Journal for General Philosophy of Science

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 3–21

Underdetermination, Model-ensembles and Surprises: On the Epistemology of Scenario-analysis in Climatology



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.


Prediction Scenario Climatology Underdetermination Simulation Model 


  1. Albert, M. (2003). Bayesian rationality and decision making: A critical review. Analyse & Kritik, 25, 101–117.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, U. (1986). Risikogesellschaft-Auf dem Weg in die Moderne. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  3. Betz, G. (2006). Prediction or prophecy? The boundaries of economic foreknowledge and their socio-political consequences. Wiesbaden: DUV.Google Scholar
  4. Betz, G. (2007). Probabilities in climate policy advice: A critical comment. Climatic Change, 85(1–2), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carrier, M. (2006). Wissenschaftstheorie zur Einführung. Hamburg: Junius.Google Scholar
  6. Cartwright, N. (1999). The dappled world: A study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Crawford, E. (1997). Arrhenius’ 1896 model of the greenhouse effect in context. Ambio, 26(1), 6–11.Google Scholar
  8. Dessai, S., & Hulme, M. (2003). Does climate policy need probabilities? Working Paper 34. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.Google Scholar
  9. Edwards, P. N. (2001). Representing the global atmosphere: Computer models, data, and knowledge about climate change. In Miller and Edwards (2001), pp. 31–66.Google Scholar
  10. European Environmental Agency. (2001). Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896–2000. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  11. Gardiner, S. M. (2006). A core precautionary principle. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(1), 33–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gillies, D. (2000). Philosophical theories of probability. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Harsanyi, J. C. (1975). Can the maximin principle serve as a basis for morality? A critique of John Rawls’ theory. The American Political Science Review, 69, 594–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Howson, C., & Urbach, P. (1993). Scientific reasoning: The Bayesian approach (Vol. 2). Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  15. Humphreys, P. (2004). Extending ourselves: Computational science, empiricism, and scientific method. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. IPCC. (2001). Climate Change 2001: The scientific basis; contribution of working group I to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. IPCC. (2007). Climate Change 2007: The physical science basis; contribution of working group i to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Knight, F. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  20. Kuhn, T. S. (1977). Objectivity, value judgement, and theory choice. In T. S. Kuhn (Ed.), The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change (pp. 320–329). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Laudan, L. (1991). Empirical equivalence and underdetermination. The Journal of Philosophy, LXXXVIII(9), 449–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lempert, R., Nakicenovic, N., et al. (2004). Characterizing climate-change uncertainties for decision-makers—An editorial essay. Climatic Change, 65(1–2), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lenhard, J. (2007). Computer simulation: The cooperation between experimenting and modeling. Philosophy of Science, 74, 176–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lorius, C., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Hansen, J., & Le Treut, H. (1990). The ice-core record: Climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming. Nature, 347, 139–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mayo, D. (1996). Error and the growth of experimental knowledge. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  26. McGuffie, K., & Henderson-Sellers, A. (2001). Forty years of numerical climate modelling. International Journal of Climatology, 21, 1067–1109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miller, C. A., & Edwards, P. N. (Eds.). (2001). Changing the atmosphere: Expert knowledge and environmental governance. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Morgan, M. G., & Keith, D. W. (1995). Climate-change—Subjective judgments by climate experts. Environmental Science and Technology, 29, A468–A476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morgan, M., & Morrison, M. (Eds.). (1999). Models as mediators. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Norton, S. D., & Suppe, F. (2001). Why atmospheric modeling is good science. In Miller and Edwards (2001), pp. 67–106.Google Scholar
  31. Oreskes, N., Shrader-Frechette, K., & Belitz, K. (1994). Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in earth sciences. Science, 263, 641–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Parker, W. S. (2006). Understanding pluralism in climate modeling. Foundations of Science, 11, 349–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Putnam, H. (2002). The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Quine, W. V. O. (1953). Two dogmas of empiricism. In W. Van Orman Quine (Ed.), From a logical point of view, chapter 2 (pp. 20–46). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Shackle, G. L. S. (1949). Expectations in economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Shackley, S. (2001). Epistemic lifestyles in climate change modeling. In Miller and Edwards (2001), pp. 107–134.Google Scholar
  38. Siegenthaler, U., Stocker, T. F., Monnin, E., Lüthi, D., Schwander, J., Stauffer, B., et al. (2005). Stable carbon cycle? Climate relationship during the late Pleistocene. Science, 310(5752), 1313–1317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stainforth, D. A., Aina, T., et al. (2005). Uncertainty in predictions of the climate response to rising levels of greenhouse gases. Nature, 433(7024), 403–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tetens, H. (2006). Selbstreflexive Physik. Transzendentale Begründungen am Beispiel des Strukturenrealismus. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, 54(3), 431–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tetens, H. (2007). Einstein als Philosoph. In P. W. Balsinger & R. Kötter (Eds.), Die Kultur moderner Wissenschaft am Beispiel Albert Einsteins. Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.Google Scholar
  42. United Nations. (1992). Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (A/CONF.151/26).Google Scholar
  43. Weart, S. R. (2003). The discovery of global warming. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Webster, M. D., Forest, C. E., Reilly, J., Babikerand, M., Kicklighter, D., Mayer, M., et al. (2003). Uncertainty analysis of climatic change and policy responses. Climatic Change, 61(3), 295–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Winsberg, E. (2003). Simulated experiments: Methodology for a virtual world. Philosophy of Science, 70, 105–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Winsberg, E. (2006). Models of success vs. the success of models: Reliability without truth. Synthese, 152, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zickfeld, K., Levermann, A., Granger Morgan, M., Kuhlbrodt, T., Rahmstorf, S., & Keith, D. W. (2007). Present state and future fate of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation as viewed by experts. Climatic Change, 82, 235–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität StuttgartStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations