Ryan O'Loughlin

We propose a set of heuristics—scientific rigor, safety, usefulness, engagement, and transparency—for assessing the pursuitworthiness of small-scale field experiments in solar geoengineering research. Rather than offering a fixed logic of pursuit, we emphasize that these heuristics should operate as part of a dynamic and iterative evaluative process within the solar geoengineering research community, responsive to changing modeling priorities, new data, and shifting ethical and political landscapes. We argue that such experiments must be understood within the broader context of climate modeling research, where their primary role is to improve model components and identify further uncertainties. Our analysis assumes, rather than argues for, the pursuitworthiness of solar geoengineering research as a whole. However, we conclude this work by revisiting the overarching question of whether solar geoengineering research itself is worth pursuing; we argue that accounts that focus on how research governance can reduce bias and build stable scientific norms offer a more promising route than appeals to urgency or “moonshot” missions. Overall, we provide a structured framework, situated within scientific practice, that can help determine which field experiments are worth undertaking and why.

I examine error diagnosis (model-model disagreement) in climate model intercomparisons including its difficulties, fruitful examples, and prospects for streamlining error diagnosis. I suggest that features of climate model intercomparisons pose a more significant challenge for error diagnosis than do features of individual model construction and complexity. Such features of intercomparisons include, e.g., the number of models involved, how models from different institutions interrelate, and what scientists know about each model. By considering numerous examples in the climate modeling literature, I distill general strategies (e.g., employing physical reasoning and using dimension reduction techniques) used to diagnose model error. Based on these examples, I argue that an error repertoire could be beneficial for improving error diagnosis in climate modeling, although constructing one faces several difficulties. Finally, I suggest that the practice of error diagnosis demonstrates that scientists have a tacit-yet-working understanding of their models which has been under-appreciated by some philosophers.

Lisciandra poses a challenge for robustness analysis as applied to economic models. She argues that substituting tractability assumptions risks altering the main mathematical structure of the model, thereby preventing the possibility of meaningfully evaluating the same model under different assumptions. In such cases RA is argued to be inapplicable. However, Lisciandra is mistaken to take the goal of RA as keeping the mathematical properties of tractability assumptions intact. Instead, RA really aims to keep the modeling component while varying the corresponding mathematical formulation. Thus, her argument concerning whether the associated mathematical properties of certain assumptions can be kept intact is irrelevant to the success of RA. Furthermore, we explicate and develop Lloyd’s account of “model robustness” to provide solutions to Lisciandra’s challenges. Our solutions are, namely, error analysis and independent empirical support. We conclude that although complex economic models do face potential dangers, there are solutions and robustness analysis need not be given up..

Based on the disproportionate amount of attention paid by climate scientists to the supposed global warming hiatus, it has recently been argued that contrarian discourse has “seeped into” climate science. While I agree that seepage has occurred, its effects remain unclear. This lack of clarity may give the impression that climate science has been compromised in a way that it hasn't—such a conclusion should be defended against. To do this I argue that the effects of seepage should be analyzed in terms of objectivity. I use seven meanings of objectivity to analyze contrarian discourse's impact on climate science. The resulting account supports the important point that climate science has not been compromised in a way that invalidates the conclusions its scientists have drawn, despite the reality of seepage having occurred.