Hi All -
Forgive me for joining in - I am a newcomer on this list.
Georges Canguilhem, who analyzed the French medical sciences, argued that
the objectivity of medicine in fact requires its normative component.
Research is not only motivated by goals like curing disease, but is
organized toward those aims in all its detail. He shows that the positive
agenda of a non-normative physiology, which sought to build up an
understanding of normal functions in their totality, remained an allusive
dream. But for Canguilhem this normative dimension hardly undermines
medicine's claim to objectivity - on the contrary. The science of the normal
body needs pathology in order to exist.
It strikes me that ecological sciences also have an undeniable clinical
aspect, at least in a great many research contexts. It is not only that we
are motivated by goals of repairing the earth - or even just making
policy-relevant conclusions - but that the research is actually organized by
the goals, as Ken points out. The normative dimension is inescapable, but
this doesn't mean the methodological basis of research isn't robust. Like
medicine, climate science implies intervention, and our understanding of
climate would be hardly as developed were it not so. As David points out,
that rigor implies separation of prescription and description, but the
description isn't necessarily value free since a human problem helped it
into existence.
Incidentally, Canguilhem attributed this polarized condition of normative
judgment as an essential element of life itself. Living bodies inherently
are involved in polarized judgments - inside versus outside, self versus
pathogen, up versus down, pain versus pleasure. If life is this normative
activity, it means that disease is not a strictly objective condition (say,
loss of functionality), but also a 'subjective' judgment about that
condition (that the loss of function is bad). This also helps clarify why
people use medical sciences to manipulate their bodies in unconventional
ways (reproductive health, augmentation, performance enhancing drugs). Of
course these sciences are also organized around normative goals, and poses a
question about the boundary between science and technology. Hence the
observation also raises parallels with geoengineering and the many anxieties
surrounding it.
Regards,
Jerome Whitington
Dartmouth College / NUS
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Hawkins, Dave <dhawk...@nrdc.org> wrote:
> Hi Ken,
> Your prescription that science papers should not include prescriptive
> statements raises interesting issues.
>
> While I agree that it is important to avoid confusion between science-based
> findings and statements based on values, it seems to me that it is possible
> to avoid this confusion in a single paper by careful writing that clearly
> separates the findings components of the paper from any value-infused
> implications that the authors draw from the findings. To me it seems an
> unnecessary obstacle to communication to require that values-based
> statements appear only in a separate publication than the paper containing
> the science-based findings.
>
> Regarding the Hansen paper, he would probably argue that as a technical
> matter his paper does not breach your rule though.
>
> Certainly, the following sentence from the abstract could be interpreted as
> a prescriptive statement:
>
> "Rapid reduction of fossil fuel emissions is required for humanity to
> succeed in preserving a planet resembling the one on which civilization
> developed."
>
> But it can also be read as a science-based statement; to wit, based on the
> paleo-climate information presented in the paper, the authors conclude that
> continued loadings from fossil fuel use are very likely to result in
> conditions that are outside the envelope of conditions prevalent during the
> rise of modern human civilizations.
>
> One can argue whether the authors have provided adequate support for this
> statement but that is different than calling it a policy prescription.
>
> In the body of the paper, the last page (pasted below) contains essentially
> all of the statements that veer into prescriptions. But on my inspection at
> least, the statements mostly boil down to the inclusion of terms that some
> (not me) might quarrel with: "disastrous," "devastating," "not safe or
> appropriate," "unwise," and "disaster scenario."
>
> I would agree that "appropriate" and "unwise" are values-infused terms, as,
> arguably, is "safe.". But "disaster" and "devastating" are just as easily
> understood as descriptive of the changes the authors argue are likely, based
> on the paleo-climate science discussed in the paper.
>
> In any event, the paper is an interesting illumination of the fuzzy nature
> of the line between science and prescriptive policy pronouncements.
