Talk about evoking conflicting emotions. The image is astoundingly beautiful – I particularly like the rich, intense colors – but the subject, global warming, always leaves me with sense of apprehension since it seems so unlikely that enough will be done to ameliorate it.
The source of the image, Global Warming Art has a number of excellent images, diagrams and figures. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also has lots of beautiful, weather-related diagrams. I particularly like the seasonal temperature change animation I made from their data.
The change in temperatures over the course of the year. Click image to enlarge. Images from 1987 via NOAA's GLOBE Earth System Poster.
The continents heat up faster than the oceans, and they cool down faster too. You can see this quite clearly in the animation above: notice how cold North America gets in the winter compared to the North Atlantic. It’s why London has an average January low temperature of 2˚C while Winnepeg’s is closer to -20˚C, even though they’re at almost the same latitude. There are a few reasons for the land-ocean cooling differences, and they all have to do with how heat is absorbed and transported.
(1) Specific Heat Capacity. Water has a higher heat capacity than land. So it takes more heat to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree than it does to raise the temperature of land. 1 calorie of solar energy (any type of energy really) will warm one gram of water by 1 degree Celcius, while the same calorie would raise the temperature of a gram of granite by more than 5 degrees C. The Engineering Toolbox has specific heat capacities of common materials.
(2) Transparency. The heat absorbed by the ocean is spread out over a greater volume because the oceans are transparent (to some degree). Since light can penetrate the surface of the water the heat from the sun is dispersed over a greater depth.
(3) Evaporation. The oceans loose a lot of heat from evaporation. In the evaporative heat loss experiment, While there is some evaporation from wet soils and transpiration by plants, the land does not have anywhere near as much available moisture to cool it down.
(4) Currents. Not only do the oceans absorb heat over a greater depth, but they can also move that energy around with their currents. The solar energy absorbed at the equator gets transported towards the poles, while the colder polar water gets transported the other way. Currents help average out ocean temperatures.
The inner core of the Earth is made of solid metal, mostly iron. The outer core is also made of metal, but it’s liquid. Since it formed from the solar nebula, our planet has been cooling down, and the outer core has been freezing onto the inner core. Somewhat counter-intuitively, the freezing process is a phase change that releases energy – after all, if you think about it, it takes energy to melt ice.
The energy released from the freezing core is transported upward through the Earth’s mantle by convection currents, much like the way water (or jam) circulates in a boiling pot. These circulating currents are powerful enough to move the tectonic plates that make up the crust of the earth, making them responsible for the shape and locations of the mountain ranges and ocean basins on the Earth’s surface, as well as the earthquakes and volcanics that occur at plate boundaries.
Conceptual drawing of assumed convection cells in the mantle. (via The Dynamic Earth from the USGS).
Eventually, the entire inside of the earth will solidify, the latent heat of fusion will stop being released, and tectonics at the surface will slow to a stop.
The topic came up when we were talking about the what heats the Earth. Although most of the energy at the surface comes from solar radiation, students often think first of the heat from volcanoes.
Note: An interesting study recently published showed that although the core outer core is mostly melting, in some places it’s freezing at the same time. Unsurprising given the convective circulation in the mantle.
Model of convection in the Earth's mantle. Notice that some areas on the mantle are hotter, creating hot plumes, and some are cooler (image from Wikipedia).
Note 2: Convection in the liquid outer core is what’s responsible for the Earth’s magnetic field, and explains why the magnetic polarity (north-south) switches occasionally. We’ll revisit this when we talk about electricity and dynamos.
It’s a glass really. Double walled, liquid suspended in air, beautiful to look at. But it really becomes a wondrous artifact of engineering when its combined with the heavy, rubber and stainless steel lid. The beauty and thermal efficacy of this tea-making system is … elegant. It’s certainly a worthy starting point for our discussion of heat, temperature and thermodynamics in general, and generates interesting questions about heat transport (convective, evaporative, conductive and radiative) and the greenhouse effect, that can be tested with relatively simple experiments.
