how does the amount of radiation emitted by the earth differ from that emitted by the sun?

Answer 1

The Stefan-Boltzmann law gives us a way to calculate this, it is not a hard calculation to do with a calculator. Check out the links below to get the info you need.

*The sun has an emissivity of 1 & its temperature is 5780K.
*The earth has an emissivity of .7 and its temperature is 287K.

From my rough calculations--the sun emits about 235,000 times the radiation than the earth does.

EDIT: Joesph, thanks for catching my error. Using an emissivity of 1 for the earth, the sun emits about 165,000 times the radiation that the earth does.

Answer 2

I am tired of giving good answers here which are not chosen - people thinking that simply saying otherwise can change the facts.

I do mention that though tbom_01 has the right idea, the emissivity of Earth for longwave* radiation is close to 1 - absorbs & emits pretty close to but not all of it. The average albedo of Earth to solar (shortwave) radiation is .3 - which means it reflects about 30% of sunlight hitting it. That poster evidently took 1 - .3 = .7 to be the emissivity - but that is for the solar spectrum, not the terrestrial.

*Solar radiation (emitted from the sun) is significant from about .3 to 4 microns with a peak at .47 microns. Terrestrial radiation (emitted from the Earth) is significant from about 5 to 20 microns with a peak at 10.7 microns. The portion of the solar spectrum past .77 microns is considered part of the IR (infrared) spectrum - and virtually all of terrestrial radiation is IR. Yet the "shortwave IR" the sun emits and the "longwave IR" the earth emits differ regarding absorption, reflectivity, and emission by Earth.

Addition: You're welcome tbom_01.

Answer 3

confident, i'm uncertain the question on the warming in the 'pipeline' has been properly understood and precise responded by making use of Bob and Dana. As FGR remembers, there must be actual stability on a daily foundation, between the quantity of warmth gained and the quantity of warmth reemitted. in any different case we'd be very promptly cooked. So, granting there's a warming of the decrease environment by way of GHG larger concentrations and supposing those concentrations stay at their contemporary point, there is no worldwide warming in the pipeline, till you start up arguing approximately 2nd order outcomes. The decrease environment radiates greater, the top environment radiates much less and consequently it has to decrease its temperature. easily watching the priority as to a (fairly straightforward minded) 2 layers gadget the T^4 regulation might say that the temperature ameliorations could be inversely proportional to the three-d ability of the temperature, it is an exceedingly sketchy explanation of the cooling of the stratosphere being greater speedy than the warming of the troposphere. Edited: so which you should call this a envisioned (easily, unavoidable) results of troposphere warming yet on no account a 'evidence' of AGW. It purely vindicates the thought the decrease environment is warming and conversely.

Answer 4

The earth doesnt emit any radiation - at least none that would even be detectable from outerspace. (yeah, you could find a hotspot next to some uranium-238)

The Sun emits a tremendous amount of radiation. If it weren't for the earth's magnetic field shiedling us, we wouldn't be here.

Answer 5

It is just like "tbom_01" says - you can calculate the answer with the help of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

All objects with temperature above absolute zero emit (electromagnetic) radiation. Warm objects, like the sun, emit visible light and ultraviolet light, and cooler objects, like the earth, emit infrared light (or heat, as we usually call it).

Answer 6

you cant get an earth tan!