Modtran GIF for 2xCO2

IanC

Gold Member
Sep 22, 2009
11,061
1,344
245
Modtran_DoubleCO2_NewEquilibrium.gif


I find it interesting that theoretical calculations for doubling CO2 are ~ 1C, and with watervapour corrected to temperature it gives an increase of ~1.3C. that's pretty close to what most knowlledgable skeptics and lukewarmers have been saying all along. edit- transient climate sensitivity estimates have come way down lately to ~1.3C from about 2C

I am too lazy to check the actual numbers but it seems like the outgoing radiation in the atmospheric window is increased more than other areas, which is what you would expect for GHGs thermalizing GHG specific energy into (admittedly less that perfect) blackbody radiation.
 
Modtran_DoubleCO2_NewEquilibrium.gif


I find it interesting that theoretical calculations for doubling CO2 are ~ 1C, and with watervapour corrected to temperature it gives an increase of ~1.3C. that's pretty close to what most knowlledgable skeptics and lukewarmers have been saying all along. edit- transient climate sensitivity estimates have come way down lately to ~1.3C from about 2C

I am too lazy to check the actual numbers but it seems like the outgoing radiation in the atmospheric window is increased more than other areas, which is what you would expect for GHGs thermalizing GHG specific energy into (admittedly less that perfect) blackbody radiation.


it's not a paper, it's just a gif someone put on wikipedia after doodling with Modtran.

here is an interesting article though, dont forget to read the comments. A Modtran Mystery Watts Up With That
 
Modtran_DoubleCO2_NewEquilibrium.gif


I find it interesting that theoretical calculations for doubling CO2 are ~ 1C, and with watervapour corrected to temperature it gives an increase of ~1.3C. that's pretty close to what most knowlledgable skeptics and lukewarmers have been saying all along. edit- transient climate sensitivity estimates have come way down lately to ~1.3C from about 2C

I am too lazy to check the actual numbers but it seems like the outgoing radiation in the atmospheric window is increased more than other areas, which is what you would expect for GHGs thermalizing GHG specific energy into (admittedly less that perfect) blackbody radiation.


it's not a paper, it's just a gif someone put on wikipedia after doodling with Modtran.

here is an interesting article though, dont forget to read the comments. A Modtran Mystery Watts Up With That

Anything that proves James Hansen was a fraud is funny as hell.
 
I barely have time to keep up with real information like this;



Why on earth should I invest time into reading what a fraud like Watts puts on the net?
 
I barely have time to keep up with real information like this;



Why on earth should I invest time into reading what a fraud like Watts puts on the net?


Obviously to learn more about modtran, who uses it, how reliable it is, how to use it yourself etc.

Reading the comments gives you practice in spotting weak and strong arguments, and how to spot the pea under the thimble when it comes to parsing climate change science statements.
 
When using MODTRAN, one needs to remember radiative forcing is defined as being at the tropopause, not at the top of the stratosphere.

2.2 Concept of Radiative Forcing - AR4 WGI Chapter 2 Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing
---
Figure 2.2. Schematic comparing RF calculation methodologies. Radiative forcing, defined as the net flux imbalance at the tropopause, is shown by an arrow.
---

Tropopause is around 17 km.

If you plug in 17 km, MODTRAN gives a forcing difference for doubling CO2 of around 4.5 W/m^2

For 70 km, it's 3.1 W/m^2

The UChicago MODTRAN online tool doesn't allow temp differences, from what I see. Just forcing differences. And it's an old version, circa 1990. But it's free. You get what you pay for. The latest and greatest MODTRAN will cost you quite a bit.
 

Forum List

Back
Top