People Living in Glass Planets

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Dr. Judith Curry notes in a posting at her excellent blog Climate Etc. that there are folks out there that claim the poorly named planetary “greenhouse effect” doesn’t exist. And she is right, some folks do think that. I took a shot at explaining that the “greenhouse effect” is a real phenomenon, with my “Steel Greenhouse” post. I’d like to take another shot at clarifying how a planetary “greenhouse effect” works. This is another thought experiment.

Imagine a planet in space with no atmosphere. Surround it with a transparent shell a few kilometres above the surface, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. An imaginary planet surrounded by a thin transparent shell a few kilometres above the surface (vertical scale exaggerated). The top of the transparent shell has been temporarily removed to clarify the physical layout. For our thought experiment, the transparent shell completely encloses the planet, with no holes. There is a vacuum both inside and outside the transparent shell.

To further the thought experiment, imagine that near the planet there is a sun, as bright and as distant from that planet as the Sun is from the Earth.

Next, we have a couple of simplifying assumptions. The first is that the surface areas of the planet and the shell (either the outside surface or the inside surface) are about equal. If the planet is the size of the earth and the transparent shell is say 1 kilometre above the surface, the difference in area is about a tenth of a percent. You can get the same answer by using the exact areas and watts rather than watts per square meter, but the difference is trivial. Assume that the shell is a meter above the surface, or a centimeter. The math is the same. So the simplification is warranted.

The second simplifying assumption is that the planet is a blackbody for longwave (infra-red or “greenhouse”) radiation. In fact the longwave emissivity/absorptivity of the Earth’s surface is generally over 0.95, so the assumption is fine for a first-order understanding. You can include the two factors yourselves if you wish, it makes little difference.

Let’s look at several possibilities using different kinds of shells. First, Fig. 2 shows a section through the planet with a perfectly transparent shell. This shell passes both long and shortwave radiation straight through without absorbing anything:

Figure 2. Section of a planet with a shell which is perfectly transparent to shortwave (solar) and longwave (“greenhouse”) radiation. Note that the distance from the shell to the planet is greatly exaggerated.

With the transparent shell, the planet is at -18°C. Since the shell is transparent and absorbs no energy at all, it is at the temperature of outer space (actually slightly above 0K, usually taken as 0K for ease of calculation). The planet absorbs 240 W/m2 and emits 240 W/m2. The shell emits and absorbs zero W/m2. Thus both the shell and the planet are in equilibrium, with the energy absorbed equal to the energy radiated.

Next, Figure 3 shows what happens when the shell is perfectly opaque to both short and longwave radiation. In this case all radiation is absorbed by the shell.

Figure 3. Planet with a shell which is perfectly opaque to shortwave (solar) and longwave (“greenhouse”) radiation.

The planet stays at the same temperature in Figs. 2 and 3. In Fig. 3, this is because the planet is heated by the radiation from the shell. With the opaque shell in Fig. 3, the shell takes up the same temperature as the planet. Again, energy balance is maintained, with both shell and planet showing 240 W/m2 in and out. The important thing to note here is that the shell radiates both outward and inward.

Finally, Fig. 4 shows the energy balance when the shell is transparent to shortwave (solar) and is opaque to longwave (“greenhouse”) radiation. This, of course, is what the Earth’s atmosphere does.

Here we see a curious thing. At equilibrium, the planetary temperature is much higher than before:

Figure 4. Planet with a shell that is transparent to shortwave (solar) radiation, but is opaque to longwave (“greenhouse”) radiation.

In the situation shown in Fig. 4, the sun directly warms the planet. In addition, the planet is warmed (just as in Fig. 3) by the radiation from the inner surface of the shell. As a result, the planetary surface ends up absorbing (and radiating) 480 W/m2. As a result the temperature of the surface of the planet is much higher than in the previous Figures.

Note that all parts of the system are still in equilibrium. The surface both receives and emits 480 W/m2. The shell receives and emits 240 W/m2. The entire planetary system also emits the amount that it receives. So the system is in balance.

And that’s it. That’s how the “greenhouse effect” works. It doesn’t require CO2. It doesn’t need an atmosphere. It works because a shell has two sides, and it radiates energy from both the inside and the outside.

The “greenhouse effect” does not violate any known laws of physics. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. All that happens is that a bit of the outgoing energy is returned to the surface of the planet. This leaves the surface warmer than it would be without that extra energy.

So yes, dear friends, the “greenhouse effect” is real, whether it is created by a transparent shell or an atmosphere.

And now, for those that have followed the story this far, a bonus question:

Why is the above diagram of a single-shell planetary “greenhouse” inadequate for explaining the climate system of the earth?

5 2 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

422 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 27, 2010 12:01 pm

Because we’re not in a vacuum inside the shell?

keith at hastings uk
November 27, 2010 12:13 pm

Well, how about day & night, water vapour (incl stratospheric) & clouds, heat transport by atmosphere & water currents to the poles, albedo changes, biosphere reactions, oceanic heat storage, solar variations (incl Milankovitch cycles), cosmic ray effects, aerosols, soots, volcanoes – and I guess a few more things.
I don’t pretend to be an expert, btw.

November 27, 2010 12:14 pm

It only deals with radiation and does not include the major energy storage and transfer mechanisms in our atmosphere water and how the maintenance of an equilibrium in the amounts of each state of water (solid – liquid – vapor) stores and releases energy independent of temperature at each phase change.

val majkus
November 27, 2010 12:22 pm

TomB thanks for going first; I’m no scientist but I would guess that’s the answer; from my understanding the earth’s atmosphere is not uniform, for example there are oceans over about 70%; there are variations in cloud cover, vegetation, terrain and all these things make a difference to the way radiation is absorbed and reflected. I know this is pretty simplistic and I’m looking forward to being educated by all you clever people out there; thanks Willis for such an interesting puzzle to start off my Sunday

XCapglider
November 27, 2010 12:23 pm

Thanks for clarifying the ‘greenhouse effect’ by means of the Steel Greenhouse and Glass Planet posts. Because the term is a misnomer, there is a lot of confusion about this topic.
This is the most simple and to-the-point explanation I have found:
http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.html
Simple and beautiful, indeed.
Regards,
Noud.

November 27, 2010 12:26 pm

So, if only those few molecules of water/CO2 are the reason why Earth night is warmer than night on Moon, why on Sahara, with its negligible humidity, today midnight temperature will be +19°C? Overall “greenhouse effect” there is by magnitude weaker than over equal, but humid area.
http://www.meteogroup.co.uk/meteo/gfs/MediterraneanSea/2010112712/MediterraneanSea_2010112712_tmin2m_12.png
http://www.meteogroup.co.uk/meteo/gfs/MediterraneanSea/2010112712/MediterraneanSea_2010112712_rh925_0.png
How long the simple heat-keeping capacity of remaining >99% of the atmosphere will be totally ignored?
Btw, real experiment was done by well known physician Woods.
http://neighbors.denverpost.com/blog.php/2009/02/04/greenhouse-theory-disproved-a-century-ago/

Edvin
November 27, 2010 12:29 pm

Convection (et. al.). Which is the main contributor to keeping real greenhouses warm.

pig farmer
November 27, 2010 12:30 pm

because it doesn’t include clouds and atmosphere/GHG’s?

Will Nelson
November 27, 2010 12:33 pm

Adiabatic lapse rate?

Thierry
November 27, 2010 12:36 pm

Here comes the -18°C again. In their excellent paper “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”, the two german physicists have clearly explained that -18°C comes from a wrong way of applying Stefan-Boltzmann law. On the non rotating and atmosphere free planet, the real average temperature would have been -129°C, which is more or less what we have on the moon. They have also explained why this glass approach is not to be used, since the so called greenhouse gazes do not behave as a physical or reflecting barrier. This post is unfortunately pointless.

