Building confidence in climate model projections: an analysis of inferences from fit

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 2017, Pages

  Baumberger, Christoph ^a   Knutti, Reto ^b   Hirsch Hadorn, Gertrude ^a  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b ETH Zurich   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

TECHNOLOGY;

BACK-GROUND KNOWLEDGE; CLIMATE PROJECTION; CLIMATE RESEARCH; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS; LONG TERM CLIMATE PROJECTIONS; MODEL COMMUNITIES; PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE; POLICY DECISIONS;

CLIMATE MODELS;

CLIMATE MODELING; CLIMATE PREDICTION; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; OBSERVATIONAL METHOD;

EID: 85018214663     PISSN: 17577780     EISSN: 17577799     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/wcc.454     Document Type: Review

References (93)

1. IPCC. Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM, eds. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2013.
2. Flato GM, Marotzke J, Abiodun B, Braconnot P, Chou SC, Collins W, Cox P, Driouech F, Emori S, Eyring V, et al. Evaluation of climate models. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM, eds. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2013.
3. Lloyd EA. Confirmation and robustness of climate models. Philos Sci 2010, 77:971–984. doi:10.1086/657427.
4. Schmidt GA, Sherwood S. A practical philosophy of complex climate modelling. Eur J Philos Sci 2015, 5:149–169. doi:10.1007/s13194-014-0102-9.
5. Huber M, Mahlstein I, Wild M, Fasullo J, Knutti R. Constraints on climate sensitivity from radiation patterns in climate models. J Climate 2011, 24:1034–1052. doi:10.1175/2010JCLI3403.1.
6. Knutti R, Furrer R, Tebaldi C, Cermak J, Meehl GA. Challenges in combining projections from multiple climate models. J Climate 2010, 23:2739–2758. doi:10.1175/2009JCLI3361.1.
7. Knutti R. Should we believe model predictions of future climate change? Philos Trans R Soc A 2008, 366:4647–4664. doi:10.1098/rsta.2008.0169.
8. Knutti R, Abramowitz G, Collins M, Eyring V, Gleckler PJ, Hewitson B, Mearns L. Good practice guidance paper on assessing and combing multi-model climate projections. In: Stocker T, Dahe Q, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Midgley P, eds. Meeting Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Expert Meeting on Assessing and Combining Multi-Model Climate Projections. Contribution of the IPCC Working Group I, Technical Support Unit. Bern, Switzerland: University of Bern; 2010.
9. Parker WS. Confirmation and adequacy-for-purpose in climate modeling. Proc Aristotelian Soc 2009, 83:233–249. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8349.2009.00180.x.
10. Winsberg E. Computer simulations in science. In: Zalta EN, ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford, Summer 2015. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/simulations-science/.
11. Knutti R. Climate model confirmation: from philosophy to predicting climate in the real world. In: Lloyd L, Winsberg E, eds. Philosophical and Conceptual Issues in Climate Modeling. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2016.
12. Frigg R, Thompson E, Werndl C. Philosophy of climate science part 2: modelling climate change. Philos Compass 2015, 10:967–977. doi:10.1111/phc3.12297.
13. Creath R. Logical empiricism. In: Zalta EN, ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford, Spring 2014 Edition. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-empiricism/.
14. Thornton S. Karl Popper. In: Zalta EN, ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford, Winter 2016 Edition. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/popper/.
15. Oreskes N, Shrader-Frechette K, Belitz K. Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences. Science 1994, 263:641–646. doi:10.1126/science.263.5147.641.
16. Müller P. Constructing climate knowledge with computer models. WIREs Clim Change 2010, 1:565–580. doi:10.1002/wcc.60.
17. Cartwright N. Nature's Capacities and their Measurement. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1989.
18. McMullin E. Galilean idealization. Stud Hist Philos Sci 1985, 16:247–273. doi:10.1016/0039-3681(85)90003-2.
