* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Collectively Seeing Climate Change: The Limits of Formal Models
Myron Ebell wikipedia , lookup
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup
Hotspot Ecosystem Research and Man's Impact On European Seas wikipedia , lookup
Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation wikipedia , lookup
Global warming hiatus wikipedia , lookup
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on human health wikipedia , lookup
Atmospheric model wikipedia , lookup
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wikipedia , lookup
Climate resilience wikipedia , lookup
ExxonMobil climate change controversy wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change adaptation wikipedia , lookup
Global warming controversy wikipedia , lookup
Michael E. Mann wikipedia , lookup
Heaven and Earth (book) wikipedia , lookup
Soon and Baliunas controversy wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
Climate change denial wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Climate sensitivity wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Fred Singer wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit email controversy wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on Australia wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit documents wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
General circulation model wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Special Roundtable Section Collectively Seeing Climate Change: The Limits of Formal Models RICHARD B. NORGAARD AND PAUL BAER Understanding the risks posed by anthropogenic climate change and the possible societal responses to those risks has generated a prototypical example of the challenge of “collectively seeing complex systems.” After briefly examining the ways in which problems like climate change reach the scientific and public agenda, we look at four different ways in which scientists collectively address the problem: general circulation models, integrated assessment models, formal assessments (e.g., the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and distributed learning networks. We examine the strengths and limitations of each of these methods, and suggest ways in which a greater self-consciousness of the need for plural approaches could improve the basis for learning and decisionmaking. Keywords: assessments, climate change, epistemology, sociology of science T he science of understanding climate change was instigated in the 19th century by a desire to understand the comings and goings of ice ages, given new relevance by the controversy over the effects of supersonic transport in the 1970s, and driven in recent decades by compelling data showing an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The field coalesced under the strong leadership of a few key scientists who saw the broad problem, organized other scientists, and communicated effectively to international leaders and the public at large. Today the community of climate scientists includes participants from many different disciplines and from all around the world. While multiple formal scientific models play important roles in the understanding of climate scientists, no model is sufficiently representative of the whole climate system to adequately describe the full process and consequences of global warming. Rather, the knowledge embodied in multiple models, as well as knowledge that does not fit into formal models that make up climate science, is understood as a whole through a collective process of learning and understanding among scientists with diverse training and expertise. After addressing how a collective learning process gets started, we argue that there are four ways through which dispersed disciplinary knowledges are being brought together in the understanding of climate change. These are (1) building large global circulation models starting from basic physical principles, (2) integrating models that were originally built to understand economic and ecological systems separately, (3) preparing assessment reports on the state of climate science for scientists and policymakers, and (4) working within a distributed learning network whereby individual scholars adjust their own research design and interpretation in response to what they learn from other scholars. These four different approaches complement each other to inform the collective understanding of climate change among the community of scientists engaged in the process. Our concern here is primarily with the interaction among scientists, rather than the related interaction between scientists, policymakers, and broader social institutions. Early visions of newly critical systems In a world where most scientists advance by reducing problems into parts and tackling pieces, how do systemic questions and temporary answers arise and attract sufficient attention by other scientists to become a new field of inquiry? Svante Arrhenius calculated in 1896 that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to an increase in global temperature of 5 to 6 degrees Celsius. Although he was primarily trying to understand whether a decrease in carbon dioxide could bring on an ice age, he did note that by burning fossil fuels, people had become a driving force of climate. A few scientists elaborated further on Arrhenius’s argument over the next half-century, but global warming did not become a significant collective area of work until