Video follows. I had at first thought that this press release from NASA Goddard was telling me that they had taken the data from their new Orbiting Carbon Observatory and put it into a model that used wind data so that distribution and mixing could be tracked. Seems sensible, right? But no, they’ve created a model that is projecting such things years before the OCO even made it in to orbit, while touting that they have it. The model “simulates May 2005 to June 2007” They write: (bold mine):
But the simulation – the product of a new computer model that is among the highest-resolution ever created – is the first to show in such fine detail how carbon dioxide actually moves through the atmosphere.
Uh, sorry, no. Model simulations aren’t actual movements, you need hard tracking data for that. One wonders what sort of science mindset exists where they can substitute modeled output for actual data and publish a press release like this with a straight face.Hopefully, somebody at NASA Goddard will actually use the OCO data instead of model data to make claims. The high resolution model itself has merit, but without hard atmospheric CO2 data put into it, like we have from the new OCO, it really is just little more than a model with guesswork data.
NASA Computer Model Provides a New Portrait of Carbon Dioxide
An ultra-high-resolution NASA computer model has given scientists a stunning new look at how carbon dioxide in the atmosphere travels around the globe.
Plumes of carbon dioxide in the simulation swirl and shift as winds disperse the greenhouse gas away from its sources. The simulation also illustrates differences in carbon dioxide levels in the northern and southern hemispheres and distinct swings in global carbon dioxide concentrations as the growth cycle of plants and trees changes with the seasons.
Scientists have made ground-based measurements of carbon dioxide for decades and in July NASA launched the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) satellite to make global, space-based carbon observations. But the simulation – the product of a new computer model that is among the highest-resolution ever created – is the first to show in such fine detail how carbon dioxide actually moves through the atmosphere.
“While the presence of carbon dioxide has dramatic global consequences, it’s fascinating to see how local emission sources and weather systems produce gradients of its concentration on a very regional scale,” said Bill Putman, lead scientist on the project from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. “Simulations like this, combined with data from observations, will help improve our understanding of both human emissions of carbon dioxide and natural fluxes across the globe.”
The carbon dioxide visualization was produced by a computer model called GEOS-5, created by scientists at NASA Goddard’s Global Modeling and Assimilation Office. In particular, the visualization is part of a simulation called a “Nature Run.” The Nature Run ingests real data on atmospheric conditions and the emission of greenhouse gases and both natural and man-made particulates. The model is then is left to run on its own and simulate the natural behavior of the Earth’s atmosphere. This Nature Run simulates May 2005 to June 2007.
While Goddard scientists have been tweaking a “beta” version of the Nature Run internally for several years, they are now releasing this updated, improved version to the scientific community for the first time. Scientists are presenting a first look at the Nature Run and the carbon dioxide visualization at the SC14 supercomputing conference this week in New Orleans.
“We’re very excited to share this revolutionary dataset with the modeling and data assimilation community,” Putman said, “and we hope the comprehensiveness of this product and its ground-breaking resolution will provide a platform for research and discovery throughout the Earth science community.”
In the spring of 2014, for the first time in modern history, atmospheric carbon dioxide – the key driver of global warming – exceeded 400 parts per million across most of the northern hemisphere. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide concentrations were about 270 parts per million. Concentrations of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere continue to increase, driven primarily by the burning of fossil fuels.
Despite carbon dioxide’s significance, much remains unknown about the pathways it takes from emission source to the atmosphere or carbon reservoirs such as oceans and forests. Combined with satellite observations such as those from NASA’s recently launched OCO-2, computer models will help scientists better understand the processes that drive carbon dioxide concentrations.
The Nature Run also simulates winds, clouds, water vapor and airborne particles such as dust, black carbon, sea salt and emissions from industry and volcanoes.
The resolution of the model is approximately 64 times greater than that of typical global climate models. Most other models used for long-term, high-resolution climate simulations resolve climate variables such as temperatures, pressures, and winds on a horizontal grid consisting of boxes about 50 kilometers (31 miles) wide. The Nature Run resolves these features on a horizontal grid consisting of boxes only 7 kilometers (4.3 miles) wide.
The Nature Run simulation was run on the NASA Center for Climate Simulation’s Discover supercomputer cluster at Goddard Space Flight Center. The simulation produced nearly four petabytes (million billion bytes) of data and required 75 days of dedicated computation to complete.
