This is a past event
Abstract: I argue that concerns about double-counting - using the same evidence both to calibrate or tune climate models and also to confirm 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. I show that this is not true, and that climate scientists may be confusing their targets.
My analysis turns on a Bayesian/relative-likelihood approach to incremental confirmation. According to this approach, double-counting is entirely proper. I go on to discuss plausible difficulties with calibrating climate models, and I 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.
- Speaker
- Charlotte Werndl (LSE)
- Venue
- 50-52 College Bounds, CB009