"The adjustment is based on an assumption that they know what every drop of water is doing and why."
um.... NOPE! ... what you just said is 100% INCORRECT! ... You mention "no ifs or buts. Game Over" ... you should apply it to what YOU said. that sentence of yours is 100000% incorrect!!!
at NO POINT in the HISTORY of climate scientist has ANYONE, in ANY country, at ANY point in time, EVER said,
"based on the assumption that we know what every drop of water is doing and why, we can...
1/ approximate the Navier-Stokes equation thusly, 2/ reduce the Taylor approximation for fluid flow around mountains to second order
or ANYTHING else you might think of.
no scientist EVER has said they know the entire system to water droplet accuracy because ANY scientist of even basic, rudimentary training understands that even knowing what every drop of water (what IS a drop by the way? a metric drop or an imperial drop?) in a cup of tea is doing is UTTERLY impossible!!
the reality is that you have NO IDEA what assumptions they make nor how they approximate certain (difficult) mathematics with other (much easier) mathematics (*). Nor do you have any idea what "issues" keep cropping up in their models.
Am I wrong???
fine!... If I AM wrong then it should be no problem to explain how... PLEASE explain to me WHAT their assumptions are, WHY those particular assumptions are incorrect/inappropriate in their system and WHICH assumptions/approximations are the correct ones to use. Also, explain what the issues are in the models, and HOW your adjustments will ameliorate those issues.
I'm being serious... If you can explain those scientific things to me I will respectfully listen to your arguments.
(*) which is STANDARD practise in EVERY field of science.
