Underdetermination, model-ensembles and surprises: On the epistemology of scenario-analysis in climatology [Book Review]
Journal for General Philosophy of Science 40 (1):3 - 21 (2009)
|Abstract||As climate policy decisions are decisions under uncertainty, being based on a range of future climate change scenarios, it becomes a crucial question how to set up this scenario range. Failing to comply with the precautionary principle, the scenario methodology widely used in the Third Assessment Report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seems to violate international environmental law, in particular a provision of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. To place climate policy advice on a sound methodological basis would imply that climate simulations which are based on complex climate models had, in stark contrast to their current hegemony, hardly an epistemic role to play in climate scenario analysis at all. Their main function might actually consist in ‘foreseeing future ozone-holes’. In order to argue for these theses, I explain first of all the plurality of climate models used in climate science by the failure to avoid the problem of underdetermination. As a consequence, climate simulation results have to be interpreted as modal sentences, stating what is possibly true of our climate system. This indicates that climate policy decisions are decisions under uncertainty. Two general methodological principles which may guide the construction of the scenario range are formulated and contrasted with each other: modal inductivism and modal falsificationism. I argue that modal inductivism, being the methodology implicitly underlying the third IPCC report, is severely flawed. Modal falsificationism, representing the sound alternative, would in turn require an overhaul of the IPCC practice.|
|Keywords||Prediction Scenario Climatology Underdetermination Simulation Model|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
James C. Wimbush & Jon M. Shepard (1994). Toward an Understanding of Ethical Climate: Its Relationship to Ethical Behavior and Supervisory Influence. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 13 (8):637 - 647.
Stephen M. Gardiner, Simon Caney, Dale Jamieson & Henry Shue (2010). Climate Ethics: Essential Readings. OUP USA.
Wendy S. Parker (2009). Confirmation and Adequacy-for-Purpose in Climate Modelling. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 83 (1):233-249.
Deborah Vidaver-Cohen (1998). Moral Climate in Business Firms: A Conceptual Framework for Analysis and Change. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 17 (11):1211-1226.
S. Niggol Seo, Agricultural Systems in South America Under Climate Change: A Microeconometric Analysis.
Rosemary Lyster, Chasing Down the Climate Change Footprint of the Public and Private Sectors: Forces Converge - Part I.
Sarina Keller (2010). Scientization: Putting Global Climate Change on the Scientific Agenda and the Role of the IPCC. [REVIEW] Poiesis and Praxis 7 (3):197-209.
W. S. Parker (2006). Understanding Pluralism in Climate Modeling. Foundations of Science 11 (4):349-368.
Added to index2009-08-24
Total downloads32 ( #43,378 of 722,745 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,873 of 722,745 )
How can I increase my downloads?