In addition to providing a striking visual description of the movements of an invisible gas like carbon dioxide, as it is blown by the winds, this kind of high-resolution simulation will help scientists better project future climate. Engineers can also use this model to test new satellite instrument concepts to gauge their usefulness. The model allows engineers to build and operate a “virtual” instrument inside a computer.
Using GEOS-5 in tests known as Observing System Simulation Experiments (OSSE) allows scientists to see how new satellite instruments might aid weather and climate forecasts.
“While researchers working on OSSEs have had to rely on regional models to provide such high-resolution Nature Run simulations in the past, this global simulation now provides a new source of experimentation in a comprehensive global context,” Putman said. “This will provide critical value for the design of Earth-orbiting satellite instruments.”
For detailed views of various parts of the world, visit:
www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/a-closer-look-at-carbon-dioxide
For more information about NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2, visit:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I suppose this was inevitable… when they abandoned manned spaceflight in favor of probes, the next logical step would be to abandon probes and go to modeling whatever it is they want to study.
Oh, my bad – modeling and Muslim outreach.
what is the name for this “model/” the “Gruber?”
Thank you.
Yes, you must not lessen the importance of NASA’s dual sustainable missions.
Modeling and Muslim outreach do not seem like compatible goals unless NASA is modeling burqas. I bet Muslims would appreciate a space suit designed to look like a burqa. It would cover the whole body, act like a chastity belt when locked, and the air supply could be adjusted for punishment when the woman misbehaves. No more need for beatings or messy beheadings – or caskets for that matter. (/sarc)
Why go to Mars when you can model a Mars landing so much easier?
I bet they didn’t model anything. It’s likely they just stole some 3D particle effects of Jupiter’s cloud formations from Hollywood’s 2001 Space Odyssey.
If they’re going to be dishonest enough to pass off their model “results” as real data from OCO, they might as well go all in.
If CO2 is the” key driver” in global warming, and there is more ppm now, why hasn’t the globe warmed? Did the model answer that one?
The really scary part is not just that these erroneous models exist, but that they are designed to create false beliefs grounded in mesmerizing visual effects of how the world works to be used in K-12 coursework. It usefully makes the students ready to take action to promote causes they have been deliberately primed to misunderstand for that very purpose.
It’s not just false modelling either. NSF has an organized education outreach to prime students to make false analogies for the same reason. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/cultivating-understandings-of-consequence-to-guide-daily-life-and-prompt-desired-behaviors/ explains that.
Nothing trumps the desire to turn students into a dedicated cadre of transformational change ages. Plus the climate equivalents of Gruber want their cuts continued. Climate and ed grants from NSF are much more lucrative than hard science ones because there are virtually no fixed costs like running an experimental lab.
It’s all just for advocacy for false ideas or lousy ones.
and for more money 🙂
Clearly the oceans ate it and will soon swallow the world whole… once they actually start increasing their rate of rise, that is.
No “RED” CO2 emissions from Australia, South Africa, or Argentina???
Yes, it is official – there is no Global Warming in Aurstrailia or South America, because ther is no Co2 there.
Errr, sorry, did the other models confirm this? Why the rush to ‘modify’ the surface temperature record in Auz and NZ, if there is no warming there?
Ralph
Yes, there are, but you see CO2 is lighter than air, so it naturally rises up to the top of the map.
CO2 is actually heavier than air. If you hold the map upside down (right side up for southern hemisphere residents), CO2 settles properly.
begrudging \sarc
CO2 is lighter than air in the post-modern world. Treat it like a snow globe.Fixed.
I was about to point out that same deficiency in the model.
I also noticed that Greenland appears to be a natural Carbon Sink as whenever the CO2 approaches it, it is either absorbed or somehow funneled around that island. It is unclear to me just how all that ice can suck up the CO2. Then something magical happens during the NH summer, the CO2 production appears to vanish and the CO2 is distributed worldwide and appears to dissipate in just months rather than the Years (decades/Centuries) touted by other science reports
Measured CO2 is HIGHEST above the deserts (Sahara, Gobi, Mongolia – but NOT central Australia ??), and LOWEST above the tropical jungles, the United States and Europe farmlands and plains.
But that is NOT the message NASA-GISS wants to present, so they load up the United States and Europe as red and orange hotspots of obvious climate furnaces.
