It seems that all of the emails with their various ethical violations should pale at the thought of the bedrock of their research the climate model may be a big mess from a programming standpoint.
The emails seem to describe a model which frequently breaks, and being constantly "tweaked" with manual interventions of dubious quality in order to make them fit the historical data. These stories suggest that the model, and the past manual interventions, are so poorly documented that CRU cannot now replicate its own past findings.
That is a big problem. The IPCC report, which is the most widely relied upon in policy circles, uses this model to estimate the costs of global warming. If those costs are unreliable, then any cost-benefit analysis is totally worthless.
About all you can do is scrap the entire model and built it again from scratch. In other words this model in which all this policy and trillion dollar changes needs to go back to base code. Then we need new scientists and programmers to put the thing together. If it predicts global warming then spend the trillions and fix the problems. Any other decisions based on this stuff is worthless until the bedrock code is cleaned up.
No comments:
Post a Comment