4 ms·

The only scientific connection between climate change and CO2 are global circulation models. I've read the code of several of these. The quality of code is t

The only scientific connection between climate change and CO2 are global circulation models. I've read the code of several of these. The quality of code is terrible, with so many obvious mistakes, unreadable functions, code copy between different models and what not. The entire narrative controlling trillions of dollars rests on code whose quality wouldn't pass 10$ bug bounty. Quite like how the Fed economic policy which predicted transitory inflation was probably done with similarly bad models. Or how coronavirus spread models overshot and led to terrible decisions. I don't trust centralized decisions done like that. They amplify expected errors into devastating proportions.

boxed 4y ago
There are tons of independent lines of evidence. Climate models are but one, and the code quality isn't really relevant. If they can successully simulate past climate, then bad coding practices is irrelevant to their proposed predictive ability. Plus, all the reports have been WAY too optimistic. Year after year there actual measurments come out and it's worse than the climate models.
- machina_ex_deus 4y ago
  There is other evidence of changes. But the evidence connecting climate change to CO2 is purely these models. If there's so much evidence, surely you can find evidence for this connection that isn't circulation model? Code quality is extremely relevant. These models are nearly untestable. Climate is too chaotic and these models don't predict anything successfully on short timescales, and some of them don't predict anything on large timescale either - look up the term "flux adjustment". So at this point the entire trust in these and the entire narrative comes from a code that any experienced programmer with physics knowledge would never put the faith of the world economy on. Do you know what's even worse than not stopping a human made climate change? Destroying the world economy just to find out that it did not solve anything and still end up with worse climate but without economic power to deal with it. Somewhat similar to coronavirus lockdowns.
  - boxed 4y ago
    What if we save the environment, save a lot of money on healthcare, and make the world a better place for nothing? :P

boxed 4y ago

There are tons of independent lines of evidence. Climate models are but one, and the code quality isn't really relevant. If they can successully simulate past climate, then bad coding practices is irrelevant to their proposed predictive ability. Plus, all the reports have been WAY too optimistic. Year after year there actual measurments come out and it's worse than the climate models.

machina_ex_deus 4y ago
There is other evidence of changes. But the evidence connecting climate change to CO2 is purely these models. If there's so much evidence, surely you can find evidence for this connection that isn't circulation model? Code quality is extremely relevant. These models are nearly untestable. Climate is too chaotic and these models don't predict anything successfully on short timescales, and some of them don't predict anything on large timescale either - look up the term "flux adjustment". So at this point the entire trust in these and the entire narrative comes from a code that any experienced programmer with physics knowledge would never put the faith of the world economy on. Do you know what's even worse than not stopping a human made climate change? Destroying the world economy just to find out that it did not solve anything and still end up with worse climate but without economic power to deal with it. Somewhat similar to coronavirus lockdowns.
- boxed 4y ago
  What if we save the environment, save a lot of money on healthcare, and make the world a better place for nothing? :P