By the way. Funny how this “global model” of very small resolution somehow morphs from a “grid” on a spherical global into a traditional NASA-GISS Mercator projection of uniform grid sizes emphasizing the Arctic RED and ignoring the Antarctic (white). They are propagandizing the 3% of all CO2 SOURCES that are man-made.
Here is one effect of all those co2 plumes. It’s a catastrophe! Why do Greens oppose greening?
WUWT – July 8, 2013
“Deserts ‘greening’ from rising CO2”
“Satellite data shows the per cent amount that foliage cover has changed around the world from 1982 to 2010. Click for a full-sized and detailed image.”
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/high_resolution1.png
==============================
WUWT – September 17, 2014
“Another benefit of climate change and increased CO2 – trees continue to grow at a faster rate”
Willis wrote an article for WUWT not long ago, in which he pointed out that satellite CO2 measurements ( Japanese IBUKI satellite, not models) showed that Argentina and Australia were net absorbers of CO2 (South Africa wasn’t mentioned).
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/05/the-revenge-of-the-climate-reparations/
Hang on. I thought CO2 was heavier than air so why has it all gone to the top?
Seriously, did they get paid for this? How can he speak of “one year of data” when there is no data?
I know, rhetorical question. The “data”, of course, confirms their assumptions that were programmed into the model.
CO2 is sinking to the bottom of the map. We in the northern hemisphere have our maps upside down, you know.
What is the point of modeling, then?
To put modelers on the public teat?
Don’t we have enough of that already?
And if the models and the data disagree, who gets the ax? the modelers or the satellite?
Piss on NASA.
CO2 is going to the top due to the Top Ography
Really though, It could be due to topography as Antarctica lies above Sea Level with the Highest Mountain in Antarctica being
Vinson Massif: 16,066 feet / 4897 meters
on the Antarctic Penninsula.
The Arctic Basin is just that, An Ocean Basin surrounded by taller land masses that could act to funnel denser CO2 into the area
Due to the rotation of the earth gravity is higher at the polls. This must cause the CO2 to collect at the polls. This is every bit as good science as the study.
You are only on top of the world because we let you think so. The reality is different.
[But only if one were speaking as an OZ or NZ or SA or … 8<) .mod]
I think we are all saved!! These are actually good news!!! Now they can model extremely high CO2 concentrations and assign them a focal point on earth. They can get rid of all terrorists without using bombs and killing the population!!
Also, they should be able to model it right out of the atmosphere and prevent global warming. They can now control the weather.
I feel relief!
Oh, I forgot… /sarc
I thought they said CO2 was well-mixed in the atmosphere.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/29/co2-well-mixed-or-mixed-signals/
Billy,
Look at the scale. It is mixed.
What about wind patterns that should do the mixing? The images do not appear to match wind patterns I have understood from weather maps.
We just have to wait for the actual CO2 measurements.
The satellite is now almost ready to go, calibration has been completed.
NASA will start publishing CO2 data from satellite measurements early next year.
Then we can compare the modeling data and actual measurements.
Didnt you get the memo ?
Model projections are the New Real – Actual Data is SO 19th century
+10
yes thats the plan. the writer of the piece doesnt get it.
Or we can look at the data from “IBUKI” (GOSAT) the Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite put up by JAXA. Their current map looks nothing like this model.
http://global.jaxa.jp/press/2012/12/20121205_ibuki_e.html#at
I agree. However the forthcoming data from NASA will help greatly.
I happen to be more interested in CO2 data than temperature data so I am anxious about the new OCO satellite data from NASA.
thats because it is a map of a
1. a different time
2. a different TIME SCALE
3. a different resolution.
4. a different altitude
5. ANOMALIES
6. a different methodology for ESTIMATING flux.
So yes the apples are different than oranges.
..and if the data doesn’t match the models it can be adjusted.
I’m worried about the data being adjusted or outright fabricated before it’s ever released. How can we truly trust that it’s accurate?
“Then we can compare the modeling data and actual measurements.”
And do what? Verify the satelite data is correct? Verify the model is correct? When they do not match is the satelite data tweaked, the model, both? is it to be used for forecasting? Forecasting what? How much CO2 is over New Jersey next July? Since we cannot even predict how much rain New Jersey will get next July, good luck with that. Long term forecasts? Like in how much CO2 over New Jersy in July of 2030? Yeah that makes sense every state should get their personal 30 year CO2 forecast. I am sure a lot of action items will come out of that.
