You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

ChristianKl comments on In praise of gullibility? - Less Wrong Discussion

23 Post author: ahbwramc 18 June 2015 04:52AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (106)

Comments (106)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ChristianKl 18 June 2015 01:19:51PM 2 points [-]

You don't just make a computer simulation in 1980 or so that would predict oceans boiling away by 2000 and when it fails to happen just tweak it and say this second time now you surely got it right.

The way climate science is done is much more complex than that, and nobody did predict boiling oceans.

Comment author: [deleted] 18 June 2015 01:48:06PM -1 points [-]

I mean, I have read blog posts people acquiring and trying the source code and it was the result they got. Of course such results were not published.

Comment author: Lumifer 18 June 2015 04:02:03PM 3 points [-]

I have read blog posts people acquiring and trying the source code and it was the result they got

The source code is of a model. The model has many parameters to tune it (that's an issue, but a separate one) -- you probably can tune it to boil the oceans by 2000, but nothing requires you to be that stupid :-/

Comment author: gjm 18 June 2015 02:20:46PM 2 points [-]

These people took NASA's GISTEMP code and translated it into Python, cleaning it up and clarifying it as they went. They didn't get boiling oceans. (They did find some minor bugs. These didn't make much difference to the results.)

Can you tell us more about the people who said they tried to use climate scientists' code and got predictions of boiling oceans? Is it at all possible that they had some motivation to get bad results out of the code?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit