The premise of the article is that Fortran, 70 years later is still an appropriate tool to use for crunching numbers which it absolutely is but it neglects one major problem.
Like the COBOL issue that was all the rage 20 years ago, it is difficult to hire younger generation programmers that want to and are excited to develop in Fortran.
> ...it is difficult to hire younger generation programmers that want to and are excited to develop in Fortran.
How much are you paying? Most often times I see this kind of reasoning, digging deeper shows that the salaries are not competitive. There's a large number of us that just want to work on interesting problems for adequate money and don't care what the toolset is. I'm fully on board with the idea of being paid to write Fortran.
Also, COBOL's problem isn't so much that younger generations aren't excited about it, but that the problems in the domain solved by COBOL all require highly specialized domain knowledge about an obtuse set of systems said code runs on (with most of their documentation paywalled, at least until recently). The barriers to entry are much, much higher and few companies are willing to train at the rates the language demands.
There are some other (i.e, “embarrassingly parallel”) scientific computing problems where a higher-latency distributed setup would be fine, but in climate models, as in any finite-element model, each grid cell needs to be able to “talk to” its neighbors at each timestep, leading to quite a lot of inter-process communication.
[1] www.simpack.com