Climate Scientists vs Air Force

MODTRAN is a tool developed by US Air Force and Spectral Science, Inc to model absorption in the atmosphere. A free version is available from University of Chicago here.

Let’s start playing with this tool. We set all atmospheric gases and other parameters to zero.

CO2 = 0 ppm

The ground temperature doesn’t change – contra the opinion of mainstream climate “scientists”. Now we set carbon dioxide to 99.9999%:

CO2 = 999999 ppm

The ground temperature doesn’t change – contra the opinion of mainstream climate “scientists”.

We look at temperature height profiles for both minimum and maximum carbon dioxide concentration:

CO2 = 0 ppm
CO2 = 999999 ppm

The temperature at various heights doesn’t change – contra the opinion of mainstream climate “scientists”.

Now we look at absorption with various levels of CO2:

CO2 = 0 ppm
CO2 = 999999 ppm
CO2 = 410 ppm
CO2 = 820 ppm

While absorption obviously changes, surface (boundary) temperature doesn’t change – contra the opinion of mainstream climate “scientists”.

Now we add 100 degrees to the surface temperature:

Ground Temperature = 388 K, CO2 = 410 ppm
Ground Temperature = 388 K, CO2 = 410 ppm

The absorption factor and transmittance remains the same (~255.7 CM-1, 0.8836).

Absorption factor doesn’t change based on temperature, and we’ve already seen absorption doesn’t change temperature – contra the opinion of mainstream climate “scientists”.

Play with UChicago MODTRAN yourself, and see that I’m correct.

Enjoy 🙂 -Zoe

Published by Zoe Phin

17 thoughts on “Climate Scientists vs Air Force

  1. Interesting. Funny that in the help page they say “The model demonstrates the effect of wavelength-selective greenhouse gases on Earth’s outgoing IR energy flux”…..greenhouse ?


    1. …but they also state this : “The model does not compute global warming, that is, it doesn’t change the Earth temperature in response to changes in the atmosphere. However, you can alter the temperature of the ground and atmosphere yourself to compensate for a change in IR energy flux”….political correctness ?


      1. Yes, political correctness. Odd they don’t attempt to compute the interesting part. Even though you can raise the temperature yourself to force outgoing IR to “equilibrium”, in reality energy can’t be created to do it. Their math equations would create energy from nothing.


  2. This GHG theory is a marvel of nature. If my calculation is not much off, you would need the thermal power of 22 millions Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactors to warm earth up by 33°C, like atmosphere is supposed to do. A thin layer of inert fresh air, can be as wild as that…

    Liked by 1 person

      1. MODTRAN can’t do the extra calculations, because MODTRAN is science. It would ruin its reputation. It wouldn’t be MODTRAN anymore. That’s the point.

        Do you understand?

        The Air Force does not do the extra calculations, because they’re fake. If they were real, they would be done.



    On a slightly different modelling picture, if we we take the IPCC notion that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will increase temp, by how much?

    Ok, my model is not IPCC, but bear with me.
    Would the IPCC agree that pre man, that atmosphere was more or less in balance? More or less?
    Incoming radiation is balanced by outgoing radiation.
    Then man and machines come along, doh.

    Basically you have a balanced flux system in equilibrium, pre industrial age.
    Or, please bear with me, if it’s not true, pretend it is for a mo.
    I want to look at the heat transfers going on.
    Hot sun transfers heat to earth, through air.
    Earth transfers heat to space.

    Air conducts heat both in and away from the ground.

    The IPCCs argument is that adding more CO2 to the air retards the egress of heat into space?
    High wavelength sunlight is not absorbed on it’s way to the earth’s surface.
    But shorter wavelength IR radiation is retarded on it’s egress from Earth.
    In a nutshell, that is the sophisticated take on IPCC.

    So we can work on the rate of transfer of heat through the atmosphere.
    And the change to that rate that adding CO2 will make.
    Here are some real numbers that show by how much.

    I am looking at the column for 300k, thermal conductivity of gases, as measured by engineers.
    Air is at the top.
    CO2 is halfway down.
    Remember, CO2 is 1/2500th of the atmosphere when you do this calc

    Conclusion :


    1. Sure, but not as well as Krypton, a very non-greenhouse gas.

      CO2 is easier to heat. But it will convect up and cool FASTER. That’s why CO2 was used as a refrigerant. It was the most popular refrigerant from 1860s to 1930s, when it was banned in favor of more expensive patented compounds.

      Google “R744 Refrigerant”


      1. My point was ironic really, the heating is minute, if you do the math?
        If CO2 is only 1/2500th of the molecular weight of the atmosphere
        If you double the heat in 1/2500th of the atmosphere, you get a 1/1000th increase in temp, if that ?

        And for those who say O2 and N2 don’t retard heat or have a coefficient of heat transportation and can be ignored, the figures are in the table.

        I think the point is, CO2 heat retardation might be real, but minute from these figures?


  4. A propos nothing, this might be interesting.
    Looks like CO2 carries less specific heat than regular air.

    If the infra-red absorbtion theory worked well, wouldn’t CO2 have a higher specific heat capacity than air ?
    (Does it matter if the heating element is radiative, or kinetic?)
    So, in a general way, CO2 is slower to propagate heat, and holds less energy than regular air at the same temp.
    (And is a miniscule part of the atmosphere.)

    Water is slower to propagate heat than regular air, but holds more energy for the same temp and press.


    1. Lower heat capacity = Faster heating. That’s why a container filled with Argon or Krypton (non GHGs) will get hotter than CO2. Ofcourse they will also cool faster.


  5. The global warming theory proposed by the IPCC and others uses feedbacks. The most potent greenhouse gas is in fact water vapor. Ironically, because this is their argument, reducing CO2 will not cool the planet. Water vapor must be reduced.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. If water vapour decreases and the surface in turn becomes colder, by what processes would that be? Why is it obvious that it would become colder?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: