • Knowledge of Earth's axial tilt and its climatic effects
  • Familiarity with historical climate patterns, including ice ages
  • Basic principles of planetary science and gravitational systems
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the effects of axial tilt on climate and temperature distribution
  • Study the history of Earth's ice ages and their climatic implications
  • Explore solar geometry and its influence on planetary temperatures
  • Investigate the climatic conditions on Uranus and its axial tilt effects
USEFUL FOR

Climate scientists, planetary geologists, educators, and anyone interested in understanding the dynamics of planetary temperature variations and historical climate changes.

Liam A
Messages
4
Reaction score
1
on earth, we have the poles being very cold and mostly frozen, while the equator is very warm and humid.
i would like to know specifically what causes this. i know it is partially because of their exposure to the sun, but i'd like to know some of the details and factors involved.
i'd also like to know if the process could be reversed, as in the poles would be warm or at least moderate temperature, while the equator of the planet was frozen? if so, how and why?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
It's mostly the sun. Geometry is the biggest factor here. One square mile of sunlight falls on about one square mile at the equator because it's head on, but at the extreme tangent angles of the poles, that same square mile of sunlight gets spread out over many times more area at the poles.

You can't have poles get more energy than the equator without tilting the entire planet. Uranus has occasions when the poles are warmer than the equator.
 
Liam A said:
on earth, we have the poles being very cold and mostly frozen, while the equator is very warm and humid.
i would like to know specifically what causes this. i know it is partially because of their exposure to the sun, but i'd like to know some of the details and factors involved.
i'd also like to know if the process could be reversed, as in the poles would be warm or at least moderate temperature, while the equator of the planet was frozen? if so, how and why?
Earth's poles have not always been frozen. Just over 2.58 million years ago the poles were ice-free. In fact, during the majority of Earth's history the poles have been ice-free. There have been five major ice-ages when the poles have been locked in ice. We are currently experiencing the fifth ice-age, for the last 2.58 million years.

The poles will always be colder than the equator, because the poles receive the least amount of sunlight. The only way to change that is to change the planet's axial tilt.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Rubidium_71 and Jim60
Hello
at the moment our planet is on the path of global warming, so possible that poles will be warm.Equater can't be cold because equater has enough warm from sun. Since the universe is expanding, our planet can keep away from sun, but it is will be insignificantly.
I hope I can help you.:smile:
P.S. I'm sorry for any errors in the text.
 
Mary Space said:
...Since the universe is expanding, our planet can keep away from sun ...
The Universe expanding is not applicable to gravitationally bound systems like the solar system.
The force of gravity holding things together completely eliminates expansion.
Even clusters of galaxies remain bound by gravity.
Furthermore the expansion is only detectable over the vast cosmological scale, a star system is tiny compared to that.
Even in empty intergalactic space, a volume the size of the solar system would take a very long time to noticeably expand.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davenn
Yes, maybe you are right.
 
Mary Space said:
Yes, maybe you are right.
He was not offering this as an opinion but as accepted fact based on empirical evidence, so there is no "maybe" here.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davenn

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
9K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K