The first, and most obvious thing my students observed was the fact that the lid prevented heat escaping. The weight of the lid confines the head space, which reduces convective heat loss above the cup and increases the vapor pressure, which reduces the amount of tea that evaporates. Evaporation is the primary way heat is lost from hot liquids, since each gram that evaporates takes 540 calories of heat with it. A simple evaporative heat loss experiment showed that about 70% of the cooling of a cup of water came from evaporation.
The second thing the students pointed out is that the double walled glass insulates, because it reduces conductive heat loss. Solid glass has a thermal conductivity of about 0.24 cal/(s.m.K) (Engineering Toolbox.com; 1 J = 0.24 calories). The conductivity of the air in the space between the walls is two orders of magnitude less at 0.0057 cal/(s.m.K). Of course, having a vacuum in the space would be even better, but it would test the strength of the glass.
Thermally, the glass falls short when it comes to radiative heat loss. A silvery coating would reflect radiated heat back into the cup much better than transparent glass. However, silica glass is relatively opaque to infra-red, which should reduce radiated heat emission. A simple experiment, comparing the cooling rates of water a glass flask wrapped in aluminum foil to one without the foil should give some indication if radiative heat loss is significant.
Finally, the glass does have a thermal advantage though, via the greenhouse effect. Because it is transparent to short, high-energy wavelengths of light, like that of sunlight, but blocks the longer wavelengths of heat energy, the glass should be able to capture some heat from sunlight. This can also be experimentally tested with a couple flasks in the sun. It would be interesting to find out how any greenhouse warming compares to the radiative heat loss through the glass walls.
Last week my students did some basic observations and came up with their own experiments. Then they learned a little about thermodyamics from reading the textbook. This week, we’ll try to get a little more quantitative with the experiments and applications of what they know, and it should be interesting to see if what they’ve learned has changed the way they observe the common objects around them.
This simple experiment was devised to estimate just how much heat is lost from a teacup due to evaporation as compared to the other types of heat loss (conduction and convection).
Experimental setup for measuring evaporative heat loss.
The idea is that if we can measure the mass of water that evaporates over a short period of time, we can calculate the evaporative heat loss because we know that the amount of heat it takes to evaporate one gram of water (its latent heat of evaporation) is 540 cal/g. So we’ll take some hot, almost boiling, water and weigh and take its temperature as it cools down.
Materials
Apparatus.
It requires:
A thermometer (Celcius up to 100 degrees)
A styrofoam cup (because it’s light)
A digital scale (to take quick measurements to tenths of a gram)
A 100 ml graduated cylinder (optional)
A beaker (100 ml) or cup that can go in the microwave
water
Procedure
Our scale has a capacity of about 120 g so we need to make sure that the combined weight of our apparatus that will go on the scale is less. The plan is to have the styrofoam cup, with a thermometer and some water on the scale. Since we can be somewhat flexible with how much water is in the cup we’ll first weigh the cup and thermometer.
(my measurement, not necessarily yours)
Mass of styrofoam cup and thermometer = 29.6 g
So it should be safe to use 70 g of water, which is approximately equal to 70 ml since the density of water is 1 g/ml.
1. Measure the 70 ml of water in the graduated cylinder and put it into the beaker (or microwavable cup). The exact volume is not crucial here since we’ll be using the scale to measure the mass of water more precisely.
2. Microwave the water for about 40 seconds. Again you do not have to be too precise here, you just want the water to be close to boiling. The length of time you need to microwave the water will depend on the strength of your microwave. 40 seconds raised the temperature of my 70 ml of water from 22˚C to 82˚C. If you like you can calculate the heat absorbed by the water, and the effective power of the microwave from these numbers, but it is not necessary for this experiment.
3. Quickly place the hot water into the styrofoam cup with the thermometer on the scale and measure the mass and the temperature of the water.
4. Measure the mass and temperature of the water every 2 minutes for the next 10 minutes.
Calculations
1. Every time you took a measurement, the temperature and the mass should have dropped. The change in mass is due to evaporation. Every time one gram evaporated, 540 calories are lost. Calculate the amount of heat lost due to evaporation at every time measurement.
Hint: Evaporative Heat Loss = mass evaporated × latent heat of evaporation
QE = mE LE
2. Now that you know how much heat was lost, you can figure out how much of the temperature drop was caused by evaporation. Since the specific heat capacity of water is 1 cal/g/˚C, each calorie lost due to evaporation should have reduced the temperature of one gram of the water by one degree Celsius.
Hint: Evaporative Temperature Change = Evaporative Heat Loss × mass of water in container × specific heat capacity of water
∆TE = QE / (m Cw)
You should also the temperature drop caused by evaporation as a percentage of the total temperature drop. Hopefully, your result is less than 100%.
There are quite a number of things that might come up in discussion here, for example: just how large are the potential for measurement errors; and are the results comparable to an actual teacup.
My trial of this experiment indicated that about 69% of the heat loss was due to evaporation. It should be possible to also calculate the amount of heat loss from conduction through the walls of the cup; the thermal conductivity of styrofoam is 0.033 W/mK (via the Engineering Toolbox). The radiative heat loss can be estimated using Stefan’s Law, which can be used to account for all the different methods of heat loss.
Finally, there is no control described in this experiment. A useful thing to try would be to use a styrofoam cup with a lid.
Additional Notes
When my students tried this experiment they use a small (50ml) beaker and 25g of water. Their evaporative heat loss was only 44% of the total, probably due to the smaller volume of water, which as a larger surface-area to volume ratio, and the thinner, more conductive glass walls of the beaker.
Energy cannot be either created or destroyed, just changed from one form to another. That is one of the fundamental insights into the way the universe works. In physics it’s referred to as the Law of Conservation of Energy, and is the basic starting point for solving a lot of physical problems. One great example is calculating the average temperature of the Earth, based on the balance between the amount of energy it receives from the Sun, versus the amount of energy it radiates into space.
The Temperature of Radiation
Anything with a temperature that’s not at absolute zero is giving off energy. You right now are radiating heat. Since temperature is a way of measuring the amount of energy in an object (it’s part of its internal energy), when you give off heat energy it lowers your body temperature. The equation that links the amount of radiation to the temperature is called the Stefan-Boltzman Law:
where:
ER = energy radiated (W/m-2)
T = temperature (in Kelvin)
s = constant (5.67 x 10-8 W m-2 K-4)
Now if we know the surface area of the Earth (and assume the entire area is radiating energy), we can calculate how much energy is given off if we know the average global temperature (the radius of the Earth = 6371 km ). But the temperature is what we’re trying to find, so instead we’re going to have to figure out the amount of energy the Earth radiates. And for this, fortunately, we have the conservation of energy law.
Energy Balance for the Earth
Simply put, the amount of energy the Earth radiates has to be equal to the amount of energy gets from the Sun. If the Earth got more energy than it radiated the temperature would go up, if it got less the temperature would go down. Seen from space, the average temperature of the Earth from year to year stays about the same; global warming is actually a different issue.
So the energy radiated (ER) must be equal to the energy absorbed (EA) by the Earth.
Now we just have to figure out the amount of solar energy that’s absorbed.
Incoming Solar Radiation
The Sun delivers 1367 Watts of energy for every square meter it hits directly on the Earth (1367 W/m-2). Not all of it is absorbed though, but since the energy in solar radiation can’t just disappear, we can account for it simply:
Some if the light energy just bounces off back into space. On average, the Earth reflects about 30% of the light. The term for the fraction reflected is albedo.
What’s not reflected is absorbed.
So now, if we know how many square meters of sunlight hit the Earth, we can calculate the total energy absorbed by the Earth.
The solar energy absorbed (incoming minus reflected) equals the outgoing radiation.
With this information, some algebra, a little geometry (area of a circle and surface area of a sphere) and the ability to convert units (km to m and celcius to kelvin), a student in high-school physics should be able to calculate the Earth’s average temperature. Students who grow up in non-metric societies might want to convert their final answer into Fahrenheit so they and their peers can get a better feel for the numbers.
