Transcript climate science

Climate science and climate
scientists - what can we
contribute to the process of
determining political goals?
Hans von Storch
Institute of Coastal Research, Geesthacht
University of Hamburg
Ocean University of China, 青岛
21 January 2016 – MPI BGC, Jena
Hans von Storch
• Climate researcher with expertise in climate
statistics, regional simulation, detection &
attribution, coastal climate
• Cooperation with social scientists
• Retired director of Institut of Coastal
Research, Helmholtz Zentrum Geesthacht
• Member of the faculty of social sciences
U Hamburg
• Editor-in-Chief of Oxford U Press Research
Encyclopedia of Climate Science
• Guest Professor of Ocean University of
China, Qingdao
Overview
•
•
•
•
•
Climate Research – history
The knowledge market
Merton’s norms
Postnormality
Die Klimafalle
Climate research – history
• Anthropocentric view – climate determines
living conditions;
• Climatic determinism
• Physics of atmosphere and of ocean
• Physics of climate
Alexander von Humboldt (1769–1859) Cosmos, A
Sketch of a Physical Description of the Universe, 1845
“The term climate, taken in its most general sense,
indicates all the changes in the atmosphere, which
sensibly affect our organs, as temperature, humidity,
variations in the barometrical pressure, the calm state of
the air or the action of varying winds, the amount of
electric tension, the purity of the atmosphere or its
admixture with more or less noxious gaseous
exhalations, and, finally, the degree of ordinary
transparency and clearness of the sky, which is not only
important with respect to the increased radiation from
the earth, the organic development of plants, and the
ripening of fruits, but also with reference to its influence
on the feelings and mental condition of men”.
The case of Eduard
Brückner – solid climate
research but unexpected
social and technological
developments
Hans von Storch
& Nico Stehr
Klimaschwankungen und Völkerwanderungen
Climate variability and mass migration
Vortrag Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaftern, Wien
1912
Precip crop prod.
Variability of Rainfall and Wheat
Prices in England
Rainfall (R) is indicated in deviations
from mean (percentages) (1 = 2.5%),
the annual average wheat price (W) in
Shillings per Imp. Quarter (1 = 2 sh.).
Variability of Rainfall in
Relation to the Grain Crop in
Prussia
The Grain Crop (WZ = Wheat
Crop, RO = Rye Crop) is in
percentages of an average crop,
i.e. in deviation from a multi-year
mean ( 1 indicator = 5%
deviation); rainfall (R) is also in
deviations (%) from the mean (1
indicator = 4%).
Map of „mental energy“ conditioned by climatic
conditions
E. Huntington
1876–1947 of
Yale University
Distribution of civilizations in 1916, according to
expert opinion.
Davies‘ (1923, 1929 and
1932) „nose index“
derived from
observations and
estimated from
temperature and
humidity data.
Atmospheric and
oceanic dynamics
Climate physics
Key assertions of WG I of IPCC AR5:
- Air temperature rises (almost) everywhere,
albeit with different rates.
- Without a significant contribution from
elevated greenhouses gas concentrations this
warming cannot be explained – given present
knowledge.
Scenarios, not predictions
(Hasselmann, 1990)
Policy advice
• Understanding climate dynamics and sensitivity leads
directly to the „right“ policy (“linear model”)
• This is: concentrate on CO2, limit the emissions so that
the temperature change is stabilized and limited to 2K in
2100.
• Create an international, binding agreement now.
• Discourse limited to one strategy, which is claimed as
only solution.
• COP21, Paris – doubts that it will lead to this solution,
but first steps are taken.
Societal reality
There is a history of cultural
constructions of anthropogenic
climate change in the past
1000 years.
Climate change studies have a
history, and have generated
many claims and falsifications.
These claims have left traces in
the public understanding of
climate and climate change
Competition of different knowledge claims
(Knowledge = ability to act with expected certain outcomes;
(Nico Stehr))
•Contemporary scientific construction
•Dominant contemporary social construction (Klimakatastrophe)
•Skeptical discourse
•Outdated scientific construction: climatic determinism
•Cultural construction: Nature strikes back.
•more
Two different construction of „climate change“ –
scientific and cultural – which is more powerful?
Cultural: „Klimakatastrophe“
Scientific: man-made change is
real, can be mitigated to some
extent but not completely avoided
Cappelen, 2013
Lund and Stockholm
Storms
The linear model has been found being inadequate for describing or even
guiding societal decisions processes.
Instead, competing factors, such as other environmental and
socioeconomic change, competing knowledge claims and valuepreferences have to be taken into account.
Which construction „wins“ in the public domain?
“How strongly do you employ the
following sources of information, for
deciding about issues related to
climate adaptation?”
Regional administrators in German
Baltic Sea coastal regions.
Bray, 2011, pers. comm.
