Comment

Comment by machina_ex_deus

Here's the real reason: they are all copying code from each other. Tons of tons of code. Literally all climate global circulation models share a lot of code.

If the author had actually seen how crap the climate models look, maybe he'll realize the argument is actually backwards and climate models are bad.

I've tried code reviewing some of these models just to get an idea of how reliable they are. My mind was blown by the extremely poor quality of the code combined with literally no redundancy between different models in some parts. If some code written in 1990 just made a slight mistake, nearly all climate models would have the same bias.

And I did find some distributing surface level inaccuracies, such as constants being taken from very old inaccurate measurements in the 1980s physics books (at least according to the comment), some constants being very low precision compared to the accuracy required (some constants with only 2 decimals of precision), and some things that aren't constant at all and should depend on temperature/pressure/CO2 levels/height.

And these are important in a system that actually spends huge efforts to model factors with much weaker impact.

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton