Periodic Reporting for period 1 - CMCSU (Climate Models and Climate Scientific Understanding)
Reporting period: 2022-11-01 to 2024-10-31
Climate change is one of the defining problems of our time. As stated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) of Working Group 1 (WG1), “It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land,” and these anthropogenic-induced changes are “already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe.” Successfully addressing this problem necessitates an unprecedented level of scientific, public, and policy engagement and collaboration.
There are reasons to believe that the success of the efforts to deal with the climate change problem hinges on a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon of climate change by all involved. As it is emphasized, for instance, in the IPCC’s AR6 “Responses to climate change are facilitated when leaders, policymakers, resource managers, and their constituencies share a basic understanding of the causes, effects, and possible future course of climate change.” Therefore, a crucial question for everyone interested in this topic is: what does it take for all parties with a vested interest or role in the climate change dialogue to achieve an understanding of climate change? Particularly, why is it important for scientists to understand, rather than merely know, how Earth’s climate system works?
This last question was the main problem that the CMCSU project was concerned with. The aim of the project was to develop an account of climate scientific understanding, i.e. of the way in which understanding of Earth’s climate system is pursued and achieved in climate science. The project was structured around three main objectives:
- Objective 1 focuses on arguing that there is more to understanding in climate science than what is provided by highly idealized and simplified conceptual climate models.
- Objective 2 involves analysing climate models to determine their explanatory power and whether they can contribute to understanding the climate system in non-explanatory ways.
- Objective 3 aims to develop a comprehensive account of climate scientific understanding and the means by which it can be achieved, thereby enhancing the practice of climate science.
There are reasons to believe that the success of the efforts to deal with the climate change problem hinges on a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon of climate change by all involved. As it is emphasized, for instance, in the IPCC’s AR6 “Responses to climate change are facilitated when leaders, policymakers, resource managers, and their constituencies share a basic understanding of the causes, effects, and possible future course of climate change.” Therefore, a crucial question for everyone interested in this topic is: what does it take for all parties with a vested interest or role in the climate change dialogue to achieve an understanding of climate change? Particularly, why is it important for scientists to understand, rather than merely know, how Earth’s climate system works?
This last question was the main problem that the CMCSU project was concerned with. The aim of the project was to develop an account of climate scientific understanding, i.e. of the way in which understanding of Earth’s climate system is pursued and achieved in climate science. The project was structured around three main objectives:
- Objective 1 focuses on arguing that there is more to understanding in climate science than what is provided by highly idealized and simplified conceptual climate models.
- Objective 2 involves analysing climate models to determine their explanatory power and whether they can contribute to understanding the climate system in non-explanatory ways.
- Objective 3 aims to develop a comprehensive account of climate scientific understanding and the means by which it can be achieved, thereby enhancing the practice of climate science.
The research performed as part of this project was structured in three work packages each tackling one of the objectives of the project.
Work Package 1 aimed to challenge the reliance on idealized climate models for understanding by analysing the conceptual adequacy of the term "understanding" as employed in climate science. A significant portion of this work package was dedicated to studying the IPCC’s assessment reports, which were identified as the best place to look for insights into what climate scientists are saying about understanding in climate science – including its importance, how it can be achieved, and the tools required for achieving it. This research led to a detailed analysis of the IPCC’s distinctive assessment practices, identifying key historical and methodological factors that shaped its approach and situating these findings within the broader discourse on boundary organizations in climate science. Additionally, the work package explored the broader implications of relying on simplified models for public understanding of climate change. It highlighted the limitations of such models and emphasized that understanding climate change is a highly demanding cognitive state. This understanding can be achieved to varying degrees and requires different approaches depending on how we define 'climate' and 'climate change.'
Work Package 2 explored the epistemic role of climate models, specifically their explanatory power and non-explanatory contributions to understanding. This involved exploring the challenges that climate models face in serving as explanatory tools, particularly given their reliance on idealizations and their frequent deviation from the veridicality condition required by standard accounts of explanation. The research resulted in a novel account about the way in which we use models to learn about the target systems. In this account, models are understood not as representations of the target system but as different ways of organising or structuring the knowledge available to us at a specific moment in time with the purpose of extracting from it implications that are useful in light of particular contextual epistemic goals pertaining to a target system. Furthermore, the work package explored the concept of the power of knowledge, particularly in the context of climate change. One result was that while knowledge can empower individuals by expanding their perspective on possible actions, it can also lead to feelings of powerlessness if the set of feasible and contextually relevant actions that is accessible to them based on their knowledge does not grow proportionally with increased knowledge. This analysis provided a deeper understanding of how (scientific) knowledge can shape our epistemic and practical engagement with complex systems.