Charles Keeling began Richard B. Norgaard (e-mail: [email protected]) works in the Energy and Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720. Paul Baer (e-mail: [email protected]) works in the Center for Environmental Science and Policy, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. © 2005 American Institute of Biological Sciences. November 2005 / Vol. 55 No. 11 • BioScience 961 Special Roundtable Section scientists have rallied to work collectively on them in the past is not comforting. Could we have averted climate change more successfully had scientists pursued the implications of Arrhenius’s calculation sooner? How many equally critical questions have been raised but are languishing now? And could science be better organized to look for and respond to areas in which collectively trying to understand a complex system might be fruitful? There are clear parallels with the difficulties, indeed failures, of national intelligence agencies trying to collect and provide some order to information on the possible rise of new threats. The agencies are organized around, and must still stay on top of, known problems. At the same time, they need not only to be open to, but also to allocate resources to, wholly new, unknown threats. By themselves, miscellaneous observations are of little use, for they get lost in the files. This framework provides a good introduction to the process of climate Rather, dispersed bits of information need to be aschange, emphasizing role of socioeconomic paths and the differences sembled in different possible ways to see how the obbetween the policy options of adaptation and mitigation. It greatly servations might fit together. The possibilities are simplifies, however, the complexity of the interactions between human endless. New theories need to be proposed that chaland natural systems by bundling them together in single box, while lenge the interests of intelligence personnel vested in suggesting that feedbacks between impacts on natural systems and existing theories. Coordination between departments, greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations only occur through the let alone separate agencies, diverts time and resources, choice of socioeconomic development path rather than directly as well. It challenging existing priorities and those who are also ignores time lags in the process. Putting all of these things together building their careers in the existing structure. Being not only makes for a messy illustration but also for computer models that scientifically open to, and allocating scientific recan go awry. Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. sources to investigating, a world of possible ways in which humans are affecting our environment is a very simmeasuring carbon dioxide concentrations on Mauna Loa in ilar problem. Hawaii in 1958. By 1963, Keeling was concerned that carbon dioxide concentrations were increasing considerably faster than heretofore thought. Then there was a period during the midGeneral circulation models 1960s through the mid-1970s in which the proposed fleet of Predictive models of complex phenomena such as the global supersonic transport planes and the use of aerosols in spray climate necessarily represent specific compromises between cans seemed to threaten cooling, offsetting the greenhouse efthe relevant theoretical insights, available data, computafect. Stephen Schneider argued that, whether the climate was tional capacity, and policy requirements that present themwarming or cooling, the uncertainty justified paying attention selves to the modeling community. Some of the problems that and taking corrective actions, given the tremendous imporarise in these domains, such as the management of uncertainty, tance of climate and the risks to agriculture (Schneider and are better explored by other authors (see Jasanoff and Wynne Mesirow 1976). The potentially cooling driving forces were 1998), but there is still much to be learned about the interaverted because supersonic transport proved expensive, yet action of modelers from various communities with each Keeling’s data showed carbon dioxide in the atmosphere other and with policymakers and other stakeholders. consistently rising. Thus scientists’ concern returned to warmGeneral circulation models (GCMs, though the acronym ing, marked by National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reports is sometimes now interpreted as “global climate models”) have in 1974 and 1977 arguing largely for more research funding been the most influential scientific models of the climate (Weart 2003). system. These models built on efforts already under way to Our central point here is that a new conception of what conmodel weather systems. The underlying strategy for weather stitutes a critical system of interactions is necessary, even models is to construct from first principles—the principles though it might only be a crude description in the beginning. of conservation of mass and energy—a numerical model of Somehow the boundaries, key components, important inhow the globe distributes heat through atmospheric circulateractions, and insights into the possible consequences of a dytion. The models divide the atmosphere into large cubes; namic between people and their environment must become equations linking the cubes are defined, initial conditions sufficiently established to rally scientists to begin to work toare set, and then weather patterns play out. The differing gether to further understand the potential problem. The haptime frames of weather models (days to several weeks) and hazard way in which critical questions have arisen and of climate models (decades to a century), however, meant that 962 BioScience • November 2005 / Vol. 55 No. 11 Special Roundtable Section to create GCMs, the weather models had to be stripped of most of their short-run phenomena and then made more complex by including the longerterm factors affecting climate change: how greenhouse gases affected the absorption and radiation of heat, the role of the oceans in distributing heat and absorbing carbon dioxide, and so on. The complexity of interacting phenomena included in GCMs increased about as fast as computer speed increased, leaving the spatial resolution still quite low. Nevertheless, GCMs now track historic conditions quite well and allow us to see how the future might unfold under different scenarios. GCMs are an extremely impressive scientific accomplishment. But they are an incomplete description of the global system. Terrestrial ecological feedbacks (with rare exceptions) and the economic system are not represented in the models. They must be fed to the model as scenarios. Since the GCMs are not whole, GCM modelers must interact with terrestrial ecologists and economists to determine what are reasonable scenarios to run. Because they systematically include neither people’s material needs and desires nor the ecosystems with which people actually interact most, GCMs cannot possibly play an The peer review process for an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate integrating role for our overall scientific underChange (IPCC) assessment report is very intense. A panel of independent standing of climate change. They contribute imscientists determines whether authors have fairly and adequately mensely to the whole, but are not even nearly whole responded to external review comments. This illustration suggests that the themselves. report strictly follows the initial outline, but the assessment team learns as Even if GCMs included the economic system and it proceeds, uncovering new issues that need to be addressed, and new terrestrial ecosystems, scientists would still have to literature that needs to be cited, in an evolving document being written by be able to stand outside of the models enough to many different teams of authors. Maintaining consistency between the judge whether they were running well. Nor can the different parts of the assessment while avoiding false consensus is a parts simply be judged independently by the scienconstant challenge. Source: IPCC. tists who know those parts best, for the parts interact and produce wholly new effects—projections of each other. Typically they were designed to run at different spaa fundamentally unknowable future—whose plausibility tial and temporal scales. Their integration requires that one must be judged by scientists from different backgrounds or more critical outputs of each module must be inputs to one working together. Our point here is that even if GCMs were or more other modules. The flows between the modules the primary source of our understanding of climate change, must necessarily be quantitative in nature. To get the modbuilding them, selecting reasonable starting conditions and ules to work together and to get them to match available scenarios, and interpreting the model results would still redata, IA experts typically have to modify the original modquire discussion across the disciplines and collective judgels, build simpler models that incorporate critical elements, ments. Our understanding of climate change, however, is or provide an interlinking model that aggregates outputs that it is more of a collective process than this, because there across space and time from the individual models so that their are other approaches to understanding climate change as outputs can feed into another model. Models developed and well. heretofore interpreted within individual scientific commuIntegrated assessment modeling nities are taken out of their hands, modified, and used with Integrated assessment (IA) modeling links the models of difother models in ways over which the original scientific comferent scientific communities into a more comprehensive munities no longer have control. The original models were model. A key premise of IA modeling is that larger systems usually not designed to link with other models, which means can be understood by linking models of subsystems that can that the most important linkages are frequently “tacked on.” be borrowed from different disciplinary communities. The inSo that IA provides plausible outputs, data are selected and dividual subsystem models that are treated as modules of a outputs managed so as to keep the integration from having larger IA model, however, were developed independently of unstable properties, multiple solutions, or solutions that, November 2005 / Vol. 55 No. 11 • BioScience 963 Special Roundtable Section Assessments of the science, response options, and research priorities During meals and other breaks in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment meetings, scientists informally reconfigure and start new exchanges. Some cluster with disciplinary colleagues to discuss the implications for future disciplinary research. Others use these occasions to compare notes and exchange materials with participants on other teams working on different parts of the assessment. Still others sequentially interact with different of clusters of scientists to test an idea. The spontaneity of the interactions not only provides a change of pace from structured meetings but probably plays an important role in keeping the process together and keeping it creative. Photograph: Richard Norgaard. when extrapolated over time, are clearly untenable. It may be appropriate to think of those who practice IA as professional experts, rather than scientists as we have thought of scientists historically (Ravetz 1999). Nonetheless, this new breed of professional experts is being asked to address what have been posed as scientific questions, and their answers are clearly being incorporated in the collective process of learning (Weyant et al. 1996, Schneider 1997, Rotmans and Dowlatabadi 1998). Although many efforts have been made to link models, the most successful IA model is the simplest and most transparent. The Nordhaus model of climate change, in merely 13 equations, combines an economic production function including technological change, how greenhouse gas emissions stem from production, how emissions drive climate change (including how greenhouse gases are sequestered in the ocean), how climate change damages the economy, the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and a social welfare criterion to be optimized (Nordhaus 1994). This has been a highly influential model because it incorporates many of the critical components of the problem. At the same time, the model has been strongly criticized for its simplicity.Yet at least the Nordhaus model is transparent enough that its shortcomings, and their effects on its output, can be clearly identified and discussed. To their credit, Nordhaus and his collaborators have made their code readily available, and the model has been modified and used by a variety of other scholars (Roughgarden and Schneider 1999, Mastrandrea and Schneider 2004). 964 BioScience • November 2005 / Vol. 55 No. 11 There is a long history of scientists being asked by legislators or public agencies to make their best assessment of a current situation, of the state of the science with respect to the situation, and of the outlook for the long term. Through the assessment process, selected scientists can have a significant effect on the priorities under which all scientists propose new research, and can thereby affect the direction the science takes. Most of the questions addressed in scientific assessments are interdisciplinary in nature, so the scientists on the panel come from different scientific communities. Scientists on assessment panels have an excellent opportunity to learn from other top scientists. Indeed, if the report contained only what was known by the individual scientists before they joined the panel, the assessment might be stilted, not terribly interesting, and perhaps incoherent. The collective learning that takes place during a scientific assessment is essential to the success of the assessment. Furthermore, scientists who have participated in the process are now more broadly informed, and are more likely to ask and pursue different questions, to interpret results more broadly, and to communicate to a wider range of scientists and policymakers. For climate science, regular assessments are at the core of the process of collective learning. Following the early assessments by the NAS mentioned above (Weart 2003), major assessments have been organized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was set up jointly under the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme. Assessments were issued in 1990, 1995, and 2001, and a fourth assessment is in process. Numerous smaller assessments of specific issues are continually being undertaken, sometimes as a part of the IPCC process, sometimes under other auspices. The process of writing an IPCC assessment report is fairly elaborate. An outline of the report is drawn up, portions are assigned to writing teams, drafts are sent out for review by other authors and by external experts, authors meet with each other and respond to the comments, chapter review editors negotiate differences in opinion and oversee quality control, new drafts are issued, and the whole process is repeated again. The process is designed to facilitate exchanges of information and work toward a consensus on what is important enough to include and what can be ignored. The natural system may behave stochastically; some parts of the science are better established than other parts; humanity’s future could unfold in multiple ways regardless of climate change; and how nations, corporations, and individuals will respond to avert or adapt to climate change is also unclear. And all of these uncertainties feed back on each other and multiply. So the range of judgments about the future among experts varies, and this range must be reflected in the report and yet at the same time controlled. Not all possibilities can be described and assessed; the report needs to be short enough to read. And what is included and the particular wording of sum- Special Roundtable Section mary chapters must be negotiated further, for they need to be very tightly presented. The assessment process requires unusual openness to alternative information and judgments. The participants must trust each other to come to some sort of closure, at least for the particular assessment at hand. Because of the nature and frequency of the assessment process for climate science, it plays a very significant role in scientists’ collective understanding of the field. As the number of climate scientists has increased, special journals have been established, and thus members of the scientific community have also engaged in assessment through the review of each article and through the ways earlier articles were referenced and incorporated (or not) in subsequent articles. Thus, assessment is now constantly taking place through various channels, as in any science; but the IPCC assessment process plays an especially important role in climate science. The leaders of the IPCC recognized very early that the global nature of climate change necessitated international understanding and consensus. Thus scientists involved in the IPCC assessment process are largely appointed by national governments, and some of the summary portions of the assessment are written in collaboration with policymakers representing national governments and international organizations. Though scientists have the final say on the science in the report, the policy concerns of national governments are addressed, and the choice of what science is emphasized is largely driven by policy concerns. The whole assessment process is conducted in a spirit of open exchange and democratic debate, so that the concerns of poor nations, small island states, and different economic sectors are addressed. Science drives the answers, but the questions that scientists address are not limited to what an elite few deem the most important issues.Yet because of the political implications, particular scientific issues are not laid to rest without extensive discussion. Clearly, it is a time-consuming process. Though surely the process does not fulfill the conditions advocated by Philip Kitcher (2001) for a scientifically informed citizenry that democratically determines the directions science should take, the approach of IPCC is an interesting example of an effort to wed science and divergent interests. The nature of the final collective judgments and the types of learning that take place among the participants are affected by the broad mix of scientists and policymakers engaged in the process. This is clearly the most participatory part of climate science, for it is almost entirely a social process. A few critics charge that climate science is entirely socially constructed, citing the debates in the process of preparing the IPCC assessments as blatant evidence. The counterargument is that this is the way science has always worked, but that the multidisciplinary nature of climate science and the importance of climate change to the course of history make it even more so. Had the “Atoms for Peace” program been similarly debated in the 1950s, we might not have generated the nuclear waste that we now are still trying to figure out how to manage. Distributed learning networks Scientists from different scientific communities addressing climate change interact with each other through numerous workshops, conferences, and assessment processes. They also read interdisciplinary journals dedicated to the issues of climate change. Some scientists have been interacting for decades, others for only a matter of years. Clearly, scientists are learning from each other and adjusting their own research accordingly. When climate modelers explained why the poles would warm more than the rest of the earth, scientists who study arctic organisms and ecosystems became more actively involved in climate research. When climate modelers suggested that weather events may be more extreme during warming, terrestrial ecologists amended their research to include the possible implications of greater variation in weather. Different climate researchers are all learning from each other, and they are modifying the design of their own research and interpreting their results differently as a result. Think of it as a distributed learning network. This process goes on all the time in science, but in climate science it is especially important because it connects the learning of heretofore separate communities of scientists. An interesting aspect of this process is that it occurs to some extent without scientists actually being in the same room together. They could simply read each other’s journal articles, or even pick up key points in the science section of the newspaper. Of course, it is better for scientists to interact more systematically, and numerous efforts are being made to bring scientists together. Over time, through interactions such as these, the community of scientists surely converges on a better understanding of the whole field of climate change more quickly than if scientists simply worked with what was developed in their separate disciplines. Yet a theoretical model of the process and empirical work seems strangely absent. Who knows enough about the process to say how it might be improved upon within the community of climate scientists? Who knows whether scientists as a whole are too little engaged with material beyond their discipline or too much, and how interdisciplinary work could be measured and should be weighed in the promotion of scientists? And of course further questions are raised by the need for scientists studying climate to interact with stakeholders who may have different perspectives on what is important to study (Stern 2005). Conclusions Climate scientists’ understanding of complex systems has long relied on the collective processes of learning described above. However, there has been