Promoting a Plurality of Climate Modelling Strategies for Better Policy Making

In a new study published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, researchers Marina Baldissera Pacchetti, Julie Jebeile, and Erica Thompson advocate for a diversified approach to climate modelling. Their paper, "For a Pluralism of Climate Modelling Strategies," highlights the complementarity of different modelling techniques and how strengthening this complementarity, also in terms of equitable funding, is critical to advancing climate science and supporting informed decision-making.

Historically, the development of General Circulation Models (GCMs) with increasing resolution and complexity has been the primary focus. While these models have contributed significantly to our understanding of climate dynamics and have supported science-based policy-making, the authors argue that other modelling strategies also provide valuable insights into past, present, and future climates, and that the current strategy when it comes to supporting decision-making processes can be improved upon.

The study highlights the need for an equitable distribution of funding across different climate modelling approaches. By adopting a philosophy of science perspective, the authors look at different modelling frameworks, such as machine learning-based models, storyline approaches and Earth system models of intermediate complexity, and evaluate them according to some key aspects: empirical agreement, comprehensiveness, realism, diversity of process representations, inclusion of the human dimension, and intelligibility. Their analysis shows how the predominant approach trades policy relevance for comprehensiveness and realism, and how different modelling strategies can complement one another. The authors suggest that promoting the idea of a ‘toolbox’ of modelling strategies is effective not only in providing a more robust framework for addressing climate change, but also in better engaging with a wider range of stakeholders and better responding to their needs. In presenting their findings, Pacchetti, Jebeile and Thompson also stress how the choice of one modelling strategy over another embeds political and social evaluations, and argue for a less competitive approach to model development.

As the authors note in their concluding remarks, "We could make better climate decisions if we had more robust information from a range of sources, that was applicable to a variety of situations and relevant to more stakeholders […] The outcomes of active diversification would be to broaden the kinds of decision questions we are capable to answer."

This call for modelling pluralism aims to foster innovation and improve the relevance of climate research in addressing global environmental challenges. By integrating different methodologies, the scientific community can better support policymakers in developing effective and informed climate policies.

For more information, read the full study in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.