Objectivity and a comparison of methodological scenario approaches for climate change research

Climate change assessments rely upon scenarios of socioeconomic developments to conceptualize alternative outcomes for global greenhouse gas emissions. These are used in conjunction with climate models to make projections of future climate. Specifically, the estimations of greenhouse gas emissions based on socioeconomic scenarios constrain climate models in their outcomes of temperatures, precipitation, etc. Traditionally, the fundamental logic of the socioeconomic scenarios--that is, the logic that makes them plausible--is developed and prioritized using methods that are very subjective. This introduces a fundamental challenge for climate change assessment: The veracity of projections of future climate currently rests on subjective ground. We elaborate on these subjective aspects of scenarios in climate change research. We then consider an alternative method for developing scenarios, a systems dynamics approach called ‘Cross-Impact Balance' (CIB) analysis. We discuss notions of 'objective' and 'objectivity' as criteria for distinguishing appropriate scenario methods for climate change research. We distinguish seven distinct meanings of 'objective,' and demonstrate that CIB analysis is more objective than traditional subjective approaches. However, we also consider criticisms concerning which of the seven meanings of 'objective' are appropriate for scenario work. Finally, we arrive at conclusions regarding which meanings of 'objective' and 'objectivity' are relevant for climate change research. Because scientific assessments uncover knowledge relevant to the responses of a real, independently existing climate system, this requires scenario methodologies employed in such studies to also uphold the seven meanings of 'objective' and 'objectivity.'

To Access Resource:

Questions? Email Resource Support Contact:

  • opensky@ucar.edu
    UCAR/NCAR - Library

Resource Type publication
Temporal Range Begin N/A
Temporal Range End N/A
Temporal Resolution N/A
Bounding Box North Lat N/A
Bounding Box South Lat N/A
Bounding Box West Long N/A
Bounding Box East Long N/A
Spatial Representation N/A
Spatial Resolution N/A
Related Links N/A
Additional Information N/A
Resource Format PDF
Standardized Resource Format PDF
Asset Size N/A
Legal Constraints

Copyright 2014 The Author(s)

Access Constraints None
Software Implementation Language N/A

Resource Support Name N/A
Resource Support Email opensky@ucar.edu
Resource Support Organization UCAR/NCAR - Library
Distributor N/A
Metadata Contact Name N/A
Metadata Contact Email opensky@ucar.edu
Metadata Contact Organization UCAR/NCAR - Library

Author Lloyd, Elisabeth
Schweizer, Vanessa
Publisher UCAR/NCAR - Library
Publication Date 2014-07-01T00:00:00
Digital Object Identifier (DOI) Not Assigned
Alternate Identifier N/A
Resource Version N/A
Topic Category geoscientificInformation
Progress N/A
Metadata Date 2023-08-18T18:23:31.125980
Metadata Record Identifier edu.ucar.opensky::articles:14126
Metadata Language eng; USA
Suggested Citation Lloyd, Elisabeth, Schweizer, Vanessa. (2014). Objectivity and a comparison of methodological scenario approaches for climate change research. UCAR/NCAR - Library. http://n2t.net/ark:/85065/d7tx3g9v. Accessed 22 September 2023.

Harvest Source