relatively little work on how different social structures, communication rules, and processes of reaching judgments hinder or help scientists in reaching a better collective understanding. Within disciplines, collective judgment and interpretation is also essential, though its importance until recently has been downplayed somewhat (Kuhn 1962, Hull 1988). When the system under consideration is complex, the process of collective judgment and interpretation becomes more important, November 2005 / Vol. 55 No. 11 • BioScience 965 Special Roundtable Section for at least four reasons. First, because it is more difficult to conduct a collective process among scientists from different scientific communities, greater time and effort must be expended in communication to reach an understanding comparable to that reached in a discipline (see box 1 in Lélé and Norgaard 2005). Second, more scientists must be closely involved in developing the scientific understanding of more complex systems. Third, more collective judgments must be made. Within individual disciplines, judgments are typically made about what goes into and out of a single model. For complex problems, multiple models that do not fit together are used interactively in such a way that judgments must be made not only with respect to their inputs and outputs, but with respect to their different structures as well. Fourth, models within scientific disciplines are typically constructed to fit the dimensions of the problem: the subject focus, the spatial and temporal scale, and the boundary limits. Thus far, at least, in the science of climate change, many of the models and data are inherited from efforts to answer earlier questions in more narrowly defined fields. The complexities of climate change and its consequences are too great for a single mind to grasp. The problem must be understood systemically, yet there is no single model within which all of what climate scientists know is integrated. The integration comes through shared communications and judgments at a general level and through trust in the separate, specific deeper knowledges of one’s fellow scientists. Lélé and Norgaard (2005) stress that communication and trust are most difficult between positivist scholars and interpretive scholars. Indeed, little interpretive scholarly work on climate change is well incorporated in the collective understanding of climate change, although an excellent collection of interpretive thinking on climate change exists apart from the dominant literature (Rayner and Malone 1998). In some sense, knowledge of the climate system is integrated only through collective processes. To the extent that the human predicament at the beginning of the 21st century can be characterized as the challenge of overcoming dispersed knowledge to achieve collective, systemic understanding, then the history of how the understanding of the climate system arose is surely a sign of hope. Just as surely, however, we need to broaden historic understandings about how science works so that we can both improve the collective process of how we 966 BioScience • November 2005 / Vol. 55 No. 11 know and incorporate this mode of science into the policy process and public understanding. Acknowledgments The research underlying this article was supported by NSF Biocomplexity Grant no. 0119875. References cited Hull DL. 1988. Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jasanoff S, Wynne B. 1998. Science and decisionmaking. Pages 1–87 in Rayner S, Malone EL, eds. Human Choice and Climate Change: The Societal Framework. Columbus (OH): Battelle Press. Kitcher P. 2001. Science, Truth, and Democracy. Oxford (United Kingdom): Oxford University Press. Kuhn TS. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lélé S, Norgaard RB. 2005. Practicing interdisciplinarity. BioScience 55: 967–975. Mastrandrea MD, Schneider SH. 2004. Probabilistic integrated assessment of “dangerous” climate change. Science 304: 571–575. Nordhaus WJ. 1994. Managing the Global Commons: The Economics of Climate Change. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. Ravetz JR. 1999. Developing principles of “good practice” in integrated environmental assessment. International Journal of Environment and Pollution 11: 243–265. Rayner S, Malone EL, eds. 1998. Human Choice and Climate Change, vol. 3. Columbus (OH): Battelle Press. Rotmans J, Dowlatabadi H. 1998. Integrated assessment modeling. Pages 291–377 in Rayner S, Malone EL, eds. Human Choice and Climate Change, vol 3. Columbus (OH): Battelle Press. Roughgarden T, Schneider SH. 1999. Climate change policy: Quantifying uncertainties for damages and optimal carbon taxes. Energy Policy 27: 415–429. Schneider SH. 1997. Integrated assessment modeling of global climate change: Transparent rational tool for policy making or opaque screen hiding value-laden assumptions? Environmental Modeling and Assessment 2: 229–248. Schneider SH, Mesirow LE. 1976. The Genesis Strategy: Climate and Global Survival. New York: Plenum Press. Stern PC. 2005. Deliberative methods for understanding environmental systems. BioScience 55: 976–982. Weart SR. 2003. The Discovery of Global Warming. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press. Weyant J, et al. 1996. Integrated assessment of climate change: An overview and comparison of approaches and results. Pages 367–396 in Bruce JP, Lee H, Haites EF, eds. Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Cambridge (United Kingdom): Cambridge University Press.