Solutions to Climate-Related Physics

Questions That /u/HappyFluffyBunnies

Could Not Answer
/u/NGC6514

Equilibrium Temperature

What happens to Earths temperature if Earth is 1% farther from the Sun,

the Sun is 2% cooler, and Earths cloud cover increases by 15%? By how
many degrees K does the temperature change? Just do the simple calculation
(this should only take 60 seconds and it doesnt require much knowledge of
physics, if you use the simplest assumptions).
This is clearly a problem involving planetary equilibrium temperature.
r
Rsun
1/4
Teq = Tsun (1 a)
2D
Using the simplest assumptions, a 15% increase in cloud cover gives us a
15% increase in albedo. We recognize that the choice here wont affect the
result drastically anyway, as the albedo term is to the 1/4 power. We were
instructed to make the simplest assumptions, so any choice here is fine. So,
all we need to do is find Teq , which is just Teq,f Teq,i , where subscripts f
and i denote final and initial values, respectively. Written explicitly, this is
s
r
Rsun
Rsun
1/4
1/4
Teq = Tsun,f (1 af )
Tsun,i (1 ai )
.
2Df
2Di
Using Tsun,i = 5777 K, ai = 0.30, Rsun = 6.957105 km, Di = 1.495108 km,
Teq = 10.4 K.
So the Earth would be about 10 degrees cooler.
Time of calculation: 47 seconds.

The equilibrium temperature equation is one that is known by climate scientists, but even without knowing it by memory, it can be derived in less than
a minute. Search planetary equilibrium temperature on Wikipedia for the
derivation.
Now, what does this not take into account? In other words, what assumptions
are made in this simple calculation? How do these assumptions affect the
predicted temperature of the Earth?
This is where one would choose to discuss altitudes of clouds, water content
of clouds, the elliptical orbit of the Earth, etc. I specifically put this question
in here so that simplifying assumptions could be used during the calculation
to make the problem easier, and then those assumptions could be explained
in this section.
/u/HappyFluffyBunnies: At 2 % cooler the sun would of course shrink.
By how much I dont know. This is not necessarily true. In fact, a lower
temperature causes a higher opacity, which leads to more of the radiation
from the interior to be absorbed at outer layers. This can actually increase
the stars size. Look up Kramers opacity law for more information.

Radiative Transfer

Consider that you are at some elevation above the surface of the Earth, looking along a line of sight at an angle with respect to the normal to the surface.
Use the absorption coefficient a(z) = bez/h . Assume that the emission and
scattering coefficients are both negligible. Use this expression to find the fraction of the specific intensity you would receive, I/I0 , at 50, 000 feet, given
= 30 degrees, b = 1.75 km1 .
A climate scientist immediately recognizes this as a problem involving the
radiative transfer equation.
dI
= a I + j
ds
We know that the emission and scattering coefficients are both negligible,
so we have a situation where the only important process is absorption. The
transfer equation becomes
dI
= a I .
ds
2

This is a very simple differential equation! Using dz = ds cos , we can

rewrite this equation as
dI
cos = I bez/h .
dz
Separating variables and solving, we get




I
bh
z/h
= exp
1e
.
I0
cos
Climate scientists know that the scale height is just 8.5 km, which is easily
calculated using h = kT /M g, where k is the Boltzmann constant, T is the
mean temperature in Kelvin, M is the mean mass of a molecule of atmosphere
(the composition of Earths atmosphere is known), and g is the acceleration
due to gravity. Plugging in the values given, we get
I/I0 = 6 107 .
Time of calculation: 1 minute, 42 seconds.
How is this relevant to the temperature of the Earth? How does the optical
depth of Earths atmosphere change with the introduction of 20% more CO2 ?
What does that do to the temperature?
Absorption processes like this govern how atmospheres transfer heat via radiation. Notice that more absorption leads to more light attenuation at higher
altitudes, meaning more has been absorbed lower in the atmosphere. Optical
depth goes as d = nds, and 20% more CO2 means a 20% increase in the
number density (n), so this would increase the optical depth, which would
warm the atmosphere even more.
/u/HappyFluffyBunnies: The problem provides the absorption coefficient
but requires knowledge of the standard function of the problem, which you
did not provide, and which is what the question is testing. Yes, the problem
requires knowledge of radiative transfer, which /u/HappyFluffyBunnies does
not have.
/u/HappyFluffyBunnies: (The problem) isnt (relevant to the temperature
on Earth). The problem has to do with light intensity at elevation. Read
my answer above. Radiative processes like this play a big role in setting the
temperature of a system.
3

