PART 1: EARTH'S RADIATING EQUILIBRIUM

TEMPERATURE

Let's start with Sun, and the quantity of energy it emits . . . .

Sun's rate of emission from the photosphere

Stefan-Boltzman Law (assuming emissivity = 1.0):

I = σ . T4

where: I = energy flux, Watts/m2; σ, constant = 5.67 x 10-8 W/m2/K4; T = Kelvin

temperature of Sun's photosphere = 6000 K

And so:

I = (5.67 x 10-8) . (60004)

= 73.5 x 106 W/m2

Total energy emitted by Sun's photosphere

W = (energy per square meter) x (area of photosphere)

= (73.5 x 106) x (4 . π . r2); where r = 647 x 106 m

= 3.865 x 1026 W

Energy received by Earth

As the Sun's energy radiates in all directions, we can think of it being spread out
over the surface of sphere of ever increasing volume and surface area.

At the distance of Earth, the sphere will have a radius equal to Earth's average
distance from the Sun:
i.e. 150 x 106 km, or 150 x 109 m

The surface area of this sphere will be:

4 . π . r2

4 . π . (150 x 109) 2

= 2.83 x 1023 m2
So, we are going to be spreading our 3.865 x 10 26 W over this area.

Dividing the total energy by this area will give us the average flux of solar energy
as it approaches Earth:

= 1367 W/m2

This is called "Earth's Solar Constant" (So)

Average energy falling upon Earth

The Solar Constant is not the energy that falls on a typical square meter of Earth
-- the Solar Constant is measured at right angles to the Sun's beam, but this is
not how the majority of Earth lies in relation to that beam -- most of the surface is
set back at an angle, resulting in a lower intensity:
So, how do we calculate the average input of energy?

First -- note that the total energy intercepted by Earth must be equal to:

W = (Solar Constant) x (area of Earth's disk)

By "Earth's disk" we mean the cross-sectional area of Earth's sphere, as shown

below:
Think of placing a ball in front of a light -- the shadow it casts will be a circle (or
disk) -- so the light being intercepted by the ball is a function of its circular cross-
section, not its spherical shape.

Therefore, the total energy intercepted by Earth's disk is:

W = (So) . (π . r2)

where: r, radius of Earth

However, we need not actually compute this, because if we want to go on and

calculate the average flux of energy input, we now have to spread the total
energy intercepted over the actual spherical surface area of Earth:

Surface area of Earth: 4 . π . r2

Therefore, the energy falling on an average square meter:

Average temperature (given this rate of energy input)

Before we begin, we have to be careful and note that the energy available to heat
Earth is likely not going to be (So / 4), because a certain fraction of this energy is
going to be reflected back to space. This reflected energy , called "albedo," does
not participate in heating Earth -- it is the "absorbed energy" that is available to
do this.
Earth's "Planetary albedo" is estimated to be 30%, or 0.3. Therefore, the
absorbed energy is 70%, or 0.7, of the incoming energy:

This is the energy available to heat Earth's surface.

For Earth's temperature to remain steady, this rate of input must be balanced by
an equal rate of emission from Earth.

The Stefan-Boltzman Law allows us to find the temperature that corresponds to

this rate of emission:

For Earth:
This is Earth's "equilibrium radiating temperature." We derived it from the
average rate of energy input, taking into consideration the planetary albedo.

Even although we set the planetary albedo equal to its present value, we
assumed there was no atmosphere to interfere with the incoming and outgoing
energy in any way -- i.e. that the energy was incident directly upon Earth's
surface, and that Earth's surface, in turn, could send its energy directly out to
space, both without any atmospheric interference.

HERE is an exercise in calculating radiation equilibrium temperatures.

The diagrams below show the sensitivity of this temperature to changing

planetary albedo and to changing Solar Constant. Note how sensitive the system
is to changing albedo in the absence of an atmosphere.
Note how much the actual solar constant varies (see below) -- from the graph
above, if equilibrium were attained at the top and bottom of each cycle, the
resultant temperatures would vary between -18.14 to -18.18 oC.
Finally, we know that the Earth-Sun distance varies throughout the course of a
year -- from 147m km at Perihelion (Jan 03) to 152 m km at Aphelion (July 05). If
Earth attained temperature equilibrium at either of these distances (which it does
not), then the resultant temperatures would be -19.8 and -15.5 oC, respectively.

PART 2: THE ATMOSPHERE EFFECT

(a.k.a. the Greenhouse Effect)
On the previous page we saw that, in the absence of an atmosphere, surface equilibrium
temperatures would be quite cold. This situation is depicted in the diagram below. Here,
there is no atmosphere to mediate energy exchange between the surface and space.

Note that the diagram depicts energy in terms of "100" incoming -- it's easier to keep
track of where it is all going this way -- but we know this is really (1367 / 4) = 342 W/m2,
which yields a surface temperature of -18oC, using the Stefan-Boltzman Law (as before).
Now the next figure shows what we can do with an atmosphere that lets insolation pass
freely onto the surface, but which greatly interferes with the outgoing energy from the
surface (in fact it absorbs it all!).

If we continue this series to equilibrium, we get:

But why should the atmosphere do this? Well, as we know, the incoming energy is short-
wave, and the outgoing is long wave -- this is due to the fact that the Sun is a much hotter
emitter than Earth, and so the wavelength of the incoming energy is much shorter, as we
know from Wien's Law. So, it turns out the atmosphere is a much better absorber of LW
than it is of SW, especially the water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane -- these are
the most potent, natural "greenhouse gasses".

So now we can see that we can have a much higher temperature -- in this case it would be
equivalent to ((1376 / 4) * 2) W/m2, or = 58oC using Stefan-Boltzman!

Although this is high, it is not quite as silly as it seems -- the diagram below shows
estimates of the real energy flow in the system if we assume that radiation is the only
means we have of transferring energy. Note that the atmosphere does absorb some of the
incoming energy, e.g. by the ozone cycle in the stratosphere.
Note here the radiating surface temperature is equivalent to ((1367/4) * 1.45) W/m2, or
33oC using Stefan-Boltzman!

Now we seem to have the opposite problem we had before -- too hot, rather than too
cold!

The problem is, we have been assuming that electromagnetic radiation is the only means
we have of moving energy around in the system. But this is just not so.

Think of your own body, and how you keep cool in hot days . . . you can radiate energy
away (I = σ . T4), or you can use conduction (heating air that is in direct contact with
your skin -- on a cold day you get wind chill from this), or you can use evaporation of
perspiration (really, latent heat drawn from your skin). The latter two mechanisms mean
we don't need to have such a high surface temperature to establish equilibrium -- and
that's exactly what happens to Earth's surface: evapotranspiration consumes energy, as
does conduction-convection (totaling 29 of our "units") -- the remainder (116 units) is
equivalent to: (1367/4) * 1.16 = 396 W/m2, which yields a radiating temperature of 15oC
using Stefan Boltzman.
The figure below shows the situation in terms of actual energy units -- but you'll see the
diagram above is the same thing, in percent form.
You can obtain some further information on the energy budget from NASA.

There are a few other things we might take note of if we wish to make things even more
realistic:

1. The incoming solar radiation ("insolation", i.e. in-sol-ation) can be divided into two
components, if we wish: direct and indirect (scattered) -- the latter is responsible for the
color of the sky and the fact that the Sun does not appear white (as it does from the
Moon, where there is no atmosphere -- also black sky on the Moon).

2. Our balance is for an "average" location -- but there will be considerable variation on
account of surface variations, particularly deserts, where an absence of water necessitates
higher surface temperatures (the energy has to go somewhere, if not into evaporation,
then into other heating).

3. In reality there is considerable variation in cloud types, and the following diagram
shows how each plays different roles:
Further details on this are available from NASA.

3. There is considerable geographic variation on insolation and albedo (resulting in lower

temperature, as we move north or south from the equator):

INSOLATION
 ABSORBED SOLAR ENERGY

LONG WAVE EMISSIONS TO SPACE

SURFACE TEMPERATURES
4. The long wave emissions are much more evenly distributed than the incoming
radiation. This is another consequence of the atmosphere -- heat (particularly latent heat)
can be moved around from place to place in a way radiation cannot -- so that evens things
out, and makes the Earth a far more equable place than it would be otherwise (i.e. the
Poles and not quite as cold, and the Tropics are not quite as hot). The figure below shows
this fact (i.e. if radiant energy were the only output, then "in" and "out" would balance at
all locations on the diagram).
Further information on a number of issues can be had HERE and HERE.

http://www.marathon.uwc.edu/geography/100/rad-temp.htm
http://www.marathon.uwc.edu/geography/100/greenhouse_effect.htm