Climatic Change

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 413–454 | Cite as

Adjusting to Policy Expectations in Climate Change Modeling

  • Simon Shackley
  • James Risbey
  • Peter Stone
  • Brian Wynne
Article

Abstract

This paper surveys and interprets the attitudes of scientists to the use of flux adjustments in climate projections with coupled Atmosphere Ocean General Circulation Models. The survey is based largely on the responses of 19 climate modellers to several questions and a discussion document circulated in 1995. We interpret the responses in terms of the following factors: the implicit assumptions which scientists hold about how the environmental policy process deals with scientific uncertainty over human-related global warming; the different scientific styles that exist in climate research; and the influence of organisations, institutions, and policy upon research agendas. We find evidence that scientists' perceptions of the policy process do play a role in shaping their scientific practices. In particular, many of our respondents expressed a preference for keeping discussion of the issue of flux adjustments within the climate modeling community, apparently fearing that climate contrarians would exploit the issue in the public domain. While this may be true, we point to the risk that such an approach may backfire. We also identify assumptions and cultural commitments lying at a deeper level which play at least as important a role as perceptions of the policy process in shaping scientific practices. This leads us to identify two groups of scientists, ‘pragmatists’ and ‘purists’, who have different implicit standards for model adequacy, and correspondingly are or are not willing to use flux adjustments.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Notes

