Frederik, thanks for the link. However this visualization seems to be more then 10 years old (date created:2001-12-20) and I am not sure how up-to-date its scientific content is, like they write:

>The net result is that particles transported out of the tropics may cover the globe in only two months time.

So if it is correct that methane needs about 10 years to convert a lot of methane into CO2 (see above mentioned article) and if the above mentioned image is right (where most methane looks like centered at the equator) and if this sentence is right (i.e. the methane gets distributed all over the globe within 2 months) then all three informations together look somewhat contradictory.

On the other hand in the video with the simulations it doesnt look as if there is much distribution to the poles, i.e. it doesn't look
as if the whole globe is covered by the circulation in the stratossphere, but the quality of the video transmission was not so good over here.

I find it quite remarkable how much money goes into "art" and "ads" and how few money goes into good visualisations of such incredible important (in terms of survival of mankind) scientific information. This visualization center you linked to seems to have been closed. And the climate websites we have sofar visited in this discussion appeared also mostly rather visually untended.

Some reasons are of course that the "markets" are somewhat disconnected, that the corresponding scientific visual language is rather often underdevelopped (even sometimes if in collaboration with artists) and that that scientific imagery would need to compete with perceptionally more direct accessible imagery, like young, naked women on sports cars.

One should probably try to get a superwellknown artist to organize a real sleazy "c-lie-mate porn" funding exhibition to draw more attention to this problem and get some funds for climate science visualisations. This could be e.g. an exhibition like where scientific images look accidentally to some extend like breasts (from here) or other body parts etc., eventually one could combine this with real imagery etc.
This could though stir up some disagreement with the scientific community, but if the corresponding artist is doing it right this could
eventually even go through as an "art scandal" (it is not so easy to produce an art scandal, they throw meanwhile animals from roofs etc. in order to eventually produce a "scandal") and thus draw in more attention (and eventually funds). However if done badly such an event could be perceived as iNgratiation....