B Why would an atmosphere without greenhouse gasses be colder than with them?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Graeme M
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
An atmosphere without greenhouse gases (GHGs) would be colder because it lacks the ability to trap heat, allowing much of the thermal radiation to escape into space. While the surface would still warm through conduction, the absence of GHGs means that the heat would not be radiated back to the surface, resulting in a lower average temperature. The process of thermal equilibrium would lead to a colder atmosphere, as the energy absorbed from the sun would not be retained effectively. Without GHGs, the ground would cool significantly, leading to a much lower average temperature than with GHGs present. Overall, the presence of GHGs is crucial for maintaining a warmer climate by redistributing heat within the atmosphere.
  • #31
Graeme M said:
What I am struggling with is the suggestion that without GHGs, the atmosphere will be at equilibrium at -18C.
Without the GHGs, radiation would pass both ways through the atmosphere with relatively little interaction (absorption or radiation and both are equal, for basic reasons and the thermal mass of that atmosphere would be also very small). So the atmosphere would have very little effect on the surface temperature; it would be like a large piece of rock at 1AU.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
I wonder if part of the lack of clarity is from the difference between ground heat radiating upwards and the re-radiation in all directions of the portion GHG's absorb out of that. Ground is heated largely by sunlight in parts of the spectrum that are not absorbed by GHG's (unimpeded) but radiates back largely in IR that is absorbed and impeded. - absorbed from one direction but the re-radiation is in all directions, effectively half what is absorbed radiates back down and only half radiates upwards. (Not precisely half - going sideways can reach space but has to travel through more atmosphere and more GHG molecules, yet depth of atmosphere is actually quite thin compared to the diameter of the planet so this is not a big effect).

Some of that upward radiating half gets absorbed again, half of that re-radiates back down. The IR component is relatively small, but the consequences accumulate.

This aspect is not the whole story; what happens higher in the atmosphere where re-radiation upwards meets less GHG molecules and the 'IR fog' clears and IR can reach and be lost to space plays a critical role. As GHG concentrations rise the altitude where the IR fog clears rises. Not only a bit deeper but the temperatures at higher altitude are lower and that slows the re-radiation rate; more of the energy is retained.

Hope this helps.
 
  • #33
Thank you everyone for your comments. I hadn't realised this would be such a tricky question, but perhaps the problem is I am asking about an entirely unphysical situation. I will leave it there, though happy to respond to any more comments.
 
  • #34
Graeme M said:
I hadn't realised this would be such a tricky question
Oh yes!! Very tricky, once you look deeper.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
7K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
8K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
8K
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
8K