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

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%). 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.). Klimaschwankungen und Völkerwanderungen Climate variability and mass migration Vortrag Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaftern, Wien 1912 Precip  crop prod.

Map of „mental energy“ conditioned by climatic conditions Distribution of civilizations in 1916, according to expert opinion. E. Huntington 1876–1947 of Yale University

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 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

Lund and Stockholm 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 Storms Cappelen, 2013

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 value- preferences have to be taken into account.

“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. Which construction „wins“ in the public domain?

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 Different perceptions among scientists and the public

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 well- defined problem, which needs one specific “solution” The social process „science“ is influenced by these other knowledge forms. Knowledge market

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: / ; 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, 2 o 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.