  1. 1.
    Jasanoff, S.: 1990, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers, Harvard University Press, Harvard; Ezrahi, Y.: 1990, The Descent of Icarus, Harvard University Press, Harvard; National Research Council: 1994, Science and Judgement in Risk Assessment, National Academy Press, Washington D.C.; National Research Council in Stern, P. and Fineberg, H. (eds.): 1996, Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society, National Academy Press, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brown, G. E.: 1997, ‘Environmental Science under Siege in the U.S. Congress’, Environment 39(2), 13–20, 29–31; Edwards, P. N. and Schneider, S.: 1997, ‘The IPCC 1995 Report: Broad Consensus or “Scientific Cleansing”?’, Ecofables/Ecoscience 1, 3–9; Edwards, P. N. and Schneider, S.: ‘self-Governance and Peer Review in Science-for-Policy: The Case of the IPCC Second Assessment Report’, submitted.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hassol, Susan Joy and Katzenberger, John (eds.): 1997, Elements of Change 1996: Session Two: Characterizing and Communicating Scientific Uncertainty, Aspen Global Change Institute, Aspen, CO.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kerr, R.: 1994, ‘Climate Modeling's Fudge Factor Comes under Fire’, Science 265, 1528.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Flohl, R.: 1995, ‘Unsichtbare Hand lenkt Klimaforschung’, FAZ 12.4.95.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Submission of the Global Climate Coalition to 5th IPCC WGI Plenary, November 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    For example, at a meeting Shackley attended in 1993 between modellers at the Hadley Center and industry scientists and officials from the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA). More continuously an IPIECA workshop in 1994 also concluded that: ‘Because of the physical non-reality of these adjustments, they raise questions about the physical basis of the models themselves. The adjustments could be an indication that some important physical processes in the climate system are missing or incorrectly represented in the models’ (page 5, IPIECA, Experts Workshop on Critical Issues in the Science of Global Climate Change, London). This portrayal interprets flux adjustments, its effects and consequences, rather sceptically.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    There is a large literature on styles in science. The sources we have used most are: Rudwick, M.: 1982, ‘Cognitive Styles in Geology’, in Douglas, Mary (ed.), Essays in the Sociology of Perception, RKP, London; Maienschein, J.: ‘Epistemic Styles in German and American Embryology’, Sci. Context 4 (2), 407–427; Hacking, I.: 1992, ‘style for Historians and Philosophers’, Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 23 (1), 1–20; Downey, Gary L.: 1992, ‘Agency and Structure in Negotiating Knowledge’, in Douglas, M. and Hull, D. (eds.), How Classification Works, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh; Knorr-Cetina, K.: 1991, ‘Epistemic Cultures: Forms of Reason in Science’, Hist. Polit. Econ. 23, 105–122.Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    IPCC: 1996, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    Even when flux corrections are used to provide a realistic THC, i.e., to get a realistic mass circulation in the N. Atlantic Ocean, as in the GFDL GCM, this does not guarantee an accurate mixing of heat. For example, in the same GFDL GCM, with a realistic mass circulation, the North Atlantic poleward heat transport is about 0.5 PW (Manabe and Stouffer: 1988, ‘Two Stable Equilibria of a Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Model’, J. Clim. 1, 841–866), which is much weaker than observational estimates. Hall and Bryden (Hall, M. and Bryden, H.: 1982, ‘Direct Estimates and Mechanisms of Ocean Heat Transport’, Deep-Sea Res. 29 (3A), 339–359) determine observational transport to be 1.2 ± 0.3 PW at 25° N in the North Atlantic Ocean. There is as yet no data that can be used to estimate whether the THC's vertical heat transport is being simulated accurately.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    Schneider, E.: 1996, ‘Flux Correction and the Simulation of Changing Climate’, Annales Geophysicae 14, 336–341.Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    Meehl, G.: 1995, ‘Workshop on Global Coupled General Circulation Models’, Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc., 236 and Table 5.1., Gates, W., Henderson-Sellers, A., Boer, G., Folland, C., Kitoh, A., McAvaney, B., Semazzi, F., Smith, N., Weaver, A., and Zeng, Q.-C., ‘Climate Models: Evaluation’, in IPCC (1996), op. cit. 10.Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    Boville, B. and Gent, P.: 1998, ‘The NCAR Climate System Model, Version One’, J. Clim. 11, 1115–1130; Gordon, C., Cooper, C., Senior, C. A., Banks, H., Greory, J. M., Johns, T. C., Mitchell, J. F. B., and Wood, R. A.: 1999, ‘The Simulation of SST, Sea Ice Extents, and Ocean Heat Transports in a Version of the Hadley Centre Coupled Model without Flux Adjustments’, Clim. Dyn., submitted.Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    Page 146, Sausen, R., Barthel, K., and Hasselmann, K.: 1988, ‘Coupled Ocean-Atmospheric Models of Flux Correction’, Clim. Dyn. 2, 145–163.Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    Manabe, S., Stouffer, R., Spelman, M., and Bryan, K.: 1991, ‘Transient Responses of a Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Model to Gradual Changes of Atmospheric CO2. Part I: Annual Mean Response’, J. Climate 4, 785–818.Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    Haney, R.: 1971, ‘Surface Thermal Boundary Condition for Ocean Circulation Models’, J. Phys. Oceanog. 1, 241–248.Google Scholar
