Lloyd (2009) contends that climate models are confirmed by various instances of fit between their output and observational data. The present paper argues that what these instances of fit might confirm are not climate models themselves, but rather hypotheses about the adequacy of climate models for particular purposes. This required shift in thinking—from confirming climate models to confirming their adequacy-for-purpose—may sound trivial, but it is shown to complicate the evaluation of climate models considerably, both in principle and in practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wendy S. Parker (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: