Weather and Climate change

[Dill]

(08-07-2019, 07:51 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: So again the TL;DR version is that the foundation of climate alarmism is based not on science, but data mining.  Such models do provide ideas for further research, but are garbage for forecasting and policy choices.

Here's an article from Curry talking about the "scientific method/process" behind the models.  Again, 100% spot on.  Two of the tenets of good science, aside from a validated model, is that your methods and assumptions are documented and the work is reproducible (which obviously fails without the first, and when models are treated like proprietary trading models).
https://judithcurry.com/2010/10/10/the-culture-of-building-confidence-in-climate-models/

Here's a bit more on model fitting and validation just to prove I'm not pulling this out of my ass.
https://people.duke.edu/~rnau/three.htm
https://dziganto.github.io/cross-validation/data%20science/machine%20learning/model%20tuning/python/Model-Tuning-with-Validation-and-Cross-Validation/
LOL- "We learned that training a model on all the available data and then testing on that very same data is an awful way to build models" (a.k.a more derisively referred to as junk science).

And a link (it will download a pdf) to the IPCC chapter on model "evaluation" (there they go again choosing a similar sounding word but directly avoiding "validation").  Seems mainly devoted to providing a false sense of confidence in the models.  That many things are tightly constrained still leaves plenty of giant assumptions and freedom fit a model.  Actually an interesting read, and I think there's a pretty obvious disconnect between how and what is reported in the media and the range of uncertainty outlined here.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

Strictly speaking, your link to Curry is a blog article, not the kind of journal article or "study" which Breech has been requesting, without success. 

Further, she is no climate denier or even skeptic. Quite the contrary, she has been in the forefront of climate scientists arguing, at once, for the integrity of scientific principles and AGAINST extraction-funded disinformation, which would portray climate science as "junk science." For example, this article from 2006, which sorts out climate denial in the context of debates over the increasing frequency and intensity of hurricanes http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Curry_BAMS87.pdf. This NYT article includes her message to young graduate students on how to address climate skeptics. https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/a-climate-scientist-on-climate-skeptics/?pagemode=print. There is this on the climate audit site too: https://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/curry-on-the-credibility-of-climate-research/.

Curry's blog is an articulate and interesting discussion of how policy application requires of climate modeling a different kind accountability than mere scientific inquiry would. Her discussion, and the responses below, probably give non-scientists a good indication of how climate science moves forward by critiquing and refining models.  But the only reason I can think why you included it here, not to mention the other two links on model fitting (which have nothing directly to do with climate science) is because you have now hung your hat on V & V as the crux of the entire climate change debate and want to show that it is indeed "a thing."  The direct disconfirmation of actual specific Climate studies you presume--we can still google that, right?

(PS If you did read Curry's blog then it ought to be plain why the IPCC chapter on model evaluation uses the term "evaluation" rather than V & V. "Much of the debate between validation/verification versus evaluation seems to me to be semantic. . . .")