What they should find is that their result is much lower than that actual average surface temperature of the globe of 15 deg. Celcius. That’s because of how the atmosphere traps heat near the surface because of the greenhouse effect. However, if you look at the average global temperature at the top of the atmosphere, it should be very close to your result.
They also should be able to point out a lot of the flaws in the model above, but these all (hopefully) come from the assumptions we make to simplify the problem to make it tractable. Simplifications are what scientists do. This energy balance model is very basic, but it’s the place to start. In fact, these basic principles are at the core of energy balance models of the Earth’s climate system (Budyko, 1969 is an early example). The evolution of today’s more complex models come from the systematic refinement of each of our simplifications.
Advanced Work
If students do all the algebra for this project first, and then plug in the numbers they should end up with an equation relating temperature to a number of things. This is essentially a model of the temperature of the Earth and what scientists would do with a model like this is change the parameters a bit to see what would happen in different scenarios.
Feedback
Global climate change might result in less snow in the polar latitudes, which would decrease the albedo of the earth by a few percent. How would that change the average global temperature?
Alternatively, there could be more snow due to increased evaporation from the oceans, which would mean an increase in albedo …
This would be a good chance to talk about systems and feedback since these two scenarios would result in different types of feedback, one positive and one negative (I’m not saying which is which).
Technology / Programming
Setting up an Excel spreadsheet with all the numbers in it would give practice with Excel, make it easier for the student to see the result of small changes, and even to graph changes. They could try varying albedo or the solar constant by 1% through 5% to see if changes are linear or not (though they should be able to tell this from the equation).
A small program could be written to simulate time. This is a steady-state model, but you could assume a certain percent change per year and see how that unfolds. This would probably be easier as an Excel spreadsheet, but the programming would be useful practice.
Of course this could also be the jumping off point for a lot of research into climate change, but that would be a much bigger project.
References
Yochanan Kushnir has a page/lecture that treats this type of zero-dimesional, energy balance model in a little more detail.
National Geographic has a cute little game that lets you create a two-dimensional solar system, with a sun and some planets, and then simulates the gravitational forces that make them orbit and collide with each other. The pictures are pretty, but I prefer the VPython model of the solar system forming from the nebula.
The models starts off with a cloud of interstellar bodies which are drawn together by gravitational attraction. Every time they collide they merge creating bigger and bigger bodies: the largest of which becomes the sun near the center of the simulation, while the smaller bodies orbit like the planets.
This model also comes out of Sherwood and Chabay’s Physics text, but I’ve adapted it to make it a little more interactives. You can tag along for a ride with one of the orbiting planets, which, since this is 3d, makes for an excellent perspective (see the video). You can also switch the trails on and off so you can see the paths of the planetary bodies, note their orbits and see the deviations from their ideal ellipses that result from the gravitational pull of the other planets.
I’ve found this model to be a great way to introduce topics like the formation of the solar system, gravity, and even climate history (the ice ages over the last 2 million years were largely impelled by changes in the ellipticity of the Earth’s orbit).
National Geographic’s Solar System Builder is here.
Not a lot of light penetrates the galvanized steel roofs that are ubiquitous in slums around the world. Alfredo Moser came up with one ridiculously cheap solution (via the World Social Forum, 2011).
While this the kind of cheap, elegant solution I would go for in a heartbeat, I’m pretty sure my wife would veto. For the more stylistically conscious – and for people with a bit more money in their pockets – there are $2.00 LED lights advocated by The Appropriate Technology Collaborative (ATC). A lot of people in dire poverty live in the slums, but that’s not the case for everyone.
The ATC’s seems to focus on projects designed by university students and implemented in the third world. If they work, the designs are published with a Creative Commons license so that other Non Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) that work in poorer countries can use and distribute them. Their blog has a lot of good information. And, there’s also the Global Bucket project that I’m still keeping an eye on.
