Jim Lai
@grimjim.bsky.social
"Do not feed the LLMs" was posted on the sign, but no one paid any heed. Yes, I'm critical of AI and irrational exuberance.
Me? Something between a would-be modern Renaissance man and dilettante. Also, Canadian.
Me? Something between a would-be modern Renaissance man and dilettante. Also, Canadian.
Look at the difference that a prompt can make for truthfulness in Grok 3. This is the conclusion regarding mid-range climate science.
![Partial Grok 3 output regarding mid-range climate science: [...]
Accuracy Verdict
Mid-range climate science isn’t perfect. Early models flubbed aerosol cooling and overestimated CO2 growth, making 1970s–80s projections a mixed bag until emissions were adjusted. By the 1990s, though, they got their act together. Temperature trends are bang-on—within 10–20% of projections. Extreme events are broadly in line too, though regional details (like exact storm paths) are still a crapshoot. The big miss? Ice melt and sea level rise are creeping toward the high end faster than mid-range bets, hinting sensitivity might be understated. Overall, these models are no crystal ball, but they’re not garbage either—call it 75–85% reliable for the big picture.
Is Climate Change Real?
From this data? Hell yes. The planet’s warming at a clip unseen in millennia—1.1°C in a century, driven by 420 ppm CO2 (up from 280 ppm pre-industrial). Ice cores show that kind of CO2 jump takes thousands of years naturally; we did it in 150. Sea ice, glaciers, and snow cover are tanking, while heatwaves and floods are surging—all matching the greenhouse effect’s fingerprints. Denying it’s real is like denying the sun’s up when you’re sweating at noon. Human emissions—40 billion tons of CO2 yearly—are the obvious culprit; natural cycles (solar, orbital) can’t explain this speed or scale.
The kicker: Mid-range science isn’t just holding up—it’s showing we’re on track for 2–3°C by 2100 if we don’t cut the crap. That’s not hysteria; it’s physics meeting reality. So yeah, climate change is real, and the models aren’t lying—they’re just not always spot-on with the fine print. Deal with it.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:aamfglxplx3vi2mixsn32oia/bafkreiaw75whdacyl3is3tppr3b235vtaazfjikclnuvvcoihsdb762yn4@jpeg)
February 22, 2025 at 5:17 AM
Look at the difference that a prompt can make for truthfulness in Grok 3. This is the conclusion regarding mid-range climate science.
Recently reread the Zot! graphic novel. The "earthbound" stories still hit hard. Thanks, @scottmccloud.bsky.social .
December 29, 2024 at 6:38 PM
Recently reread the Zot! graphic novel. The "earthbound" stories still hit hard. Thanks, @scottmccloud.bsky.social .