  17. 18.
    Marotzke, J.: 1994, ‘Ocean Models in Climate Problems’, in Malanotte-Rizzoli, P. and Robinson, A. (eds.), Ocean Processes in Climate Dynamics: Global and Mediterranean Examples, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 79–109.Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    Schneider: 1996, op. cit. note 12.Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    Hasselmann, K., Sausen, R., Maier-Reimer, E., and Voss, R.: 1993, ‘On the Cold Start Problem in Transient Simulations with Coupled Atmosphere-Ocean Models’, Clim. Dyn. 9, 53–61.Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    Schneider: 1996, op. cit, note 12.Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    Gates, W. L., Cubasch, U., Meehl, G., Mitchell, J., and Stouffer, R.: 1993, ‘An Intercomparison of Selected Features of the Control Climates Simulated by Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere General Circulation Models’, Geneva, World Meteorological Organisation Publication WMO/TD-No. 574.Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    Nakamura, M., Stone, P., and Marotzke, J.: 1994, ‘Destabilization of the Thermohaline Circulation by Atmospheric Eddy Transports’, J. Climate 7, 1870–1882; Marotzke, J. and Stone, P.: 1995, ‘Atmospheric Transports, the Thermohaline Circulation, and Flux Adjustments in a Simple Coupled Model’, J. Phys. Ocean. 25, 1350–1364.Google Scholar
  23. 24.
    For example, in Chapter 5 of the IPCC 1995 report, Gates et al., 1996, op. cit. note 10.Google Scholar
  24. 25.
    Stone, P. and Risbey, J.: 1990, ‘On the Limitations of General Circulation Climate Models’, Geophys. Res. Lett. 17, 2173–2176.Google Scholar
  25. 26.
    Gleckler, P. and 14 others: 1995, ‘Cloud-Radiative Effects on Implied Oceanic Energy Transports as Simulated by Atmospheric General Circulation Models’, Geophys. Res. Lett. 22, 791–794.Google Scholar
  26. 27.
    Sausen, R., Barthel, K., and Hasselmann, K.: 1988, ‘Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Models with Flux Corrections’, Clim. Dyn. 2, 154–163. This belief persists, as indicated by one of this paper's reviewers, who informed us that flux adjustments have ‘absolutely nothing to do with the key question of the overall climate sensitivity to greenhouse gas increases'.Google Scholar
  27. 28.
    Marotzke and Stone: 1995, op. cit. note 23.Google Scholar
  28. 29.
    This was stressed by a number of our respondents. It was also observed by the first author at the IPCC WGI Plenary in Madrid, November 1995.Google Scholar
  29. 30.
    Murphy, J. M. and Mitchell, J. F. B.: 1995, ‘Transient Response of the Hadley Center Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Model to Increasing Carbon Dioxide, Part II: Spatial and Temporal Structure of Response’, J. Clim. 8, 57–80; Sokolov, A. and Stone, P. H.: 1998, ‘A Flexible Climate Model for Use in Integrated Assessments’, Clim. Dyn. 14, 291–303.Google Scholar
  30. 31.
    Hasselmann et al.: 1993, and Schneider: 1996, op. cit. note 20 and 12; Fanning, A. F. and Weaver, A. J.: 1997, ‘On the Role of Flux Adjustments in an Idealized Coupled Climate Model’, Clim. Dyn. 13, 691–701.Google Scholar
  31. 32.
    Page 1943, Gregory, J. M. and Mitchell, J. F. B.: 1997, ‘The Climate Response to CO2 of the Hadley Center Coupled AOGCM with and without Flux Adjustment’, Geophys. Res. Lett. 24, 1943–1946.Google Scholar
  32. 33.
    Page 1528, Kerr, R.: 1994, op. cit. note 4.Google Scholar
  33. 34.
    Presentation of James Murphy at Experts Workshop on Critical Issues in the Science of Global Climate Change, IPIECA, Woods Hole, 3–5 October 1994.Google Scholar
  34. 35.
    Gleckler, P. and Taylor, K.: 1992, ‘The Effect of Horizontal Resolution on Ocean Surface Heat Fluxes in the ECMWF Model’, PCMDI Report No. 3, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore California, p. 28.Google Scholar
  35. 36.
    There will always be an open-ended character to the model validation process. Knorr-Cetina, K.: 1991, ‘Epistemic Cultures: Forms of Reason in Science’, Hist. Polit. Econ. 23, 105–122; Oreskes, N., Shrader-Frechette, K., and Belitz, K.: 1994, ‘Verification, Validation and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences’, Science 263, 641–646.Google Scholar
  36. 37.
    Hansen, J., Lacis, A., Rind, D., Russell, G., Stone, P., Fung, I., Ruedy, M., and Lerner, J.: 1984, ‘Climate Sensitivity: Analysis of Feedback Mechanisms’, in Hansen, J. and Takahashi, T. (eds.), Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, Geophysical Monograph 29, AGU, Washington, D.C., pp. 130–163, shows that the response of global mean surface temperature in an AGCM to a doubling of CO2 is linear; North, G. Yip, K.-J., Leung L.-Y., and Chervin, R.: 1992, ‘Forced and Free Variations of the Surface Temperature Field in a GCM’, J. Climate 5, 227–239, shows that the regional response of the surface temperature to various idealized forcings in an idealized AGCM are linear to a good approximation.Google Scholar
  37. 38.
    Schon, D.: 1963, Invention and the Evolution of Ideas, Tavistock, London.Google Scholar
  38. 39.
    Cf. Wynne, B.: 1991, ‘After Chernobyl: Science Made too Simple?’, New Scientist, 26 January 1991; Wynne, B.: 1996, ‘May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert-Lay Knowledge Divide’, in Lash, S., Szerszynski, B., and Wynne, B. (eds.), Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology, Sage Publications, London, pp. 44–84; Krohn, W. and Weyer, J.: 1994, ‘society as a Laboratory: The Social Risks of Experimental Research’, Sci Public Pol. 21 (3), 173–183.Google Scholar
  39. 40.
    An internal report at one Center noted the scale of flux adjustment in an early 1990s coupled model run and commented that it was: ‘Not surprising, since the coarse resolution of the ocean model forces the use of an undesirably large horizontal viscosity in order to achieve computational stability’ (page 1, Murphy, J.: 1991, ‘Transient Response of a Coupled Ocean/Atmosphere Model to a Gradual Increase in CO2’, Hadley Center, Bracknell, U.K., June 1991).Google Scholar
  40. 42.
    On the more general issue of whether increased resolution is a better approach to model development and use, than say model process or feedback development or use of ensemble runs, debates have continued over many years, both in the NWP and climate modeling communities. E.g., Toth, Z. and Kalnay, E.: 1993, ‘Ensemble Forecasting at NMC: The Generation of Perturbations’, Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc. 74, 2317–2330; Brooks, H. and Doswell, C. III: 1993, ‘New Technology and Numerical Weather Prediction — A Wasted Opportunity?’, Weather 48 (6).Google Scholar
  41. 43.
    Keepin, B. and Wynne, B.: 1984, ‘Technical Analysis of IIASA Energy Scenarios’, Nature 312, 691–695.Google Scholar
  42. 44.
    The only factor which clearly improves at higher resolution is the simulation of regional precipitation, but other factors such as the simulation of diabatic heating and storm tracks do not. Risbey, J. and Stone, P.: 1996, ‘A Case Study of the Adequacy of GCM Simulations for Assessing Regional Climate Changes’, J. Climate 9, 1441–1467.Google Scholar
  43. 45.
    Relevant here is the changing funding context for research. In many countries, policy-usefulness of knowledge has become more emphasized in the past decade or so. Elzinga, A. and Jamieson, A.: 1995, ‘Changing Policy Agendas in Science and Technology’, in Jasanoff, S., Markle, G., Petersen, J., and Pinch, T. (eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Sage, London; Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., and Trow, M. (eds.): 1994, The New Production of Knowledge, Sage, London.Google Scholar
  44. 49.
    See Shackley, S.: ‘Epistemic Lifestyles in Climate Change Modelling’, in Edwards, P. and Miller, C. (eds.), Changing the Atmosphere, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  45. 50.
    An example is the parameterisation of ocean eddies by Gent, P., Willebrand, J., McDougall, T., and McWilliams, J.: 1995, ‘Parameterizing Eddy-Induced Tracer Transports in Ocean Circulation Models’, J. Phys. Oceanog. 25, 463–474.Google Scholar
  46. 51.
    Fujimura, J. H.: 1987, ‘Constructing “Do-Able” Problems in Cancer Research: Articulating Alignment’, Soc. Stud. Sci. 17, 257–293.Google Scholar
  47. 54.
    C is surely incorrect to claim that A/O GCMs have little role in the policy debate. A/O GCMs have been used to calibrate the upwelling-diffusion/energy balance model used to make projections in the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC. GCMs also have a wider 'symbolic’ authority. (Shackley, S., Young, P., Parkinson, S., and Wynne, B.: 1998, ‘Uncertainty, Complexity and Concepts of Good Science in Climate Change Modelling: Are GCMs the Best Tools?’, Clim. Change 38, 155–201.)Google Scholar
  48. 55.
    See Jasanoff, op. cit. note 1. Gieryn, T.: 1995, ‘Boundaries of Science’, in Jasanoff, S., Markle, G., Petersen, J., and Pinch, T. (eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Sage, London, pp. 393–443.Google Scholar
  49. 56.
    Quoted in Ruddock, R.: 1981, ‘Ideologies’, Manchester Monographs 15, Dept. of Adult and Higher Education, Manchester University.Google Scholar
  50. 57.
    Shackley, S. and Wynne, B.: 1995, ‘Global Climate Change: The Mutual Construction of an Emergent Science-Policy Domain’, Sci. Public Pol. 22(4), 218–230.Google Scholar
  51. 58.
    Wynne, B.: 1996, ‘SSK's Identity Parade: Signing Up, Off-and-On’, Soc. Stud. Sci. 26, 357–391. We are interested in going beyond the binary assumption that one party is right or wrong, or that someone somewhere can be correct and policy can flow unproblematically from such simple truth (as expressed, for example, in Wildavsky, A.: 1995, But Is It True?, Harvard, Mass., one chapter of which concerned the debate over global warming). The National Research Council report, ‘Understanding Risk’, (op. cit., note 1) provides a useful account of elements of what such an alternative might entail.Google Scholar
  52. 59.
    Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J.: 1993, ‘Science for the Post-Normal Age’, Futures 25, 739–755.Google Scholar
  53. 60.
    See references op. cit., note 1; Salter, L.: 1988, Mandated Science, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  54. 61.
    Hassol and Katzenberger, op. cit., note 3.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon Shackley
    • 1
  • James Risbey
    • 2
  • Peter Stone
    • 3
  • Brian Wynne
    • 4
  1. 1.Manchester School of ManagementUniversity of Manchester Institute of Science and TechnologyU.K.
  2. 2.Department of Engineering and Public PolicyCarnegie Mellon UniversityU.S.A.
  3. 3.Center for Global Change ScienceMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyU.S.A.
  4. 4.Center for the Study of Environmental ChangeLancaster UniversityU.K.

Personalised recommendations