Optical Depth and Greenhouse Warming

Consider an imaginary planet, Xezo. This planet is 930 million miles from
its host star, so it is very cold on Xezo (only 95 K with its distance, 1.45 atm
surface pressure and 0.185 albedo!). Xezos atmosphere is similar to Earths,
with 90% nitrogen (N2 ) and 10% oxygen (O2 ). The host star currently has a
surface temperature of 5500 K.
What is the temperature at the top of Xezos atmosphere?
Again, this is just planetary equilibrium temperature. Notice that 5500 K
is very close to the temperature of the Sun. Lets assume this is a Sun-like
star, and use one solar radius for its radius. Plugging in values, we get
Teq = 80 K.
Time of calculation: 21 seconds.
What is the optical depth of this atmosphere?
We know that the surface temperature is 95 K. The optical depth is just
= (Tsurface /Teq )4 1 = 1.017.
Time of calculation: 8 seconds.
/u/HappyFluffyBunnies: (This problem) requires knowledge of standard functions in order to address the problem: a function for luminosity/distance;
a standard optical depth for reference; and a function relating luminosity/albedo. Yes, this problem requires knowledge of planetary equilibrium
temperatures, which /u/HappyFluffyBunnies does not have. Also, there is
no need for a standard optical depth for reference. Optical depth is not a
relative value between two things; it is defined entirely on its own for a given
system, which I have shown explicitly above.

Cross Sections and Adiabatic Lapse Rates

Calculate the absorption cross section of nitrogen using only the given information for planet Xezo.
To simplify the problem, we consider a frequency-averaged absorption cross
section
. From the ideal gas law, P = nkT . Inverting this, n = P/kT . We
4

can find the number density at the surface, plugging in the values of surface
pressure and surface temperature to get n0 = 1.12 1026 m3 . Atmospheres
are compressible, so the number density will follow an exponential profile:
n(z) = n0 ez/h . Integrating this will give us the column density.
Z
N = n0
ez/h dz = n0 h.
0

We know that = N , so we can just invert this to find = /N = /n0 h =

kT /n0 M g. We need to use a weighted average mass of M = 4.7 1026 kg,
and a mean temperature of 87.5 K. Using an order of magnitude estimate
for g, we get an average cross section for a Xezo air molecule to be

1019 cm2 .
Time of calculation: 1 minute, 32 seconds.
Because the atmosphere is 90% N2 , this would be a decent approximation for
a cross section of N2 (M would be less than 2% different if the atmosphere
were 100% N2 ). Note that this isnt likely to be an actual cross section of N2 ,
as the values used in this problem were arbitrarily chosen for the imaginary
planet Xezo, and not based on any real physical system.
What is the adiabatic lapse rate for this atmosphere?
The adiabatic lapse rate is just = g/cp . The specific heat for N2 is
cp = 7k/2m = 1039 J/K/kg. For O2 , this is 909.3 J/K/kg. The weighted
average is then 1026 J/K/kg. For g = 10 m/s2 , we get
= 9.75 K/km.
Time of calculation: 38 seconds.
Explain what additional assumptions you are making in both questions. How
do these assumptions affect these results?
Most of these assumptions have been explained thoroughly within the solutions themselves. We can see that a planet with a greater surface gravity will
have a larger adiabatic lapse rate. Any reasonable choice of g will not affect
our estimated cross section of nitrogen, as observed planets do not really
deviate by more than an order of magnitude in surface gravity from about
10 m/s2 .
Total time for all calculations: 5 minutes.
5