Maybe it is to learn how CO2 travels and works in the atmosphere except the model does not seem to do that as it appears to focus only on human generated CO2, hence the concentration in populated areas.
It looks like there is nothing to learn from this model that is productive. It’s like climate porno, fun to watch, can be a thrill, but in the end is an empty experience.
Then comes the re-calibration.
Is it possible that NASA doesn’t actually believe in CO2?
That would explain how they can treat it like any other fictional thing – subject to their silicon whims.
By that logic, the stimulus package led to a rapid recovery and sustained economic growth, and now 100% of Americans have affordable healthcare at [no] cost to the taxpayers. No need to look at the actual data, the models said it would be so.
. Model simulations aren’t actual movements, you need hard tracking data for that. One wonders what sort of science mindset exists where they can substitute modeled output for actual data and publish a press release like this with a straight face.
This is called insurance, if the probes don’t show the right data, the models are lined up to keep the message straight.
Almost forgot, another reason for the model is to have a baseline to calibrate the satellite to. 😉
Thanks Steve.
You’re probably right and I noticed no sarc tag.
It’s bad enough Robin scares the hell out of me.
I don’t think these people ever read or saw “1984”.
its actually better than that as you can run a virtual instrument within the model.
“While the presence of carbon dioxide has dramatic global consequences, it’s fascinating to see how local emission sources and weather systems produce gradients of its concentration on a very regional scale,” said Bill Putman
The presence of CO2 has dramatic global consequences…oh no shit?! Like being a key to all primary productivity on the planet? Ground breaking revelation chief.
We have known about regional gradients of CO2 since the very first scientists began measuring them and found that even being down wind from a sheep farm would result in erroneous data, but this guy is fascinated by just finding this out through this very expensive computer game.
Does this new model data now mean that they will stop comparing the paleo-CO2 record derived from Antarctica (where CO2 levels are lowest) to modern CO2 levels from Hawaii? Doubtful.
I like how it’s a Mercator projections, so you can see the devastating amount of CO2 at the North Pole.
Funny how Australia barely registered a blip. For years we were tole we were the worst polluters.
“The carbon dioxide visualization was produced by a computer model called GEOS-5, created by scientists at NASA Goddard’s Global Modeling and Assimilation Office. In particular, the visualization is part of a simulation called a “Nature Run.” The Nature Run ingests real data on atmospheric conditions and the emission of greenhouse gases and both natural and man-made particulates. The model is then is left to run on its own and simulate the natural behavior of the Earth’s atmosphere. This Nature Run simulates May 2005 to June 2007.”
this is known as testing the model.
Now, see the word assimilation?
once you have better observations, do you know what you do with them?
“simulate the natural behavior of the earth’s atmosphere”
Another climate model stuck on the public teat.
It is a pretty picture. Computer generated art.
Absolutely yes. It is a great demonstration of the power of visual aids to illustrate data, and also to hide the lack of it, or induce premature conclusions.
There are other branches of science which benefit from such visual advantages: In rational drug design crystallographers often get the big grants and other necessary scientists then work for the crystallographer. I’m not dissing crystallographers, it is often immensely useful. But the pretty picture is what turns the heads.
It’s also helpful for people to NOT realize that, ta-da!, packing forces exist. Hey, let’s build a drug that will fit this receptor perfectly, and totally ignore that the crystal structure differs from the structure of the receptor in physiological aqueous solution.
Garbage in, garbage out
Since CO2 change has no significant effect on climate why spend resources to measure it or globaly monitor it.
Everyone paying attention is aware that the planet average global temperature trend has been flat since before 2001 in spite of a CO2 increase since 2001 of 31% of the total increase 1800-2001. The two drivers that do explain the uptrends and down trends of climate change. (95% correlation since before 1900) are in a paper at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com
The influence of CO2 on temperature may be irrelevant.
However, CO2 is our only gaseous fertilizer. We need it for food and forestation etc.
From a multitude of experiments, we know that increasing the concentration of CO2 is very favorable to plant growth. Being able to measure it with precision like the new NASA satellite will do may help us greatly.
In fact, looking at data of CO2 (from Hawaii) since 1958 and global food production from this date, look at the plots. No statistical analysis needed, just a good pair of eyes and a good brain reveals a perfect correlation: CO2 increase=food increase with no pause. Not that this is the only variable, obviously other factors were involved in increase production of food during this period of time.
