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.