19. Frigg R, Hartmann S. Models in science. In: Zalta EN, ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford, Fall 2012 Edition. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/models-science/.
20. Weisberg M. Three kinds of idealization. J Philos 2007, 104:639–659. doi:jphil20071041240.
21. Strevens M. Depth. An Account of Scientific Explanation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2008, chapter 8.
22. Held IM. The gap between simulation and understanding in climate modeling. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 2005, 86:1609–1614. doi:10.1175/BAMS-86-11-1609.
23. Held IM. Simplicity amid complexity. Science 2014, 343:1206–1207. doi:10.1126/science.1248447.
24. Frisch M. Predictivism and old evidence: a critical look at climate model tuning. Eur J Philos Sci 2015, 5:171–190. doi:10.1007/s13194-015-0110-4.
25. Giorgi F, Torma C, Coppola E, Ban N, Schär C, Somot S. Enhanced summer convective rainfall at Alpine high elevations in response to climate warming. Nat Geosci 2016. doi:10.1038/ngeo2761.
26. Giere RN. How models are used to represent reality. Philos Sci 2004, 71:742–752. doi:10.1086/425063.
27. Giere RN. An agent-based conception of models and scientific representation. Synthese 2010, 172:269–281. doi:10.1007/s11229-009-9506-z.
28. Katzav J. The epistemology of climate models and some of its implications for climate science and the philosophy of science. Stud Hist Philos M P 2014, 46:228–238. doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2014.03.001.
29. Meinshausen M, Meinshausen N, Hare W, Raper S, Frieler K, Knutti R, Frame D, Allen M. Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2°C. Nature 2009, 458:1158–1162. doi:10.1038/nature08017.
30. Rogelj J, Meinshausen M, Knutti R. Global warming under old and new scenarios using IPCC climate sensitivity range estimates. Nat Clim Change 2012, 2:248–253. doi:10.1038/nclimate1385.
31. Claussen M, Mysak LA, Weaver AJ, Crucifix M, Fichefet T, Loutre M-F, Weber SL, Alcamo J, Alexeev VA, Berger A, et al. Earth system models of intermediate complexity: closing the gap in the spectrum of climate system models. Clim Dyn 2002, 18:579–586. doi:10.1007/s00382-001-0200-1.
32. Frigg R, Smith LA. The myopia of imperfect climate models: the case of UKCP09. Philos Sci 2013, 80:886–897. doi:10.1086/673892.
33. Frigg R, Smith LA, Stainforth DA. An assessment of the foundational assumptions in high-resolution climate projections: the case of UKCP09. Synthese 2015, 192:3979–4008. doi:10.1007/s11229-015-0739-8.
34. Giere RN. Explaining Science. A Cognitive Approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1988.
35. Weisberg M. Simulation and Similarity. Using Models to Understand the World. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013, chapter 8.
36. Suárez M. An inferential conception of scientific representation. Philos Sci 2004, 71:767–779. doi:10.1086/421415.
37. Flato GM. Earth system models: an overview. WIREs Clim Change 2011, 2:783–800. doi:10.1002/wcc.148.
38. Potochnik A. The diverse aims of science. Stud Hist Philos Sci 2015, 53:71–80. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.05.008.
39. Intemann K. Distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate values in climate modeling. Eur J Philos Sci 2015, 5:217–232. doi:10.1007/s13194-014-0105-6.
40. Winsberg E. Values and uncertainties in the predictions of global climate models. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 2012, 22:111–137. doi:10.1353/ken.2012.0008.
41. Parker WS. Values and uncertainties in climate prediction, revisited. Stud Hist Philos Sci 2014, 46:24–30. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2013.11.003.
42. Gleckler PJ, Taylor KE, Doutriaux C. Performance metrics for climate models. J Geophys Res 2008, 113:D06104. doi:10.1029/2007JD008972.
43. Masson D, Knutti R. Spatial-scale dependence of climate model performance in the CMIP3 ensemble. J Climate 2011, 24:2680–2692. doi:10.1175/2011JCLI3513.1.
44. Schaller NI, Mahlstein I, Cermak J, Knutti R. Analyzing precipitation projections: a comparison of different approaches to climate model evaluation. J Geophys Res 2011, 116:D10118. doi:10.1029/2010JD014963.
45. Frigg R, Thompson E, Werndl C. Philosophy of climate science part 1: observing climate change. Philos Compass 2015, 10:953–964. doi:10.1111/phc3.12294.
46. Parker WS. Computer simulation, measurement, and data assimilation. Br J Philos Sci 2015. doi:10.1093/bjps/axv037.
47. Allen RJ, Sherwood SC. Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds. Nat Geosci 2008, 1:399–403. doi:10.1038/ngeo208.
48. Mears CA, Wentz FJ. The effect of diurnal correction on satellite-derived lower tropospheric temperature. Science 2005, 309:1548–1551. doi:10.1126/science.1114772.
49. Santer BD, Wigley TML, Mears C, Wentz FJ, Klein SA, Seidel DJ, Taylor KE, Thorne PW, Wehner MF, Gleckler PJ, et al. Amplification of surface temperature trends and variability in the tropical atmosphere. Science 2005, 309:1551–1556. doi:10.1126/science.1114867.
50. Sherwood SC, Lanzante JR, Meyer CL. Radiosonde daytime biases and late-20th century warming. Science 2005, 309:1556–1559. doi:10.1126/science.1115640.
51. Lloyd EA. The role of ‘complex’ empiricism in the debates about satellite data and climate models. Stud Hist Philos Sci 2012, 43:390–401. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2012.02.001.
52. Edwards PN. Global climate science, uncertainty and politics. Data laden models, model filtered data. Sci Cult 1999, 8:437–472. doi:10.1080/09505439909526558.
53. Edwards PN. A Vast Machine. Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2010.
54. Knutti R, Masson D, Gettelman A. Climate model genealogy: generation CMIP5 and how we got there. Geophys Res Lett 2013, 40:1194–1199. doi:10.1002/grl.50256.
55. Reichler T, Kim J. How well do coupled models simulate today's climate? Bull Am Meteorol Soc 2008, 89:303–311. doi:10.1175/BAMS-89-3-303.
56. Popper K. The logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge; 2002 [1959].
57. Hume D. In: Selby-Bigge LA, ed. A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1965 [1739].
58. Bellprat O, Kotlarski S, Lüthi D, De Elía R, Frigon A, Laprise R, Schär C. Objective calibration of regional climate models: application over Europe and North America. J Climate 2016, 29:819–838. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0302.1.
59. Hourdin F, Mauritsen T, Gettelman A, Golaz JC, Balaji V, Duan Q, Folini D, Ji D, Klocke D, Qian Y, et al. The art and science of climate model tuning. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 2016. doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00135.1.
60. Mauritsen T, Stevens B, Roeckner E, Crueger T, Esch M, Giorgetta M, Haak H, Jungclaus J, Klocke D, Matei D, et al. Tuning the climate of a global model. J Adv Model Earth Syst 2012, 4. doi:10.1029/2012MS000154.
61. Katzav J, Dijkstra HA, de Laat ATJ. Assessing climate model projections: State of the art and philosophical reflections. Stud Hist Philos M P 2012, 43:258–276. doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2012.07.002.
62. Knutti R. Why are climate models reproducing the observed global surface warming so well? Geophys Res Lett 2008, 35:L18704. doi:10.1029/2008GL034932.
63. Knutti R, Allen MR, Friedlingstein P, Gregory JM, Hegerl GC, Meehl GA, Meinshausen M, Murphy JM, Plattner G-K, Raper SCB, et al. A review of uncertainties in global temperature projections over the twenty-first century. J Climate 2008, 21:2651–2663. doi:10.1175/2007JCLI2119.1.
64. Masson D, Knutti R. Predictor screening, calibration, and observational constraints in climate model ensembles: an illustration using climate sensitivity. J Climate 2013, 26:887–898. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00540.1.
65. Douglas H, Magnus PD. State of the field: why novel prediction matters. Stud Hist Philos Sci 2013, 44:580–589. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2013.04.001.
66. Steele K, Werndl C. Climate models, calibration, and confirmation. Br J Philos Sci 2013, 64:609–635. doi:10.1093/bjps/axs036.
67. Parker WS. When climate models agree: the significance of robust model predictions. Philos Sci 2011, 78:579–600. doi:10.1086/661566.
68. Stainforth DA, Allen MR, Tredger ER, Smith LA. Confidence, uncertainty and decision-support relevance in climate predictions. Philos Trans R Soc A 2007, 365:2145–2161. doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2074.
