Building Trust, Removing Doubt? Robustness Analysis and Climate Modeling

  • Jay Odenbaugh


In this chapter, Odenbaugh first provides a conceptual framework for thinking about climate modeling, specifically focused on general circulation models. Second, he considers what makes models independent of one another. Third, he shows robustness analysis, which depends on models being independent of one another, can be used to remove doubts about idealizations in general climate models. Finally, he considers a dilemma for robustness analysis; namely, it leads to either an infinite regress of idealizations or a complete removal of idealizations. A response to the dilemma is given defending a form of epistemic contextualism and by drawing a distinction between relative and absolute robustness.


  1. Alexandrova, Anna, and Jay Odenbaugh. 2011. Buyer Beware: Robustness Analyses in Economics and Biology. Biology and Philosophy 26 (5): 757–771. Scholar
  2. Archer, David. 2012. Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Biddle, Justin, and Eric Winsberg. 2010. Value Judgements and the Estimation of Uncertainty in Climate Modeling. In New Waves in Philosophy of Science, ed. P.D. Magnus and Jacob Busch, 172–197. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Callender, Craig, and Jonathan Cohen. 2006. There Is No Special Problem About Scientific Representation. Theoria. Revista de Teoría, Historia Y Fundamentos de La Ciencia 21 (1): 67–85.Google Scholar
  5. DeRose, Keith. 1992. Contextualism and Knowledge Attributions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 52 (4): 913–929. Scholar
  6. Elgin, Catherine Z. 2004. True Enough*. Philosophical Issues 14 (1): 113–131. Scholar
  7. Hausman, Daniel. 2008. Why Look Under the Hood? In Essays in Philosophy and Economic Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  8. Lenhard, Johannes, and Eric Winsberg. 2010. Holism, Entrenchment, and the Future of Climate Model Pluralism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 41 (3): 253–262. Special Issue: Modelling and Simulation in the Atmospheric and Climate Sciences.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Levins, Richard. 1966. The Strategy of Model Building in Population Biology. American Scientist 54 (4): 421–431.Google Scholar
  10. Lloyd, Elisabeth Anne. 1994. The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Lloyd, Elisabeth A. 2009. I—Elisabeth A. Lloyd: Varieties of Support and Confirmation of Climate Models. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 83 (1): 213–232. Scholar
  12. ———. 2010. Confirmation and Robustness of Climate Models. Philosophy of Science 77 (5): 971–984.Google Scholar
  13. Neelin, J. David. 2010. Climate Change and Climate Modeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Odenbaugh, Jay. 2005. Idealized, Inaccurate but Successful: A Pragmatic Approach to Evaluating Models in Theoretical Ecology. Biology and Philosophy 20 (2–3): 231–255. Scholar
  15. ———. 2011. True Lies: Realism, Robustness, and Models. Philosophy of Science 78 (5): 1177–1188. Scholar
  16. ———. 2010. Philosophy of the Environmental Sciences. In New Waves in the Philosophy of Science, ed. P.D. Magnus and Jacob Busch. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Parker, W.S. 2006. Understanding Pluralism in Climate Modeling. Foundations of Science 11 (4): 349–368. Scholar
  18. Parker, Wendy S. 2010. Predicting Weather and Climate: Uncertainty, Ensembles and Probability. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 3 (41): 263–272. Scholar
  19. ———. 2011. When Climate Models Agree: The Significance of Robust Model Predictions. Philosophy of Science 78 (4): 579–600. Scholar
  20. Pirtle, Zachary, Ryan Meyer, and Andrew Hamilton. 2010. What Does It Mean When Climate Models Agree? A Case for Assessing Independence Among General Circulation Models. Environmental Science and Policy 5 (13): 351–361. Scholar
  21. Randall, D.A., R.A. Wood, S. Bony, R. Colman, T. Fichefet, J. Fyfe, V. Kattsov, et al. 2007. Climate Models and Their Evaluation. In Climate Change 2007: Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. Solomon Susan, D. Qin, Martin R. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. Avery, M. Tignor, and H. Miller. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Sorensen, Roy. 2012. Veridical Idealizations. In Thought Experiments in Science, Philosophy, and the Arts, ed. Melaine Frappier, Letitia Meynell, and James Brown. Routledge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Strevens, Michael. 2008. Depth: An Account of Scientific Explanation. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Teller, Paul. 2001. Twilight of the Perfect Model Model. Erkenntnis 55 (3): 393–415. Scholar
  25. Weisberg, Michael. 2006. Robustness Analysis. Philosophy of Science 73 (5): 730–742. Scholar
  26. Williams, Michael. 1996. Unnatural Doubts: Epistemological Realism and the Basis of Scepticism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  27. _______. 2001. Problems of Knowledge. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  28. Wimsatt, William C. 2007. Re-engineering Philosophy for Limited Beings: Piecewise Approximations to Reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Woodward, Jim. 2006. Some Varieties of Robustness. Journal of Economic Methodology 13 (2): 219–240. Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jay Odenbaugh
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyLewis and Clark CollegePortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations