4 ms·
But we don't know how those 17 were chosen in the first place. There would be survivorship bias if models which match observations get more attention. With tha
by Akababa 7y ago
But we don't know how those 17 were chosen in the first place. There would be survivorship bias if models which match observations get more attention.
With that being said, I doubt that survivorship bias is strong enough to explain their combined result of 10/17 models being significant.
- jointpdf 7y agoSince one of authors posted the paper, we do know: > “We conducted a literature search to identify papers published prior to the early-1990s that include climate model outputs containing both a time-series of projected future GMST (with a minimum of two points in time) and future forcings (including both a publication date and future projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations, at a minimum). Eleven papers with fourteen distinct projections were identified that fit these criteria.
- mistermann 7y ago> Eleven papers with fourteen distinct projections were identified that fit these criteria. This brings to mind the old joke: "I used to smoke weed. I still do, but I used to, too." Specifically, the phrase "were identified that fit these criteria" sets off my skepticism spider senses. Kind of like the popular "97% of scientists..." meme, that doesn't quite hold water when you dig under the covers. To be clear, I'm not saying deceit is taking place, I am simply saying that I am skeptical. I wasn't able to find any details on the specifics of the literature search, such that the search could be reproduced. Any idea if that was included in the study and I somehow overlooked it?