It is at http://www.nasa.gov/press/goddard/2014/november/nasa-computer-model-provides-a-new-portrait-of-carbon-dioxide/#.VpRd85MrJoD
It is amazing to watch, to see how complicated the model output is!
(it is just CO2 distribution, not as complicated as temperature, vapor, and climate, but it gives an idea what the climate modelers are capable of.
Have you watched this model run?
Mac Mierzwinski
Favorite Answer
Yes, it's truly neat. I'm amazed. How'd they do it?
graphicconception
Interesting, but is it correct?
Anyone can make an animation these days. Walt Disney has been doing it for years. I fear you may be confusing detail with accuracy. Anyway, we all know the climate is complicated.
To me this just typifies the state of climate science. It is being run by the "computer generation". The people who grew up playing computer games. Real life is foreign to them. What happens inside the box is the new reality. Most analyses are done on other people's data. They just sit in an office playing with statistical programs and pontificating.
The emphasis on real data is missing. In fact, they don't seem to care one way or the other about the data. As long as they have some numbers to play with they are happy. If their new model does not completely reflect reality then they change reality. How could the model be wrong?
Have another one.
Note: No climate scientists were harmed in the making of this animation.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5NHzYtzQxw
Davy
The model is over short time frames, One second in watching time is a day in the model. Live science shows an average, over weeks? months? Red is not the maximum. The scale is visible in full screen mode.
?
OK. Let us say this is factual. Then just look at Australia. They have absolutely NO reason to change. There is very little CO2 generation.
Also, it is very hard to explain why the North Pole generates so much CO2. I guess that must be generated by Santa and his elves and all that manufacturing going on up there.
Then look at the model and correlate it to energy consumption. There is no correlation. According to "The Saviors of the Earth", man is the greatest contributor, due to energy consumption. That illustration does not verify that one bit.
Also, we all know that when the oceans get warm, they give up CO2. There is virtually nothing that shows any of that.
I have tried to see the gradient bar's numbers, without success. What is the difference between a real red and the next gradient? 0.038% and 0.039%? Or what? Can we rationally measure that delta from space? Maybe so, but at what altitude? Is that a 3 dimensional compilation or first occurrence?
I guess it seems rational to the naive and causes them sleepless nights. But not with true scientists. .
Kingsley.marble
Yes