Sqrl said:
Indeed, but a much smaller portion by atmospheric concentration. PS - Just curious but are you referring to climate sensitivity, feedbacks, both, nothing specific, or something else in regards to those constants? |
I wasn't talking about anything in particular, I was refering to an establised habit of computer modelers in general ...
Computer models are used in a wide variety of settings, and in most cases the science the computer models are based on is either not well know or would be to computationally expensive to make accurate models. Most of the time you have enough physical data of the system you're trying to model that when you reduce complexity or introduce unknown variables to the system, and you're only looking for rough estimates from the computer model, so the introduction of these non-physically based variables is very acceptable.
To put it another way, 3D computer graphics is (essentially) a gigantic light simulation and the system that the simulation is based on is much better understood (and potentially simpler) than climate science is. More processing power has been thrown at 1 frame of the highest quality 3D movies than was used in many of the computer models to calculate the temperature of the world 100 years from now that we're trying to claim are athoritative; and we still can see a lot of huge inaccuracies in how 3D graphics models light.
