I'm pleased you looked at EdgeCM - but how hard did you look? EdgeCM is simplified (it runs on PCs, not supercomputers, after all) but it is a fully 3D model with a fully 3D atmosphere. I'll just quote from page 13 of the user manual.
...<snip>...
Now please don't think I'm some granola-head save-the-planet hippie. Not at all. I live in Canada. We make billions selling tar sands oil, and anything to warm up the nation is most welcome. Rev those Humvees boys! Daddy needs a new pool, and a couple more months of summer!
Thanks for the correction. I only looked at the setup options and initial atmospheric conditions were rather simple. I clearly should RTFM
.
I never said you were a hippie ("granola-head", I liked that
). I consider myself more greenie than most and most of the scientists that I know who are opposed to the idea of CO2 as the main cause of climate change are even greener than I am. At least one of them says that his motivation to check the atmospheric calculations was that he felt that if CO2 was not clearly the culprit, humanity is spending way too much resources on fighting a negligible problem (reducing CO2) instead of fighting real pollution and at the same time damaging science. He by the way strongly supports reducing CO2 emission, but it has nothing to do with the climate.
A few years ago, when this was a hotter topic (pun intended...) I got to hear a few seminar both by people who were blaming CO2 and the opposition. I was more convinced by the criticism of the opposition to the physics implemented in the models used at the time. I don't know how much the improved. These were seminar for physicists explaining much of the nitty gritty of the calculations. Both sides were honest about the uncertainties in their calculations and arguments as it should be in a scientific discussion.
However, the opposition was painting a worrying picture about the cynical use political and ideological groups are doing with the results. They were personally threatened and journal editors were hesitant in publishing their papers. Half baked results that include large uncertainties intended for scientists to debate about are being plucked and published in the general media as facts, or used by politicians to drive their own agendas. The CO2 opposition (and myself I must admit) are worried about this practice and the consequences of investing billions, hampering progress and changing the way of life of whole nations on a "what if" that is instead labeled as "science says". Humanity has bigger problems to solve that can be solved and science is likely to take a big hit in the confidence and support of the general public if/when one of two things happen: 1) CO2 is found not to be the cause, or 2) inspite of all the efforts and money, climate continues to go astray because we will not be able to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere by any significant amount. Science in the western world depends on public support and confidence. We already see people who claim "bahh you can't believe these scientists" and extrapolate this to whole of science.
