Marina Baldissera Pacchetti

The continued development of General Circulation Models (GCMs) towards increasing resolution and complexity is a predominantly chosen strategy to advance climate science, resulting in channelling of research and funding to meet this aspiration. Yet many other modelling strategies have also been developed and can be used to understand past and present climates, to project future climates and ultimately to support decision-making. We argue that a plurality of climate modelling strategies and an equitable distribution of funding among them would be an improvement on the current predominant strategy for informing policy making. To support our claim, we use a philosophy of science approach to compare increasing resolution and complexity of General Circulation Models with three alternate examples: the use of machine learning techniques, the physical climate storyline approach, and Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexity. We show that each of these strategies prioritises a particular set of methodological aims, among which are empirical agreement, realism, comprehensiveness, diversity of process representations, inclusion of the human dimension, reduction of computational expense, and intelligibility. Thus, each strategy may provide adequate information to support different specific kinds of research and decision questions. We conclude that, because climate decision-making consists of different kinds of questions, many modelling strategies are all potentially useful, and can be used in a complementary way.

An important epistemic issue in climate modelling concerns structural uncertainty: uncertainty about whether the mathematical structure of a model accurately represents its target. How does structural uncertainty affect our knowledge and predictions about the climate? How can we identify sources of structural uncertainty? Can we manage the effect of structural uncertainty on our knowledge claims? These are some of the questions that an epistemology of structural uncertainty faces, and these questions are also important for climate scientists and policymakers. I develop three desiderata for an epistemological account of structural uncertainty. In my view, an account of structural uncertainty should identify sources of structural uncertainty, explain how these sources limit the applicability of a model, and show how the severity of structural uncertainty depends on the questions that can be asked of a model. I argue that analyzing structural uncertainty by paying attention to the details of model building can satisfy these desiderata. I focus on parametrizations, which are representations of important processes occurring at scales that are not resolved by climate models. Parametrizations are often thought to be ad-hoc, but I show that some important parametrizations are theoretically justified by explicit or implicit scale separation assumptions. These assumptions can also be supported empirically. Analyzing these theoretical and empirical justificatory roles of the scale separation assumptions can provide insights into how parametrizations contribute to structural uncertainty. I conclude by sketching how my approach can satisfy the desiderata I set out at the beginning, highlighting its importance for policy-relevant scientific statements about the climate.

Bogen and Woodward’s distinction between data and phenomena raises the need to understand the structure of the data-to-phenomena and theory-to-phenomena inferences. I suggest that one way to study the structure of these inferences is to analyze the role of the assumptions involved in the inferences: What kind of assumptions are they? How do these assumptions contribute to the practice of identifying phenomena? In this paper, using examples from atmospheric dynamics, I develop an account of the practice of identifying the target in the data-to-phenomena and theory-to-phenomena inferences in which assumptions about spatiotemporal scales play a central role in the identification of parameters that describe the target system. I also argue that these assumptions are not only empirical but they are also idealizing and abstracting. I conclude the paper with a reflection on the role of idealizations in modeling.