Developing the next-generation climate system models: challenges and achievements

Although climate models have been improving in accuracy and efficiency over the past few decades, it now seems that these incremental improvements may be slowing. As tera/petascale computing becomes massively parallel, our legacy codes are less suitable, and even with the increased resolution that we are now beginning to use, these models cannot represent the multiscale nature of the climate system. This paper argues that it may be time to reconsider the use of adaptive mesh refinement for weather and climate forecasting in order to achieve good scaling and representation of the wide range of spatial scales in the atmosphere and ocean. Furthermore, the challenge of introducing living organisms and human responses into climate system models is only just beginning to be tackled. We do not yet have a clear framework in which to approach the problem, but it is likely to cover such a huge number of different scales and processes that radically different methods may have to be considered. The challenges of multiscale modelling and petascale computing provide an opportunity to consider a fresh approach to numerical modelling of the climate (or Earth) system, which takes advantage of the computational fluid dynamics developments in other fields and brings new perspectives on how to incorporate Earth system processes. This paper reviews some of the current issues in climate (and, by implication, Earth) system modelling, and asks the question whether a new generation of models is needed to tackle these problems.

What do patients want to know? An empirical approach to explanation generation and validation

This article describes an empirical, user-centred approach to explanation design. It reports three studies that investigate what patients want to know when they have been prescribed medication. The question is asked in the context of the development of a drug prescription system called OPADE. The system is aimed primarily at improving the prescribing behaviour of physicians, but will also produce written explanations for indirect users such as patients. In the first study, a large number of people were presented with a scenario about a visit to the doctor, and were asked to list the questions that they would like to ask the doctor about the prescription. On the basis of the results of the study, a categorization of question types was developed in terms of how frequently particular questions were asked. In the second and third studies a number of different explanations were generated in accordance with this categorization, and a new sample of people were presented with another scenario and were asked to rate the explanations on a number of dimensions. The results showed significant differences between the different explanations. People preferred explanations that included items corresponding to frequently asked questions in study 1. For an explanation to be considered useful, it had to include information about side effects, what the medication does, and any lifestyle changes involved. The implications of the results of the three studies are discussed in terms of the development of OPADE's explanation facility.

Military doctrine, command philosophy and the generation of fighting power: genesis and theory

Military doctrine is one of the conceptual components of war. Its raison d’être is that of a force multiplier. It enables a smaller force to take on and defeat a larger force in battle. This article’s departure point is the aphorism of Sir Julian Corbett, who described doctrine as ‘the soul of warfare’. The second dimension to creating a force multiplier effect is forging doctrine with an appropriate command philosophy. The challenge for commanders is how, in unique circumstances, to formulate, disseminate and apply an appropriate doctrine and combine it with a relevant command philosophy. This can only be achieved by policy-makers and senior commanders successfully answering the Clausewitzian question: what kind of conflict are they involved in? Once an answer has been provided, a synthesis of these two factors can be developed and applied. Doctrine has implications for all three levels of war. Tactically, doctrine does two things: first, it helps to create a tempo of operations; second, it develops a transitory quality that will produce operational effect, and ultimately facilitate the pursuit of strategic objectives. Its function is to provide both training and instruction. At the operational level instruction and understanding are critical functions. Third, at the strategic level it provides understanding and direction. Using John Gooch’s six components of doctrine, it will be argued that there is a lacunae in the theory of doctrine as these components can manifest themselves in very different ways at the three levels of war. They can in turn affect the transitory quality of tactical operations. Doctrine is pivotal to success in war. Without doctrine and the appropriate command philosophy military operations cannot be successfully concluded against an active and determined foe.