Repository URL:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/11833
Author(s):
Charlotte Werndl
Most Recent Tweet View All Tweets
preprint description
Many examples of calibration in climate science raise no alarms regarding model reliability. We examine one example and show that, in employing Classical Hypothesis-testing, it involves calibrating a base model against data that is also used to confirm the model. This is counter to the "intuitive position" (in favour of use-novelty and against double-counting). We argue, however, that aspects of the intuitive position are upheld by some methods, in particular, the general Cross-validation method. How Cross-validation relates to other prominent Classical methods such as the Akaike Information Criterion and Bayesian Information Criterion is also discussed.

This preprint has 0 Wikipedia mention.