Understanding the Greenhouse Effect – part 1

This is the first post in a series to explain how greenhouse gases work and what evidence we have that it is indeed the greenhouse gases that cause the observed warming of the earth.

This first post will deal with the physics and the natural greenhouse effect.

Black Body Radiation

A black body is a theoretical body that absorbs all electromagnetic radiation that falls onto it. A black body emits radiation with a spectrum that can be calculated with a equation, and it depends only on its effective temperature. The amount of energy emitted per surface area also depends only on the temperature. The hotter it is, the more energy it emits at shorter wavelengths. In reality, no perfect black body exists, but for most purposes it is close enough. The spectrum of the sun is close to that of a black body, and emits most of its energy at visible wavelengths.

A black body that absorbs electromagnetic radiation also gets a temperature that depends on the amount absorbed, and can be calculated according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

The surface of the earth can also be seen as a black body, although it reflects a large part of the incoming radiation. The figure below shows the spectrum of the sun over frequency in red, and the theoretical black body radiation of the earth. Because it is a plot over frequency, shorter wavelengths are to the right.

We now have the information we need to calculate a rough estimate of the temperature of the earth:

The amount of energy the earth gets from the sun is 1367 W/m2. The cross section of the earth is its radius squared times pi, but the surface of earth is 4 times that. So on average, each square metre gets a quarter of the energy from the sun, 341.75 W/m2. The albedo is the fraction that is reflected, and the value for the earth is about 0.3. The reflected amount cannot heat the earth, so we just take the remaining part into account. All this together gives us a value of 254.8 Kelvin, which is -18.3 C (or -1 Fahrenheit) – clearly, something is wrong here. The average temperature of the earth is more like15 degrees Celsius.

So where is the error? To account for the observed difference, we would need an additional 150 W/m2.

Transparency of the Atmosphere

The clue lies in the different wavelength regimes where the radiation from the sun comes to the earth, and that of the earth leaving from the ground. As explained above, the wavelength depends on the temperature. The radiation from the sun is mostly in the visible domain, for which the atmosphere is nearly transparent (safe clouds). But the radiation going up from the earth, being much cooler than the sun, is in the infrared and for that the atmosphere is not completely transparent. But to maintain a balance (as much energy as is coming in has to get out for an equilibrium), the temperature rises. Or in other words, the atmosphere, being warmed by the absorption of the infrared radiation, radiates back to the earth. And this is the missing radiation to get a temperature of 15 degrees.

Not all components of the atmosphere absorb infrared radiation. The atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases plus around 1% water vapor. Nitrogen and oxygen are symmetric molecules, and do not absorb in the infrared. Argon is a monatomic gas, and does not absorb either. On the other hand, CO2 and H20 can bend and swing in modes which do absorb in certain wavelengths in the infrared.

The graphic above shows the radiation from the atmosphere going down to the surface in the infrared. The graphic has been calculated from a model by David Archer, using this nice web interface. Most of the radiation comes from water vapor and carbon dioxide.

In reality, the radiation budget of the earth is a lot more complicated than described. The figure above shows the different flows of radiation between the sun, the atmosphere and the surface. The image links to an interesting paper examining the radiation budget.



Filed under global warming, science

12 responses to “Understanding the Greenhouse Effect – part 1

  1. Pingback: Understanding the Greenhouse Effect : Atmoz

  2. Pingback: Greenhouse Effect - CO2 Doesn’t Reflect : Atmoz

  3. Since all of the paleo-climatological data (FRIEDLI, NEFTEL, LAW DOME, GAUDRY, MAUNA LOA, AND SARGASSO ) clearly shows that CO2 lags, not leads global temperature excursions, the discussion is moot at best. Man does not and can not affect the climate with CO2 emissions, so the AGW hysterics are searching for a cure for a nonexistent disease.

  4. H., that in the galcial-interglacial cycles, CO2 is lagging the temperature by ~800 years is well known, so you are hardly telling anything new here. The rise in temperature at the beginning of an interglacial takes a few *thousand* years. The rise of the CO2 concentration is a feedback, triggered by warming, but causing more warming. We know this because we *know* what triggered the cycles, and we also know that this trigger cannot be responsible for the whole amount of warming in the interglacials (or cooling in the glacials). Read more about this for example here and here.

    I am just writing this here for others to read after they have read your comment. Your argument has been debunked a few thousand times already, and I am sure you would have found the answer yourself.

    Any other comment with yet another one of those debunked canards may be deleted without hesitation.

  5. Yes, well…debunked canards are a problem, aren’t they? Apparently, so are opposing views on this thread.

  6. They are a waste of time, as are ‘opposing views’ like “The earth is flat”, “The sun revolves around the earth” or “The moon is made of cheese”.

  7. Barack Obama’s book, “The Audacity of Hope,” shows a appealing title. It has an idea of bravery mixed with confidence. There is nothing Pollyanna about it. I will possibly not support every little thing he says, but he’s our president, and then for me, he inspires confidence. That can do more for any nation than any amount of backroom deals. Hope gives us energy, and energy sustains us through trying times. Boy, we’ve had them. I’m from West Texas, and I did not vote for Bush. When McCain ran against Obama, I was a citizen of Arizona, but I gave audacious hope a chance. The fight for progress and laying the foundations of prosperity is just not over. I’ve come across the quips of those that don’t believe Obama is capable of doing it. But step back a moment. Would anyone have most of us fail in order to tarnish the star of an incumbent for whom they didn’t vote? Attempting to keep our priorities straight, let’s work together with our president and build our future.

  8. Matthews C. Kriner

    hi,beautiful jeans in your post,I love thatgreatjeans,I need to find one for me,bill

  9. fantastic advice and sharing,I will buy one this beautiful jeans for me .thanks

  10. Long time lurker, thought I would say hello! I really dont post much but thanks for the good times I have here. Love this place..

    When I was hurt in that boat accident my life would be changed totally. Unfortunately that driver had no car insurance and I was going to be in pain for ever.

    This was not time for me to start and guess what to do. I had to find a good accident lawyer to help me get what I needed. After all, my family was counting on me.

    How terrible was it? I has bedridden for 9 months, I had to have constant care and my hospital bills went through the roof!

    Thank goodness, I found a good referral site to help me.

    I will post more later this period to tell you more about what I have been going through.

    If you need an personal injury lawyer try the guys at pip lawyers

  11. I have been absent for a while, but now I remember why I used to love this web site. Thank you, I¡¦ll try and check back more often. How frequently you update your site?

  12. Hi FP. I am very interested in the “greenhouse effect” and would be interested in discussing some points with you. I noticed this was quite an old post and wondered whether it was still active.