Interesting thought. A model that complex would require a Cray at the very least, and they ain’t cheap.
My largest concern with any predictive model is, of course, the data being fed into it. I believe that there are those who wish to produce an accurate model and get scientific results that can be scrutinized and seen as competent. But without hundreds of thousands of reporting stations, physically separated from artificial heating and cooling, the extracted data is tainted if not discardable.
Stations need to accurately report: temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, wind speed and direction. All of those factors need reported at the surface, 5k’, 10k’, 30k’ and 100k’ in order to garner an accurate representation of conditions on the planet.
After that, we need external influencers such as the Sun and its derivatives such as CME’s and sun spots. Then, we need to account for gravitational perterbations and the moon’s influence as well as that of the oceans and large lakes.
Most of this is conveniently overlooked in climate models.
“Most of this is conveniently overlooked in climate models.”
Why include it if you are already getting the ‘answers’ you want..
[[the data being fed into it. I believe that there are those who wish to produce an accurate model and get scientific results that can be scrutinized and seen as competent.]]
You have more faith than i in their intentions-
Awhile back, Satellite data showed there was no warming for nearly 20 years- the ‘science community’ was frantic trying to prove there was- yet the data didn’t support their claim- so what did they do? They claimed one of their satellites had ‘veered off course’ or was ‘out of position’ or some such nonsense, and they claimed the readings had to be thrown out, and new figures calculated based on what ‘they should have been, had the satellite ‘been in the right position’
And lo and behold, what do you suppose they found? Yup- global warming ‘had really occurred during that 20 year period’, and they had the ‘new figures to prove it’