69. Hargreaves JC. Skill and uncertainty in climate models. WIREs Clim Change 2010, 1:556–564. doi:10.1002/wcc.58.
70. Braconnot P, Harrison SP, Kageyama M, Bartlein PJ, Masson-Delmotte V, Abe-Ouchi A, Otto-Bliesner B, Zhao Y. Evaluation of climate models using palaeoclimatic data. Nat Clim Change 2012, 2:417–424. doi:10.1038/nclimate1456.
71. Hargreaves JC, Annan JD. On the importance of paleoclimate modelling for improving predictions of future climate change. Clim Past 2009, 5:803–814. doi:10.5194/cp-5-803-2009.
72. Hargreaves JC, Annan JD. Can we trust climate models? WIREs Clim Change 2014, 5:435–440. doi:10.1002/wcc.288.
73. Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GA. A summary of the CMIP5 experiment design. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 2012, 93:485–498. doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1.
74. Parker WS. Ensemble modeling, uncertainty and robust predictions. WIREs Clim Change 2013, 4:213–223. doi:10.1002/wcc.220.
75. Tebaldi C, Knutti R. The use of the multi-model ensemble in probabilistic climate projections. Philos Trans R Soc A 2007, 365:2053–2075. doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2076.
76. Sanderson BM, Knutti R. On the interpretation of constrained climate model ensembles. Geophys Res Lett 2012, 39:L16708. doi:10.1029/2012GL052665.
77. Bishop CH, Abramowitz G. Climate model dependence and the replicate earth paradigm. Clim Dyn 2013, 41:885–900. doi:10.1007/s00382-012-1610-y.
78. Jun M, Knutti R, Nychka DW. Local eigenvalue analysis of CMIP3 climate model errors. Tellus A 2008, 60:992–1000. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0870.2008.00356.x.
79. Masson D, Knutti R. Climate model genealogy. Geophys Res Lett 2011, 38:L08703. doi:10.1029/2011gl046864.
80. Hwang YT, Frierson DMW. Link between the double-intertropical convergence zone problem and cloud biases over the Southern ocean. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2013, 110:4935–4940. doi:10.1073/pnas.1213302110.
81. Stainforth DA, Downing TE, Washington R, Lopez A, New M. Issues in the interpretation of climate model ensembles to inform decisions. Philos Trans R Soc A 2007, 365:2163–2177. doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2073.
82. Betz G. Underdetermination, model-ensembles and surprises: on the epistemology of scenario-analysis in climatology. J Gen Philos Sci 2009, 40:3–21. doi:10.1007/s10838-009-9083-3.
83. Betz G. Are climate models credible worlds? Prospects and limitations of possibilistic climate prediction. Eur J Philos Sci 2015, 5:191–215. doi:10.1007/s13194-015-0108-y.
84. Sanderson BM, Knutti R, Caldwell P. Addressing interdependency in a multimodel ensemble by interpolation of model properties. J Climate 2015, 28:5150–5170. doi:10.1175/Jcli-D-14-00361.1.
85. Pirtle Z, Meyer R, Hamilton A. What does it mean when climate models agree? A case for assessing independence among general circulation models. Environ Sci Policy 2010, 13:351–361. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.04.004.
86. Weisberg M. Robustness analysis. Philos Sci 2006, 73:730–742. doi:10.1086/518628.
87. Katzav J. Hybrid models, climate models, and inference to the best explanation. Br J Philos Sci 2013, 64:107–129. doi:10.1093/bjps/axs002.
88. McFarlane N. Parameterizations: representing key processes in climate models without resolving them. WIREs Clim Change 2011, 2:482–497. doi:10.1002/Wcc.122.
89. Humphreys P. Extending Ourselves: Computational Science, Empiricism, and Scientific Method. New York: Oxford University Press; 2004.
90. Humphreys P. The philosophical novelty of computer simulation methods. Synthese 2009, 169:615–626.
91. Lenhard J, Winsberg E. Holism, entrenchment, and the future of climate model pluralism. Stud Hist Philos M P 2010, 41:253–262. doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2010.07.001.
92. Parker WS. Simulation and understanding in the study of weather and climate. Perspect Sci 2014, 22:336–356. doi:10.1162/POSC_a_00137.
93. Caldwell PM, Bretherton CS, Zelinka MD, Klein SA, Santer BD, Sanderson BM. Statistical significance of climate sensitivity predictors obtained by data mining. Geophys Res Lett 2014, 41:1803–1808. doi:10.1002/2014gl059205.