pettyfog
November 27, 2010 12:36 pm

aarrggh!
Some time ago this site had a GREAT graphic showing the actuality of the ‘shield’. It aint a light filter over a petri dish!
It was a global shell AROUND a globe, not a flat shell with some translucence. I fully accept that the carbon based molecule absorbs long wave radiation and re-emits it. However that radiation emits in all directions, to be absorbed by the next molecule it happens to come across. Which then re-emits, and so on…
But here’s the kicker: Does, or does not, that radiation travel in a straight line?
And what happens to ANYTHING projected in a straight line from, or above, the surface of a globe?
Now forgive me, I’m just a poor dumb engineer {and electrical, at that}, son of a poor dumb farmer, but how the hell does it not occur to most science and physics wonks to take that MAJOR factor into account?
So, SURE, to extrapolate to water vapor.. a cloudy night after a cloudless day is gonna be warmer than a cloudless night after the same cloudless days. And maybe the day after too.. but EVENTUALLY an equilibrium is reached. Regardless of the amount of vapor on a given night.

Archonix
November 27, 2010 12:39 pm

Convection and heat transport from the tropics to the poles, I’d say. That completely changes the dynamics of the whole system.

Steeptown
November 27, 2010 12:42 pm

The real situation is far more complex, with a continuum of temperatures through a continuous medium, not through a shell, with conduction and convection, with a water cycle, with a spectrum of IR frequencies, with the SR and IR from the sun cycling down to zero every 24 hours, with etc, etc.

Anything is possible
November 27, 2010 12:44 pm

Because the shell is not opaque to all long-wave radiation, only that at certain wavelengths, nor is it transparent to all short-wave radition, a proportion of it is reflected, mainly by clouds.
This is where things start getting complicated…

EthicallyCivil
November 27, 2010 12:48 pm

Off the top of my head…
1) The “shell” is a gas column of varying temperature
2) Convection transports engery through “the shell”
3) The shell is is a multi bandgap filter, not opaque
4) The “shell” bandgap filters are a non-linear function of the temperature, given the that critical gas components (water vapor) undergo phase change within the range of

Stephen Brown
November 27, 2010 12:49 pm

The earth is not a black body insofar as radiation and absorption of heat is concerned. The equation-confusing factors of gases and vapours between the shell and the ‘not-black-body’ planet are conveniently missing as well.

okie333
November 27, 2010 12:49 pm

Because the atmosphere has many distinct layers, because CO2 is not the only gas in the atmosphere, because all of the gases have different properties that must all be considered, and because cloud cover is not being considered?

Vorlath
November 27, 2010 12:49 pm

Your third graph doesn’t work if the shell is opaque.

Sam Hall
November 27, 2010 12:51 pm

Your results are correct, but your diagrams are sure messed up. They imply that the earth is an energy source.

John S
November 27, 2010 12:56 pm

Where are the feedback mechanisms? No polar ice caps, no water vs. land specific heat capacity, no cloud formation.

pettyfog
November 27, 2010 1:00 pm

The Earth IS a long wave infrared source. Taking the ‘vacuum under the opaque shield’ instance mentioned above, the earth’s crust would not be at absolute zero because of magma temperatures bleeding off through the crust.

Slabadang
November 27, 2010 1:02 pm

Willis!
Well ive had this question in m head for a long time and I think you have to calculate the atmospfere as a part of the “blackbody`s surface” to get the energy balance right.
“The atmospfere is no shell its a part of the surface” thats my answer.
And I am a total layman in fysics so its just a guess. 🙂

Stephen Wilde
November 27, 2010 1:09 pm

The oceans are far more significant in terms of slowing the sun’s energy loss to space than anything the air can achieve:
See here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1487
” The Hot Water Bottle Effect”
and for a more general analysis see here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1562
“Greenhouse Confusion Resolved”

DocMartyn
November 27, 2010 1:09 pm

You cannot use the word ‘equilibrium’ to describe a steady state, the thermodynamics of steady states and equilibrium systems are quite different.
You models suck. The Earth rotates. At least 50% of the time the Earth is radiating into space and is not absorbing light. However, your greenhouse material is a superconductor and must be at the same uniform temperature all over.
(You will also note that we can establish the (internal) heat radiated from the actual planet from the mid-winter Antarctica, -89°C or 184K)

1 2 3 17
Verified by MonsterInsights