I appreciate I'm not a social scientist, but one thing that really bugs me about physical scientists is the way that there often appears to be no account taken of the perception/reporting of their work. Every 'idealised experiment' is thus taken to be a scheme proposal, and every finding with negative impacts is reported as being a recklessly-ignored effect.
It would therefore be useful if papers were written with a) more subtle scenarios, which perhaps more properly reflected real-world deployments b) more careful language was used to clearly distance model-prodding from actual proposals A On 1 August 2015 at 20:25, Peter Irvine <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > Thanks for the thoughtful responses. > > To summarize crudely: > > Suggestions to improve output from scientists to social scientists: > - Assess more tangible things - Perhaps: Coral reefs, the amazon rainforest, > iconic species? > - Provide more details of regional climate response + its uncertainties. > - Put the biogeophysical projections in the context of the site-specific > societal factors that will shape its effects on peoples lives. > > Thing to bear in mind: > don't think about it as if there were output "from scientists to social > scientists" - this is an issue that requires more linked-up thinking. > > I agree that its critical to think about the issues around SRM in a joined > up way but my concern is how do we do so without becoming paralyzed by the > complexities of the issues involved? I'd suggest that we do need to divide > up the issues somehow (though perhaps not along traditional disciplinary > boundaries) to reduce the complexity enough to grasp the nature of parts of > the issue which can then be reassembled to form a clearer picture of the > whole. > > Thanks again, and please feel free to add more suggestions and thoughts. > > Cheers, > > Pete > > > Peter Irvine > > > Research Fellow > Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) > Berliner Str. 130, D-14467 Potsdam > > Tel: 0049 331 288223 68 > Email: [email protected] > > > On 1 August 2015 at 20:50, Holly J <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Pete, >> >> Thanks for the thought-provoking questions. As a social scientist / >> geographer working with questions of "development", I'd answer: >> >> 1) With regards to its consequences, what one thing would help you to >> better understand the implications of SRM for your area of interest? >> >> More detailed and uniform, spatially explicit social / demographic >> baseline data about pretty much everything: employment, income, >> infrastructure. Land tenure data, forest resource use, agricultural >> techniques; the social aspects of land use that can't be remotely sensed and >> are expensive to collect reliable data on. Even if biophysical scientists >> working on SRM had fantastically predictive impacts models, understanding >> the implications for social dynamics (conflict, inequality, livelihoods >> etc.) relies on acquiring more granular, reliable knowledge of specifically >> who lives where, and how they live. (Apologies, not an answer many physical >> scientists working on SRM can do much with - needs massive funding from >> national & international agencies worldwide to address!) >> >> 2) What one thing do you wish that those of us working on the physical >> consequences of SRM would bear in mind? >> >> That the social impacts / consequences / implications don't inhere in the >> technologies themselves, or perhaps even in the method and process of >> "deployment": the social implications depend on the social / cultural / >> political context in which SRM is used. This seems so obvious that it maybe >> shouldn't even be mentioned, but often both research design and casual >> conversation leaves it out— it's almost reflexive to talk about "societal >> impacts" of geoengineering as if society is a "thing" which responds to >> geoengineering as a stimulus external to the system. Or to project SRM done >> in the future into a social world that looks like today's. To some degree I >> understand why this is the case: it's "too big" to look at how migration >> policy, or instability in the "Middle East", or new biotech crops, or >> changes in income inequality, or corruption, would work with whatever >> precipitation patterns are predicted to influence the social implications >> and real social costs or benefits of doing SRM. Obviously, the sheer >> complexity is easier to address when the knowledge is simplified broken up >> into specific domains for specialists. Yet I do think we, collectively, >> could produce more relevant and interesting research if we figure out how to >> think and talk about the problem somewhat differently (with less of a we do >> x, y happens model / research question framing). >> >> >> Cheers, >> Holly >> >> >> -- >> Ph.D. Candidate / Development Sociology >> Cornell University / [email protected] >> >> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Jon Lawhead <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Pete et. al., >>> >>> Philosopher of climate science here, for what it's worth. >>> >>> I'd