Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:51:58.638Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Confirmation and Robustness of Climate Models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Elisabeth A. Lloyd
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent philosophical attention to climate models has highlighted their weaknesses and uncertainties. Here I address the ways that models gain support through observational data. I review examples of model fit, variety of evidence, and independent support for aspects of the models, contrasting my analysis with that of other philosophers. I also investigate model robustness, which often emerges when comparing climate models simulating the same time period or set of conditions. Starting from Michael Weisberg's analysis of robustness, I conclude that his approach involves a version of reasoning from variety of evidence, enabling this robustness to be a confirmatory virtue

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 77 , Issue 5 , December 2010 , pp. 971 - 984
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

I would like to thank climate researchers Caspar Ammann, William Collins, Jeffrey Kiehl, Doug Nychka, Kevin Trenberth, Tom Wigley, and especially Linda Mearns, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, as well as Richard Somerville, of the Scripps Institute, for their assistance regarding climate models; all mistakes are of course my own. I also thank Kathryn Carter, Stephen Crowley, Brenden Fitelson, Mark Kaplan, Wendy Parker, Michael Weisberg, Sean Valles, and Eric Winsberg for their helpful comments.

References

Earman, John. 1992. Bayes or Bust? A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, Paul N. 1999. “Global Climate Science, Uncertainty and Politics: Data-Laden Models, Model-Filtered Data.” Science as Culture 8 (4): 437–72.10.1080/09505439909526558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Paul N.. 2001. “Representing the Global Atmosphere: Computer Models, Data and Knowledge about Climate Change.” In Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environmental Governance, ed. Miller, Clark A. and Edwards, Paul N., 31–65. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fitelson, Branden. 2001. “A Bayesian Account of Independent Evidence with Applications.” Philosophy of Science 68 (Proceedings): S123–S140.10.1086/392903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, Ronald N. 1988. Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226292038.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, Ronald N.. 2004. “How Models Are Used to Represent Reality.” Philosophy of Science 71:742–52.10.1086/425063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, Ronald N.. 2010. “An Agent-Based Conception of Models and Scientific Representation.” Synthese 172 (2): 269–81.10.1007/s11229-009-9506-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegerl, Gabriele C., Zwiers, Francis W., et al. 2007. “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change.” In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis; Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. Solomon, Susan, Qin, Dahe, Manning, Martin, et al., 663–745. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kiehl, Jeffrey T. 2007. “Twentieth Century Climate Model Response and Climate Sensitivity.” Geophysical Research Letters 34:L22710.10.1029/2007GL031383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, Steven J., and Boer, George J.. 2001. “CMIP1 Evaluation and Intercomparison of Coupled Climate Models.” Climate Dynamics 17:83–106.10.1007/PL00013736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, Elisabeth A. 2009. “Varieties of Support and Confirmation of Climate Models.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 83 (Suppl.): 217–36.Google Scholar
Meehl, Gerald A., Washington, Warren M., Ammann, Caspar M., Arblaster, Julie M., Wigley, T. M. L., and Tebaldi, Claudia. 2004. “Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate.” Journal of Climate 17:3721–27.10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017<3721:CONAAF>2.0.CO;22.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muldoon, Ryan. 2007. “Robust Simulations.” Philosophy of Science 74:873–83.10.1086/525629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, Wendy. 2009. “Confirmation and Adequacy-for-Purpose in Climate Modeling.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 83 (Suppl.): 233–49.Google Scholar
Petersen, Arthur C. 2006. Simulating Nature: A Philosophical Study of Computer-Simulation Uncertainties and Their Role in Climate Science and Policy Advice. Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.Google Scholar
Ramanathan, Veerabhadran, and Inamdar, Anand. 2006. “The Radiative Forcing due to Clouds and Water Vapor.” In Frontiers of Climate Modeling, ed. Kiehl, Jeffrey T. and Ramanathan, Veerabhadran, 119–51. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Randall, David A., Krueger, Steven, et al. 2003. “Confronting Models with Data: The GEWEX Cloud Systems Study.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 84:455–69.10.1175/BAMS-84-4-455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randall, David A., Wood, Richard A., et al. 2007. “Climate Models and Their Evaluation.” In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis; Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. Solomon, Susan, Qin, Dahe, Manning, Martin, et al., 589–662. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Santer, Ben D., Wehner, Michael F., et al. 2003. “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes.” Science 310 (5632): 479–83.Google Scholar
Shackley, Simon. 2001. “Epistemic Lifestyles in Climate Change Modeling.” In Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environmental Governance, ed. Miller, Clark A. and Edwards, Paul N., 107–33. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Staley, Kent W. 2004. “Robust Evidence and Secure Evidence Claims.” Philosophy of Science 71:467–88.10.1086/423748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Fraassen, Bas C. 2008. Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective. Oxford: Clarendon.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278220.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Washington, Warren M., and Parkinson, Claire L.. 2005. Introduction to Three-Dimensional Climate Modeling. New York: University Science.Google Scholar
Weisberg, Michael. 2006. “Robustness Analysis.” Philosophy of Science 73:730–42.10.1086/518628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, Michael, and Reisman, Kenneth. 2008. “The Robust Volterra Principle.” Philosophy of Science 75 (1): 106–31.10.1086/588395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, Jim. 2006. “Some Varieties of Robustness.” Journal of Economic Methodology 13 (2): 219–40.10.1080/13501780600733376CrossRefGoogle Scholar