Also, how good is this info from a single station in Hawaii. I have no problem with the quality of the data from this station, but what does it represent? So, I am anxiously awaiting the forthcoming data. We will learn a lot.
Adding a bit to your assessment: Some have ventured estimates that crop yields have increased 15% due to CO2 increase. Also, some greenhouses artificially increase CO2 level (up to 1500 ppmv) to make the plants grow better.
I did some research some years ago addressing the question of CO2 variability and concluded that it is ‘well mixed’ in the atmosphere and the level changes slowly. Several different sources, locations, times are graphed together in a paper that you can find by searching with key words pangburn middlebury.
To Dan Pangburn below.
Thank you for your info, I did find your presentation on your Internet page.
Is there a particular reason that Mauna Loa is in a that low-CO2 swirl ?
…and there’s not one word of truth to any of it
I looked at the NASA page. VERY nice pictures, full of conspicuous red – while the Southern hemisphere appears to be CO2 – free. Does anybody know a color code for CO2 concentration?
John Brignell at numberwatch calls it ’chartmanship’: “… chartmanship is the art of using graphs to mislead without actually cheating …”.
Almost universally red means stop. Red means danger. Red means hot.
A more objective color scheme (IMO) would be confined to the blue-green part of the spectrum, blue for lower CO2 concentration moving to green for higher.
The computational and computer science community use the words “data” and “dataset” for results from computations. In physics, the word data is exclusively reserved for physical measurements. It is a dangerous misuse to apply word data to computational results. It is a common and totally incorrect mindset of computational scientists to equate the two. This model produces computational results not data.
Lots of confused scientists who don’t understand this elementary principle, Rick, and so one always hears “the model tells us”.
That sure is pretty scary looking for 5 ppm change in a range of only 18 ppm.
pfft.
The colors really are deceptive. I was disappointed when I looked at the scale.
Well if it was not screaming RED, then we we wouldn’t know that CO2 is B A D. Really BAD, like emergency RED bad, like “Stop everything! The RED lights are flashing” BAD.
CO2 like BAD like RED all have three characters, that’s not a coincidence. There is 97% consensus this coincidence is due to AGW.
Thanks, Anthony.
It is fascinating to watch models, they paint such interesting and colorful pictures.
The CO2 obsession has had some good artistic outcomes. At what cost?
It is not only the computers and the buildings and the salaries, but the distortion of the minds and world-views of people all over the world.
actually the codes will help to track transmission of fine particulate matter across international boundaries.
This is a growing problem in Asia.
Fine particulate matter is not CO2. One of my neighbors burns wood I know fine aprtuculate matter.
What is interesting is that you are not good at changing the subject.
Another “bestest model evah”. Wow- 64X better! And a new label in “nature run”. I guess that makes it more “natural”?
I’ve been saying for years that it’s just a Northern Hemisphere problem and now I’m going to get ‘the proof’.
Even the current JAXA plots are looking good for Australia!
What’s the UN address where I send in my application for compensation?
And can I pick it up in the currency of my choice?
Important questions to sort out here.
“Who needs an Orbiting Carbon Observatory to track it when you can model Carbon Dioxide movement?”
It is normal in natural sciences to compare theory with experiment.
And that is precisely what will happen. For the Nature Run observations from 2005 were input into the model. Then the model is run forward in time. In a production mode the model would be continously assimilating observations to produce the best estimate for the entire planet.
Assimilation is basically how a weather model works ( or a Kalman Filter in a simpler case)
You start with the data. The data is put into a physics model rather than a stats model. Time is integrated forward until the next observation time. the physics behind the model insure that the states between data assimilation times are within known physical constraints ( something you cant always get with a stats model)
And what is the model expected to tell us?
Pray tell, Mosher?
Since we are dealing with climate and not weather, get back to us in 20 years and let us know how the model is working out.
Except they are not saying that they are testing (aka validating) the model.
They are saying (and this is bolded by Anthony, so I am not sure why you didn’t see it) that this output “is the first to show in such fine detail how carbon dioxide actually moves through the atmosphere”
Did you notice the word actually? In their magical world, this particular model output is reality.
And apparently, they forgot to input the data for the southern hemisphere.
Anyway, why it is so important to model CO2 levels? By looking at this century´s data, it does not seem to be correlated to temperatures.