Work Package 3 focused on developing an account of climate scientific understanding. The research began by exploring why we consider that, in general, observation and documentation of phenomena are insufficient and, so, what drives our need for understanding. This led to the formulation of a new account of understanding according to which our cognitive system is equipped with a mechanism that manages the process of forming doxastic attitudes towards new information. When this mechanism detects incompatibilities or disconnections between our beliefs and new information, it triggers our need for understanding. This need is satisfied when we restore harmony between our mind and the world by integrating recalcitrant information into our background beliefs, a process termed "fitting into." This account reassesses the role of grasping in understanding and provides a unifying framework for understanding the epistemic resources important for climate science. Additionally, the work package delved into the topic of hierarchies and their importance in climate science, particularly it explored the multitude of roles hierarchically organized models are taken by the (climate) scientists to have in the context of the scientific study of complex systems like the climate. In future research, the results of the analysis into the roles of model hierarchies in climate science will be combined with the insights from the new account of understanding as "fitting into" in order to develop a comprehensive account of climate scientific understanding.
In sum, the CMCSU project significantly advanced the philosophical understanding of climate science, providing critical insights into the role of models and contributing to broader discussions on the science-policy interface.
Work Package 1 aimed to challenge the reliance on idealized climate models for understanding by analysing the conceptual adequacy of the term "understanding" as employed in climate science. A significant portion of this work package was dedicated to studying the IPCC’s assessment reports, which were identified as the best place to look for insights into what climate scientists are saying about understanding in climate science – including its importance, how it can be achieved, and the tools required for achieving it. This research led to a detailed analysis of the IPCC’s distinctive assessment practices, identifying key historical and methodological factors that shaped its approach and situating these findings within the broader discourse on boundary organizations in climate science. Additionally, the work package explored the broader implications of relying on simplified models for public understanding of climate change. It highlighted the limitations of such models and emphasized that understanding climate change is a highly demanding cognitive state. This understanding can be achieved to varying degrees and requires different approaches depending on how we define 'climate' and 'climate change.'
Work Package 2 explored the epistemic role of climate models, specifically their explanatory power and non-explanatory contributions to understanding. This involved exploring the challenges that climate models face in serving as explanatory tools, particularly given their reliance on idealizations and their frequent deviation from the veridicality condition required by standard accounts of explanation. The research resulted in a novel account about the way in which we use models to learn about the target systems. In this account, models are understood not as representations of the target system but as different ways of organising or structuring the knowledge available to us at a specific moment in time with the purpose of extracting from it implications that are useful in light of particular contextual epistemic goals pertaining to a target system. Furthermore, the work package explored the concept of the power of knowledge, particularly in the context of climate change. One result was that while knowledge can empower individuals by expanding their perspective on possible actions, it can also lead to feelings of powerlessness if the set of feasible and contextually relevant actions that is accessible to them based on their knowledge does not grow proportionally with increased knowledge. This analysis provided a deeper understanding of how (scientific) knowledge can shape our epistemic and practical engagement with complex systems.
Work Package 3 focused on developing an account of climate scientific understanding. The research began by exploring why we consider that, in general, observation and documentation of phenomena are insufficient and, so, what drives our need for understanding. This led to the formulation of a new account of understanding according to which our cognitive system is equipped with a mechanism that manages the process of forming doxastic attitudes towards new information. When this mechanism detects incompatibilities or disconnections between our beliefs and new information, it triggers our need for understanding. This need is satisfied when we restore harmony between our mind and the world by integrating recalcitrant information into our background beliefs, a process termed "fitting into." This account reassesses the role of grasping in understanding and provides a unifying framework for understanding the epistemic resources important for climate science. Additionally, the work package delved into the topic of hierarchies and their importance in climate science, particularly it explored the multitude of roles hierarchically organized models are taken by the (climate) scientists to have in the context of the scientific study of complex systems like the climate. In future research, the results of the analysis into the roles of model hierarchies in climate science will be combined with the insights from the new account of understanding as "fitting into" in order to develop a comprehensive account of climate scientific understanding.
In sum, the CMCSU project significantly advanced the philosophical understanding of climate science, providing critical insights into the role of models and contributing to broader discussions on the science-policy interface.
The CMCSU project contributed to advancing key areas in both the philosophy of science and the interdisciplinary study of climate science. Central to its achievements was the development of a novel account of scientific understanding, which introduces a more nuanced view of the cognitive process behind understanding in climate science. The project's scientific impact is multi-faceted: a key contribution was the introduction of the concept of "fitting into" as the cognitive achievement that distinguishes understanding from other epistemic states. This shifts away from mainstream views focused on "grasping", offering a more complex, process-oriented view of understanding. The project also redefined the role of scientific models, viewing them as tools for organizing and improving knowledge. This perspective contrasts with representationalist models of learning from models, which often fail to capture the complex processes of knowledge improvement in climate science. Additionally, the project introduced a framework for understanding the probabilistic empowerment of knowledge, explaining its sometimes disempowering effect in complex areas like climate change. By exploring the science-policy interface and the role of boundary organizations like the IPCC, the project provided valuable insights for enhancing policy decisions and public engagement. These contributions align with the European Green Deal's goals, supporting informed decision-making and interdisciplinary collaboration to address climate change.