Climate Models, Calibration, and Confirmation.
We argue that concerns about double-counting—using the same evidence both to calibrate or tune climate models and also to confirm or verify that the models are adequate—deserve more careful scrutiny in climate modelling circles. It is widely held that double-counting is bad and that separate data mu...
| Publicado en: | British Journal for the Philosophy of Science Vol. 64; no. 3; pp. 609 - 636 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
University of Chicago Press
Sep2013
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=89617978&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 89617978 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00070882 BPL jtl: British Journal for the Philosophy of Science issn: 00070882 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Sep2013 vid: 64 iid: 3 pid: 415 pub: University of Chicago Press artinfo: ui: 89617978 10.1093/bjps/axs036 ppf: 609 ppct: 27 formats: tig: atl: Climate Models, Calibration, and Confirmation. aug: au: Steele, Katie Werndl, Charlotte affil: Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method London School of Economics and Political Science Houghton Street London WC2A 2AE, UK k.s.steele@lse.ac.uk Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method London School of Economics and Political Science Houghton Street London WC2A 2AE, UK c.s.werndl@lse.ac.uk su: Atmospheric models Calibration Climatology Bayesian analysis Mathematical errors sug: subj: Atmospheric models Calibration Climatology Bayesian analysis Mathematical errors ab: We argue that concerns about double-counting—using the same evidence both to calibrate or tune climate models and also to confirm or verify that the models are adequate—deserve more careful scrutiny in climate modelling circles. It is widely held that double-counting is bad and that separate data must be used for calibration and confirmation. We show that this is far from obviously true, and that climate scientists may be confusing their targets. Our analysis turns on a Bayesian/relative-likelihood approach to incremental confirmation. According to this approach, double-counting is entirely proper. We go on to discuss plausible difficulties with calibrating climate models, and we distinguish more and less ambitious notions of confirmation. Strong claims of confirmation may not, in many cases, be warranted, but it would be a mistake to regard double-counting as the culprit. 1 Introduction2 Remarks about Models and Adequacy-for-Purpose3 Evidence for Calibration Can Also Yield Comparative Confirmation 3.1 Double-counting I 3.2 Double-counting II4 Climate Science Examples: Comparative Confirmation in Practice 4.1 Confirmation due to better and worse best fits 4.2 Confirmation due to more and less plausible forcings values5 Old Evidence6 Doubts about the Relevance of Past Data7 Non-comparative Confirmation and Catch-Alls8 Climate Science Example: Non-comparative Confirmation and Catch-Alls in Practice9 Concluding Remarks pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y dt: @attributes: year: 2013 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|