I doubt any professional statistician would be much interested in how you've made your proposal, especially as there is no physical basis whatsoever being proposed which could be the basis of a test of
prediction against data.
Not exact matches
He said that if he had to rely on the European Space Agency's limited, difficult - to - access
data for his work checking climate model
predictions against reality, he'd be «more or less blind» — particularly in the vast, uninhabited stretches of the globe like the Pacific, which are vital for understanding the world climate.
Model simulations can always be improved by testing
predictions against field
data collected from different ecosystems, and Sulman and Phillips are doing just that: investigating how roots influence soil decomposition and protected forms of carbon in forests that vary in the composition of tree and microbial communities.
The strength of this technique is that the model is continuously fine - tuned — it compares its
predictions against the real - world
data and self - corrects in near - real time.
How do theoretical
predictions of individual fiscal behaviors match up
against real - world, real - time
data?
By verified, I mean that for a 50 year
prediction, you move the start and end dates back in time at 10 or 20 year intervals until you run out of good
data to compare
against.
Success at
prediction is enhanced by maximizing the number of different hypotheses (models) you can generate and test
against numerical
data and other available information.
That is, I think that you want to exempt your model from testing
against future
data (by declining to call your model values «
predictions» etc), while at the same time claiming that the model values for the future are exceedingly important because that's what the future will be like if CO2 increases continue.
There's an interesting post over at your hero's Anthony W.'s site concerning Hansen's 1988
predictions, with an analysis of how well they're stacking up
against real world
data.
Likewise, shouldn't someone have been in a position to assess the state of climate models and justify if these were ready to be used to make a
prediction, rather than simply be tested
against past
data?
We both agree that this is a
prediction that can be tested
against data.
Once people see the record of the past as an estimate or more precisely as a
PREDICTION of what should have been recorded, then the next step is clear: create your estimates (predictions) with a reduced dataset, and then test your prediction against held
PREDICTION of what should have been recorded, then the next step is clear: create your estimates (
predictions) with a reduced dataset, and then test your
prediction against held
prediction against held out
data.
There are models that give large CO2 effects, models that give moderate CO2 effects, and models that give large CO2 effects as outputs; but there are no models that have made confirmed accurate
predictions against out of sample
data.
In the case of complicated models of Earth's atmosphere and oceans, it is true that it is not simple to do controlled experiments, so we must substitute model
predictions against reality to judge the model (and by «
prediction» I mean what happens in the future, not a
data - snooped hind - cast).
Climatology is more like astrophysics, where observational
data is matched
against predictions from theory.
Would you test this
prediction against a piece of observational
data from 10 - 17 April?
«Policy carrying potential costs in the trillions of dollars ought not to be based on stories and photos confirming faith in models, but rather on precise and replicable testing of the models»
predictions against solid observational
data.»
We evaluated 13 rice models
against multi-year experimental yield
data at four sites with diverse climatic conditions in Asia and examined whether different modelling approaches on major physiological processes attribute to the uncertainties of
prediction to field measured yields and to the uncertainties of sensitivity to changes in temperature and CO2 concentration -LRB-[CO2]-RRB-.