When evaluating large, complex, chaotic systems - humans seem to have taken an approach of reducing the problem to isolated parts. The isolated parts are smaller and simpler and therefore can be understood. When the isolated parts are rolled upwards the larger system can then be viewed as a series of small parts and we can draw conclusions.
As we stumble forward in our investigation of the climate and climate change I have problems discerning the actual opinion of scientists. The nebula of the internet brought me a location that neatly summarizes many of the important studies on climate change:
Arnell, N.W., 2005. Implications of climate change for freshwater inflows to the Arctic Ocean. J. Geophys. Res. 110, D07105, doi:10.1029/2004JD005348.
Boyd,P.W., Law,C.S., Wong,C.S. et a. 2004. The decline and fate of an iron-induced subarctic phytoplankton bloom. Nature doi:10.1038/nature02437 (on line).
Crutzen, P.J. 2006. Albedo Enhancement by stratospheric sulphur injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Climatic Change 77: 211-219.
Anderson, T.L., Charlson, R.J., Schwartz, S.E., Knutti, R., Boucher, O., Rodhe, H., Heintzenberg, J. 2003. Climate forcing by aerosols- a hazy picture. Science 300:5622 : 1103-1104.
Damon, P.E., P. Laut, 2004. Pattern of strange errors plagues solar activity and terrestrial climate data. EOS, 85, 370 & 374.
This is actually the summarized list of science being done on the climate 'simplified' and made available by Environment Canada. The IPCC has taken this global body of science and created a report that authoritatively gives views on climate change.
Kevin Kelly is one of the pre-eminent authors on technology in our era and gives a great quote in discussing reductionism - "There are problems with this approach to understanding the world because very complicated being and behaviors are synergetic – they are wholes that are greater than the sum of their parts. The classic example is the bee hive. The behavior of a hive of bees is found nowhere in any part of the hive. It is not found in an individual bee (the part), it is not found in a bunch of bees. It can only reveal itself when the bees co-create a hive. Thus, there is something in a hive that cannot be found by examining bees or the parts, no matter how carefully, thorough or scientific it is done."
How can one take Dr. Boyd, Law and Wong's research on iron-induced phytoplankton bloom and assume to understand this in relation to other studies and come to the conclusion that climate change is real? If the science shown being done by Environment Canada is in fact at the level shown on their website I would heavily accuse them of scientific reductionism.
While I personally believe in reducing our eco-footprint and believe that it is obvious we emit an unhealthy level of CO2 that has an undeterministic, potentially catastrophic impact on our society - I really question the scientific methodology we have used to determine this. And mostly I really misunderstand how science is left as some stand-alone amorpheous blob that is not reportable to the general public and left to make its own conclusions without integrating their believes into something real that the rest of the world can relate with. Is simply the act of having scientists scientific reduction itself?
******************************
Sources:
1. Environment Canada, http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/education/scienceofclimatechange/publications/developments/index_e.html
2. Kevin Kelly, www.kk.org/thetechnium
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment