Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Climate Modelling

  • 2451 Accesses

Abstract

As we advance into the twenty-first century, the evidence of climate change is all around us. In the introduction to this volume, we discuss some of the successes of climate science in understanding and attributing the causes of these changes, as well as some of the challenges it faces in addressing questions for which we do not yet have the answers. We focus on the role of climate models and the philosophical and conceptual problems facing climate modelers and climate modeling. We then give the reader an outline of what they will find in each of the 15 Chapters in the volume. The book is divided into three major parts: Part 1 “Confirmation and Evidence”; Part 2 “Uncertainties and Robustness”; and Part 3 “Climate Models as Guides to Policy”.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    While a recent Gallup poll found that roughly 70% of Americans believe the claim that 2015 was the warmest year on record, we Americans remain split roughly 50/50 regarding the claim that the change in temperatures are caused by human activity (Gallup n.d.; http://www.gallup.com/poll/190319/americans-believe-2015-record-warm-split-why.aspx?g_source=CATEGORY_CLIMATE_CHANGE&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles).

  2. 2.

    J. Cook et al. (2016), “Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming,” Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:https://doi.org/10.1088/1748%E2%80%939326/11/4/048002 Quotation from page 6: “The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

  3. 3.

    http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/1021climate_letter1.pdf

  4. 4.

    See http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/earth-system-model for a description of one of the “flagship” American models.

  5. 5.

    Ben Santer, Personal Communication, 2011.

  6. 6.

    Press release from conference held at US National Press Club, January 2008.

  7. 7.

    In climate science, this generally means that the results tend to lean in one direction without a good reason or apparent cause.

References

  • Bukovsky, Melissa S., Rachel R. McCrary, Anji Seth, and Linda O. Mearns. (2017). A Mechanistically Credible, Poleward Shift in Warm-Season Precipitation Projected for the U.S. Southern Great Plains? Journal of Climate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christy, J.R., and R.W. Spencer. 2006. Satellite Temperature Data. In Washington Roundtable on Science & Public Policy, 1–37. Washington, DC: George Marshall Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, John, Naomi Oreskes, Peter T. Doran, William R.L. Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed W. Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, et al. 2016. Consensus on Consensus: A Synthesis of Consensus Estimates on Human-Caused Global Warming. Environmental Research Letters 11 (4): 048002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglass, David H., John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, and S. Fred Singer. 2008. A Comparison of Tropical Temperature Trends with Model Predictions. International Journal of Climatology 28 (13): 1693–1701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houghton, J., Y. Ding, D. Griggs, M. Noguer, P. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C. Johnson. 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallup. Americans Believe 2015 Was Record-Warm, but Split on Why. Gallup.Com. http://www.gallup.com/poll/190319/americans-believe-2015-record-warm-split-why.aspx. Accessed 6 Aug 2017.

  • Giorgi, Filippo, Csaba Torma, Erika Coppola, Nikolina Ban, Christoph Schar, and Samual Samot. 2016. Enhanced Summer Convective Rainfall at Alpine High Elevations in Response to Climate Warming. Nature Geoscience Letters 9: 584–590. https://doi.org/10.1038/NGE02761.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, Elisabeth Anne. 1994. The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, Elisabeth A. 2010. Confirmation and Robustness of Climate Models. Philosophy of Science 77 (5): 971–984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, Elisabeth A. 2015. Model Robustness as a Confirmatory Virtue: The Case of Climate Science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 49: 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2014.12.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, Elisabeth A., Melissa Bukovsky, and Linda Mearns. 2017 Ms. An Analysis of Disagreement About Added Value by Regional Climate Models (under review).

    Google Scholar 

  • Maraun, D., F. Wetterhall, A.M. Ireson, R.E. Chandler, E.J. Kendon, M. Widmann, S. Brienen, H.W. Rust, T. Sauter, M. Themessl, V.K.C. Venema, K.P. Chun, C.M. Goodess, R.G. Jones, C. Onof, M. Vrac, and I. Thiele-Eich. 2010. Precipitation Downscaling Under Climate Change: Recent Developments to Bridge the Gap Between Dynamica Models and the End User. Reviews of Geophysics 48. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009rg000314.

  • Mearns, Linda O., W.J. Gutowski, R. Jones, L.-Y. Leung, S. McGinnis, A.M.B. Nunes, et al. 2009. A Regional Climate Change Assessment Program for North America. EOS 90: 311–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mearns, Linda O., Melissa S. Bukovsky, Sara C. Pryor, and Victor Magana. 2014. Downscaling of Climate Information. In Climate Change in North America, Regional Climate Studies, ed. G. Ohring, 201–250. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, Wendy S. 2011. When Climate Models Agree: The Significance of Robust Model Predictions. Philosophy of Science 78: 579–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santer, B.D., et al. 1999. Uncertainties in Observationally Based Estimates of Temperature Change in the Free Atmosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research 104: 6305–6333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santer, B.D., T.M.L. Wigley, C. Mears, F.J. Wentz, S.A. Klein, D.J. Seidel, K.E. Taylor, et al. 2005. Amplification of Surface Temperature Trends and Variability in the Tropical Atmosphere. Science 309 (5740): 1551–1556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santer, B.D., P.W. Thorne, L. Haimberger, K.E. Taylor, T.M.L. Wigley, J.R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free, P.J. Gleckler, P.D. Jones, T.R. Karl, S.A. Klein, C. Mears, D. Nychka, G.A. Schmidt, S.C. Sherwood, and F.J. Wentz. 2008. Consistency of Modelled and Observed Temperature Trends in the Tropical Troposphere. International Journal of Climatology 28 (13): 1703–1722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA

    Elisabeth A. Lloyd

  2. Department of Philosophy, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

    Eric Winsberg

Authors
  1. Elisabeth A. Lloyd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eric Winsberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA

    Elisabeth A. Lloyd

  2. Department of Philosophy, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

    Eric Winsberg

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lloyd, E.A., Winsberg, E. (2018). Introduction. In: A. Lloyd, E., Winsberg, E. (eds) Climate Modelling. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65058-6_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation