If you want to make your own models, for self-education, then you can either start out with a simple single-slab model, where the atmosphere is treated as a single uniform block or slab, with a bottom surface and a top surface. You can refer to a post I did a short bit ago, where I present three simple relationships you could start with to learn. See the 2nd link below for that recent Y!A post.
You might attempt to read Rasool & Schneider's 1971 paper, "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate." It is wrong on its conclusions about increasing CO?, but it is also a great place to start since their model is a simple 1D model and the paper is short and easy to follow and their approach is/was useful. It does give you a leg-up on "how to think." Just its conclusions are wrong, is all. It did introduce aerosols in an important way, too. If you want to find out about the flaws, the authors themselves noted a fatal flaw soon after, but so did Charlson and Pilat, published quite soon after (April 27, 1971), which are also educational to read about. Finally, another seminal paper is from Dr. Hanson, et al, 1981, "Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide". It's an early and simple model, yet powerful too. I'd probably work harder following that paper because you can get much more interesting results than you can from my "single slab" model or from Rasool&Schneider's paper. Hanson's 1981 is a very good modeling paper for beginners. (Assuming you understand Stefan-Boltzmann, Planck, and some basic geometry and math.)
You could also go with Lovelock's DaisyWorld model. It's educational and fun. It's mostly there to show you the role of life itself as helping form a point of local stability in climates. See 3rd link below.
Lastly, look at the 4th link. It's on modeling climate.
There's a problem in all of the climate predictions people have made over the last few years - we just don't know who to trust. Some experts remind us that since we can't predict the weather more than 10 days from now making economy-shattering policy decisions on such incomplete science is a bad idea. One prominent politician says he took a random sample of all the climate studies out there and that 928 out of 12,000 articles agreed with him, so he must be right. How are we to know?
Global warming is more politics than science and I don't want to get into whether it is happening or not, or how much, because that's not science, it's advocacy no matter what I say. The operative question is, how do we make it complete science?
This article from a national lab says climate models are accurate while another national lab says they've found a way to finally make climate models accurate.
Who's right? The worst person to ask may be a climate scientist.
Why so? We wouldn't go to a tobacco company employee to get objective information on cigarettes or an Exxon employee to get information on pollution so it doesn't seem to make sense to rely exclusively on researchers getting paid to investigate global warming.
The climate has varied a lot over millions of years, sometimes wildly. During the last 300 million years, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have swung back and forth from 250 parts per million, about what they are today, to more than 2,000 parts per million.
So if scientists take a 50 million year range and 500 data points in that time, where they pick them is not only important, it's absolutely essential to know which ones they picked and why.
Almost no one would take scientific data at face value without asking who was making the analysis and where they got funding yet it seems to happen with climate studies all of the time. A scientist accepting a grant from Union of Concerned Scientists may not be dishonest, any more than a scientist getting a grant from Exxon is dishonest, but neither of those corporations are funding work they dislike. Union of Concerned Scientists alone spends $12 million per year talking about the consensus on global warming. That's real money.
Get a globe, or ball (indicating the world) place in a bowl of water so it floats ( the water signifies melting icecaps, you could even put in some ice cubes, keep a supply in a fidge if handy, to replace) place to the side of the bowl a reading lamp (if you have one) the flexible and have that shining down on the globe (signifies the sun) you could also add around the floating globe models of people in the water, hope this helps modify with your own ideas, improvise items you do not have, maybe make them from paper mache, piece of wire with a model of sun over the the globe, Good Luck
Usually when talking about models and global warming it’s with reference to the computer models that attempt to predict what will happen in a range of scenarios, as opposed to the physical type of model that you might construct from plastic, wood, metal etc. I hope it’s the first type.
Global warming models, usually known as general circulation models (GCMs) or global climate model (also GCMs), can be very simple or very complex, depending what you want them to do and how large and varied the data input is going to be.
A standard climate model will take the following into consideration:
? The land?atmosphere interaction
? The soil?biosphere interaction
? The atmosphere?biosphere interaction
? The ice?ocean interaction
? The atmpsphere?ice interaction
? Cryospherics: Glaciers, ice sheets, ice shelves, sea-ice, snow, permafrost, frozen ground etc
? Land surfaces: Vegetation, geomorphology, ecosystems, land use, land use change, albedo, volcanoes
? Oceanics: Biogeochemistry, thermohaline and other circulations, sea-levels
? Hydrology: Evapouration, transpiration, precipitation, cloud cover
? Weather: Wind stresses, wind dynamics, thermodynamics
? Oscillations in the oceans and atmosphere. Very long term models will take planetary oscillations into account.
? Radiation: Terrestrial and solar, changes to both
? Boundary transitions
? Changes in solar activity
? Changes in human activity
Trying to factor these into a climate model will require expert programming skills and an in-depth understanding of atmospheric physics, it’s a task that is normally undertaken by a team of experts over a period of time.
Here’s a couple of links to climate models that use Excel, you can experiment with both of them. The first is a very simple model, the second is slightly more in-depth:
https://catalyst.uw.edu/workspace/luanne...
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/teaching/...
Columbia University have worked with NASA to produce a working GCM that you can download and install should you wish, here’s the link:
http://edgcm.columbia.edu/
As for creating your own model – are you sure you want to do that, it’s an awful lot of work and will only really reproduce what’s already been done.
Ball up a piece of blue paper and light it on fire, that is global warming
Don't go to the so called experts on this. They haven't produced an accurate model yet. There are just too many variables to accurately do what you ask. Most of these variables are misunderstood or not even discovered yet.
Many of these so called scientists have gone on record as saying they don't understand the atmosphere. They say the atmosphere is chaotic. They say some heat is missing. They claim the earth is warming, when it is decisively cooling. They claim that the earth was cooling back in the 60s and 70s due to smoke stacks.
we have one fellow on this site, Trevor, who bragged that the global cooling was stopped by environmentalists cleaning up smokestacks. Then in the same answer he blames mankind for the recent global warming. Anyone with any sense of logic could reason that these environmentalists are really the cause of global warming since they fixed the global cooling. Ha! Ha! If these jokers could only read the rubbish that they spew. Ha! Ha!
In truth the models were set up for one thing. And that is to bilk billions of dollars out of us peons. It is plain and simple as that.
Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.” Obviously, the real data didn't fit the agenda.
If you find out, please let NASA know.
model warming trends.
Bounce around from discrete to analogical values that best suites your own personal premonitions.
Actually plenty of free ones are available...but you already knew that. So just google it.
Most people can't do simple PID loops, so I would suggest learning C++ as a minimum.
This 23 part youtube class from the university of Chicago explains how to make a simple model.
http://www.youtube.com/course?list=ECFA7...
Put a globe in your microwave oven.
u should try it at you tube
Do as the professionals do fake it . Make it up .
