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

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Graeme M
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the hypothetical scenario of an atmosphere without greenhouse gases (GHGs) and explores the implications for temperature and thermal equilibrium. Participants examine the mechanisms of heat transfer, the role of GHGs in regulating temperature, and the conditions under which the atmosphere would reach thermal equilibrium in the absence of these gases.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that without GHGs, the atmosphere would still be warmed by conduction from the Earth's surface but would lose much of its thermal radiation to space, leading to a cooler atmosphere.
  • Others argue that GHGs play a crucial role in absorbing and redirecting thermal radiation back to the surface, which contributes to a higher equilibrium temperature.
  • A later reply questions how the atmosphere could reach thermal equilibrium at a temperature of -18°C without GHGs, suggesting that the atmosphere should accumulate heat instead.
  • Some participants clarify that non-GHGs can radiate energy away, but not in the same manner as GHGs, which directly absorb and emit infrared radiation.
  • There is a discussion about the differences in heat transfer mechanisms between GHGs and non-GHGs, with emphasis on how asymmetric molecules can directly interact with IR radiation while symmetric molecules cannot.
  • One participant mentions that the absence of GHGs would result in the majority of the Earth's radiant energy escaping to space, potentially leading to a significantly lower average ground temperature.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the mechanisms of heat loss and the implications of a GHG-less atmosphere. There is no consensus on how thermal equilibrium would be achieved or the resulting temperature of the atmosphere.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of the processes involved in heat transfer and the potential for significant temperature variations in the absence of GHGs. The discussion reflects uncertainty regarding the exact mechanisms that would govern thermal equilibrium in such a hypothetical scenario.

  • #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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale
Science 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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale
  • #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
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
8K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
9K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
7K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K