echo what the others have said here with respect to your first >>> question. It's very important that we get a better understanding of the >>> magnitude and distribution of regional variation in both SRM effectiveness >>> (that is, reduction of radiative forcing and/or associated average >>> temperature drops) and in associated side-effects (especially on the >>> hydrological cycle). Whether or not SRM via aerosol injection is the sort >>> of thing that would be worth trying--and in what circumstances it would be >>> worth trying--depends very strongly on the nature of our best estimates of >>> those two things, as well as our confidence in those estimates. While some >>> uncertainty is obviously unavoidable, the wide disparity in model estimates >>> of these factors right now is incredibly worrying. >>> >>> Your second question seems more complicated (if that's possible). My >>> first instinct is to suggest that even this way of framing the question >>> highlights something that's a cause for concern: namely, that there is (or >>> ought to be) a sharp delineation between those who are working purely on the >>> physical consequences of SRM, and those who are working on SRM as a piece of >>> a broader social, political, and humanistic problem. Climate science in >>> general--and the physical basis of geoengineering in particular--represents >>> a multidisciplinary problem that's virtually unprecedented in the history of >>> science. Attempting to divorce the physical investigation from more "messy" >>> real-world concerns of implementation and governance strikes me as very >>> dangerous, and likely to lead to serious problems down the road. Keeping >>> one eye on the fact that this is a deeply multifaceted issue with >>> significant implications for political scientists, economists, philosophers, >>> and many other is absolutely essential if you're going to produce models >>> that have relevance for making collective decisions with respect to the >>> implementation of this stuff. The burgeoning integrative assessment >>> approach to looking at SRM (as well as climate science more generally) is >>> really heartening to see, and I think it's important that even those who are >>> steeped in the day-to-day arcana of developing and improving specialized >>> physical models maintain close ties to that community--and that the >>> community be enlarged as much as is necessary to include even more >>> perspectives. >>> >>> Asking questions like those you're asking here is, in other words, >>> absolutely essential. If ever there was a time when the physical sciences, >>> social sciences, and humanities need to work closely with one another in >>> pursuit of a common understanding, it is surely now. It's vital that we all >>> see ourselves as engaged in a single project, and that we maintain the kind >>> of dialog this thread has opened up. Those of us who aren't directly >>> engaged in the modeling project have a responsibility to understand the >>> output of our best contemporary science to the best of our abilities, and >>> those of you who aren't directly engaged in the social or humanistic >>> evaluation of the policies suggested by those models have a responsibility >>> to understand how your work fits into the larger context. I think that, by >>> and large, both "sides" of this project have been doing admirably well so >>> far, but that both sides can also probably continue to improve going >>> forward. >>> >>> I'll add in more relevant thoughts if/when I have them. Thanks for >>> opening up this topic. >>> >>> Naturally, >>> >>> Jon Lawhead, PhD >>> Postdoctoral Research Fellow >>> University of Southern California >>> Philosophy and Earth Sciences >>> >>> 3651 Trousdale Parkway >>> Zumberge Hall of Science, 223D >>> Los Angeles, CA 90089-0740 >>> >>> http://www.realityapologist.com >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 2:05 AM, p.j.irvine <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> As you might know, I work primarily on the climate response to SRM and >>>> I'd like to know how we can better understand the implications of SRM and >>>> how those implications will depend on what we discover about its likely >>>> consequences. So if you have the time, I'd like all you social scientists, >>>> humanities researchers and philosophers of SRM to answer these 2 questions: >>>> >>>> 1) With regards to its consequences, what one thing would help you to >>>> better understand the implications of SRM for your area of interest? >>>> 2) What one thing do you wish that those of us working on the physical >>>> consequences of SRM would bear in mind? >>>> >>>> These don't have to be easily achievable and feel free to be >>>> controversial but I'd like to get a taste for what people feel we'll need >>>> to >>>> do to understand this issue better. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Pete >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "geoengineering" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "geoengineering" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>> email to [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
