Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
right now, it may just be a budget constraint.
the models would have to be adjusted for changes in any and all variables which would be different back then.
Feedbacks. total solar irradiance. orbital mechanics. freshwater pulses. Ocean salinity. Density. Currents. Upwellings. Downwellings. Equatorial heat transport. Wind. Sea surface temperature. Vertical deep mixing to 3000-meters. El Nino/ La Nina. Albedo. Evaporation. Aerosols. Cloud condensation nuclei. carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, CFCs, HFCs, permafrost, glaciers, ice caps, whitecaps, snow cover, vegetation cover, forest cover, rain forest cover, other anthropogenic activities...................
Some past data would not pass muster with today's standards for accuracy. ( solar photometer data for instance )
One general circulation model runs to 36,000-pages of code, if I remember correctly.
It's very expensive directly, requiring man-years of time.
|
Budget constraints ? It seems you’re making excuses for them for not showing the historical trend in sea rise levels.
I found it in less than a minute. Unfortunately, it only goes back to 1992 when the satellite first started taking measurements.
It shows a steady incline. No sudden changes. No sudden rise. No hockey stick.
But guess what. They have already adjusted data for at least one variable. And a significant one at that.
In one of the previous locked threads I posted a article that said they had a serious problem with the algorithm programmed in the first satellite’s measurement equipment and that the data may need to be scrapped. But, adjust they did.
So, who even knows if the baseline or the new algorithm is correct.
Just remember ...
Data can be manipulated.
Just like votes...
>
.