In the previous post, I walked through the simple “naked planet” model to calculate the average temperature of planets. This resulted in an excellent approximation to the average temperature of Mercury and was a little off when it came to the earth. What I didn’t say was how horrendously this model performs for Venus. In that case, our model predicts a temperature of 232 K while the observed temperature is 735 K. Put more terrestrially, we predicted that the temperature would be like a Siberian winter (-40 degrees C (or F)), whereas the real temperature is hot enough to melt lead. Why is the model so far off in this case?
Simply stated, we failed to take into consideration the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Mercury happens to lack a substantial atmosphere, so the greenhouse effect doesn’t play a role. It turns out that Venus’ atmosphere is a hot, dense gaseous stew of carbon dioxide (~96% ) and other gases (including sulfuric acid ()!) — the greenhouse effect is extremely dramatic there. However, on Earth, the greenhouse effect leads to a comparatively small warming of the surface, but this small warming effect is decisive for the biology of the planet.
So, what is the greenhouse effect, anyway? Essentially, it is a one-way light (and thus heat) absorber. Visible light from the sun passes through the atmosphere and heats up the surface of the earth. Because Earth is much cooler than the sun, the blackbody radiation emitted from the earth is in the infrared part of the spectrum. So while the atmosphere is almost transparent to visible light from the sun, it absorbs the infrared light from the earth. Energy thus gets in, but has trouble leaving, resulting in a heating effect.
There are a lot of questions that one can ask about the greenhouse effect, and in this post I’ll be addressing a couple of the them: (1) What makes a gas a greenhouse gas? and (2) Can we model the greenhouse effect to get an idea about how it warms the earth?
In our atmosphere, there are many gases — nitrogen (~78% ), oxygen (~21% ), argon (~1% ), and trace amounts of other gases (~0.04% and <1% water vapor). So why is it that we are so concerned with trace amounts of (and water vapor)? Why are these greenhouse gases? Is there a way to predict whether a gas will be a greenhouse gas?
Greenhouse gases consist of molecules that possess “infrared active” vibration modes that absorb light at wavelengths that the earth emits. Infrared active modes vibrate asymmetrically, and these asymmetric vibrations are the only ones capable of absorbing a significant amount of light. (A couple posts ago, I described the symmetry principles describing how infrared active vibrations interact with light’s electric field.) Gases like and only possess symmetric vibration modes and are thus not capable of absorbing light (at least to leading order, i.e. in the electric dipole approximation). Now let’s take a look at the vibration modes of the molecule to see why it is critical to the climate.
possesses four modes of vibration, as shown in the image above. Of these four, three of them are infrared active, because they are inversion asymmetric vibrations (again, see this post if that doesn’t make sense.) Most important are the bending vibrations, because their frequencies are close to where most of the light is emitted from earth. Below is a simulation (using this applet) showing the emission spectrum from Earth as viewed 70 km from the earth’s surface. On the left hand side, a few greenhouse gases are included in the atmosphere, but no . On the right, 0.042% (or 420 ppm) of is added to the atmosphere. (Also included in the plot are the blackbody spectra at various temperatures.) As you can see, the effect is very dramatic — a lot of light is now absorbed by the bending vibration of the molecule at 666 . About half of this absorbed light will be re-radiated back down towards the earth. Water vapor and methane also have dramatic effects on the spectrum, which is why much of the radiation is absorbed above 1400 . (Below about 500 , it is mostly the water molecule’s rotational degrees of freedom that are responsible for absorption.)
These plots suggest that the presence or absence of trace amounts of (and water vapor) can potentially have quite a dramatic effect on the earth’s climate. To see whether this is the case, it helps to see this in a simple model; we thus need to update the naked planet model from the previous post and dress it up. One way to do this is to consider a medium surrounding the earth that transmits visible light and absorbs infrared light — something like in the image below (adapted from here). In this crude model, the atmosphere absorbs all the infrared light being emitted from the earth and then re-emits it isotropically.
The calculation proceeds in a similar way to the one from the previous post. Each tier is in a steady state — the power coming in must equal the power going out. Above the atmosphere, this means that the incoming power from the sun must equal the power leaving the atmosphere:
Because this equation is identical to the one solved in the previous post, this gives = 255 K. Now, we can solve for the earth’s surface temperature by considering the second tier. Here, the incoming power from the sun and the atmosphere must be balanced by the outgoing power from the earth’s surface:
Having already solved for from the previous equation, can be obtained. = 303 K. Remember that the naked Earth model yielded a temperature of 255 K. So this atmosphere, which in our model absorbs all outgoing light, increases the temperature of the earth by roughly 48 K. Now, the actual temperature of the earth’s surface is 288 K, so this model overestimates the greenhouse effect quite a bit. But considering how crude this model was, in that it absorbs all outgoing radiation, it’s not surprising that this model inflates the actual temperature.
Nonetheless, I find that this model gives a good intuition about how the greenhouse effect works. It captures the essential physics of what is going on and makes us realize that these changes we are observing in our climate actually arise from some very simple and basic fundamental principles.
Note: This model does not work very well for Venus because its atmosphere is not a single thin layer. It is a dense and thick medium. It would be more appropriate to have many layers tiled atop one another.