Different perceptions
among scientists and the public
Ratter, Philipp, von Storch, 2012: Between Hype and Decline – Recent Trends in Public Perception of
Climate Change, Environ. Sci. & Pol. 18 (2012) 3-8
Bray, D., 2010: The scientific consensus of climate change revisited. Env. Sci. Pol. 13: 340 – 350
Knowledge market
• The science-policy/public interaction is not an issue of
„knowledge speaks to power“.
• The problem is not that the public is stupid or
uneducated.
• A problem is that the scientific knowledge is confronted
on the „explanation marked“ with other forms of
knowledge (pre-scientific, outdated, traditional, morphed
by different interests). Scientific knowledge does not
necessarily “win” this competition.
• Problem is that science is presented as if there is a welldefined problem, which needs one specific “solution”
• The social process „science“ is influenced by these other
knowledge forms.
Challenge for climate science
• Determination of role of science in a postnormal situation
• Is Merton‘s CUDOS a Leitbild for climate science, or is it …
• … the scientist, who provides truth and guidance for solving societal
problems?
• Climate science is partly natural science, partly social, partly cultural
science.
• Without coaching by cultural sciences, the role of climate sciences
will be reduced to the linear (reduced) model (cf. Hulme, 2011), and
fail to provide societies with the necessary knowledge for dealing
with the challenge of man-made climate change.
Robert K. Merton‘s CUDOS norms for the scientific
practice
1.Communism: „is the nontechnical and extended sense of common
ownership of goods“; the products of competition are communized
(„public domain“); there is an imperative for communication of data and
research findings.
2.Universalism: „Truth claims are to be subjected to pre-established
impersonal criteria“.
3.Disinterestedness: The results are not influenced by personal
preferences.
4.Organized Skepticism: ”Research is checked by rigorous, structured
scrutiny of peers.”
(quotes after Grundmann, R., 2012: “Climategate” and the Scientific Ethos Social Studies
of Science. Science Technology Human Values DOI: 10.1177/0162243911432318;
Cllimate scientits mostly agree to these norms: Bray, D., and H. von Storch, 2015: The
Normative Orientations of Climate Scientists. Science and Engineering Ethics)
The ubiquity of political significance:
Post-normality
A research field is in a „post-normal“ phase (as described by Funtovicz
und Ravetz), if
-its results suffer from inherent, unavoidable uncertainty
and if these are employed for guiding societal decisions, which
-are urgent;
-related to contested societal values
-associated with significant expenditures
In such a situation, the science field often becomes a support for
certain political goals and measures. The political utility becomes more
important than the validity of the employed methodology
Camouflaged lobbyists act as scientists.
The Klimafalle
The climate trap
The Klimafalle
for society and climate science
-Society pursues a normative defined goal,
but believes that this goal is a scientific
necessity without alternatives
(Klimaschutzpolitik, 2o goal)
-Therefore, no debate about the goal is need.
Opponents are morally inferior (evil, lead by
vested interests); supporters act with the
authority of science and moral.
The consequence is a de-politicization of
politics, and the societal negotiation
processes, needed for maintaining social
peace, are obstructed – with the eventual
consequence that an efficient climate policy
cannot be implemented.
The Klimafalle
for society and climate science
-Climate science has identified a problem –
anthropogenic climate change – and is
capable of assessing how political measues
may influence the future climate change.
-Climate science is confronted with claims
that from political consequences would follow
directly from scientific insights.
The consequence is a politicization of
science, which hinders an open and critical
debate of the social process „climate
science“, and eventually damages the quality
of climate science (Merton‘s norms; cf.
„Waldsterben“)
Accepting the role of limited Fachidiotism
1)Scientists have exceptionally deep understanding of their field of
expertise. They are “Fachidioten”, if they are good scientists.
2)Societal decisions have many facets, and are covered by many very
different fields of expertise.
3)Thus, scientists can only address specific aspects of societal
problems.
4)Scientists can answer questions, if options may lead to the hoped for
outcomes (in their field of expertise), or if they are likely having
unintended consequences.
5)In reality, decision are made in political negotiation processes, which
involve both expertise and value preferences.
6)In the decision process, scientists have as much to say as anybody
else. In doing so, their status as scientists is insignificant.
The topology of
political (and medial) utility
The topology of scientific utility
Sustainable usage of the
resource „science“: Making
available knowledge about
possibilities and efficiency of
options.
Quality control by limiting
influence on policymaking.
Otherwise consumption of the
resource „science“ as a
support of certain pre-defined
political „solutions“
Limiting the public and political
decision process.
Summary
1. Climate science has constructed robust assessments of
key problems – such as the reality of warming/change;
need of including greenhouse gases when explaining this
change
2. There are many contested issues (e.g., sea level, tropical
storms)
3. Climate science can support political decision processes
by clarifying options, conditions and links.
4. Climate science is in a post-normal situation – societal
interests try to make climate science to a combattant for
the “good” cause.
5. Next to science, other knowledge claims influence
stakeholders, media, the public and scientists. The
scientific knowledge does not necessarily wind this
competition.