>
> David
>
> excerpt from Hansen:
> "Thus burning all or most fossil fuels guarantees tens of meters of sea
> level rise, as we have shown that the eventual sea level response is about
> 20 meters of sea level for each degree Celsius of global warming. We
> suggest that ice sheet disintegration will be a nonlinear process, spurred
> by an increasing forcing and by amplifying feedbacks, which is better
> characterized by a doubling time for the rate of mass disintegration, rather
> than a linear rate of mass change. If the doubling time is as short as a
> decade, multi-meter sea level rise could occur this century. Observations
> of mass loss from Greenland and Antarctica are too brief for significant
> conclusions, but they are not inconsistent with a doubling time of a decade
> or less. The picture will become clearer as the measurement record
> lengthens. There are physical constraints and negative feedbacks that may
> limit nonlinear ice sheet mass loss. An ice sheet sitting primarily on land
> above sea level, such as most of Greenland, may be limited by the speed at
> which it can deliver ice to the ocean via outlet glaciers. But much of the
> West Antarctic ice sheet, resting on bedrock below sea level, is not so
> constrained. We recognize the negative feedback that comes into play as
> iceberg discharge reaches a rate that cools the regional ocean surface. But
> that negative feedback would be cold comfort. High latitude cooling and low
> latitude warming would drive more powerful mid-latitude cyclonic storms,
> including more frequent cases of hurricane force winds. Such storms, in
> combination with rising sea level, would be disastrous for many of the
> world's great cities and they would be devastating for the world's economic
> well-being and cultural heritage.
>
> "5.3. How much warming is too much? The most substantial political effort
> to place a limit on global warming has been the European Union's target to
> keep global temperature from exceeding the preindustrial level by more than
> 2°C (European Union, 2008). This goal was later reaffirmed (European Union,
> 2010) and it was endorsed by a group of Nobel Laureates in the Stockholm
> Memo (2011). However, based on evidence presented in this paper a target of
> 2°C is not safe or appropriate. Global warming of 2°C would make Earth much
> warmer than in the Eemian, when sea level was 4-6 meters higher than today.
> Indeed, with global warming of 2°C Earth would be headed back toward
> Pliocene-like conditions. Conceivably a 2°C target is based partly on a
> perception of what is politically realistic, rather than a statement of pure
> science. In any event, our science analysis suggests that such a target is
> not only unwise, but likely a disaster scenario. Detailed consideration of
> targets is beyond the scope of this paper, but we note that our present
> study is consistent with the "target CO2" analysis of Hansen et al. (2008).
> Those authors argued that atmospheric CO2 should be rolled back from its
> present ~390 ppm at least to the level of approximately 350 ppm. With other
> climate forcings held fixed, CO2 at 350 ppm would restore the planet's
> energy balance and keep human-made global warming less than 1°C, as we and
> several colleagues discuss in two papers ("Earth's Energy Imbalance" and
> "The Case for Young People and Nature") in preparation."
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jul 22, 2011, at 11:03 AM, "Ken Caldeira" <kcalde...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Two points:
>
> I am not opposed to scientists making prescriptive statements in their
> roles as citizens.
>
> However, I am opposed to prescriptive statements (statements about what we
> should do) in peer-reviewed scientific papers.
>
> I think science is about establishing objective facts about the world. As
> citizens, we take these facts and our values and make judgments about what
> we should do.
>
> I am 100% in favor of Jim Hansen making prescriptive statements. I would
> just prefer that he not do it in the context of a peer-reviewed scientific
> paper.
>
> Science cannot tell us what to do. It can give us information which we can
> use to make decisions.
>
> If the science gets mixed up with politics in peer-reviewed scientific
> publications, I think it ends up weakening the credibility of the entire
> scientific publication process (since statements whose truth value cannot be
> empirically established are obviously getting past reviewers).
>
> I should say that the worst in this respect are the economists, who insist
> that they should be regarded as a science while simultaneously trying to
> tell us what we should be doing.
>
> ---
>
> On deployment of some sort of solar reflection system: all of our model
> results indicate that a high co2 world with deflection of some sunlight
> would be more similar to a low co2 world than is a high co2 world without
> deflection of sunlight.
>
> So, do I think that direct environmental damage from greenhouse gases could
> be diminished by deploying such a system? Yes, probably although I am not
> 100% certain of this.
>
> Do I think near-term deployment will reduce overall risk and improve
> long-term well-being? Of this I am less certain, as it is hard to predict
> the various sociopolitical, as well as environmental, repercussions that
> might occur.
>
> Ken Caldeira
> <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu>kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
> +1 650 704 7212
> <http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab>
> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab
>
> Sent from a limited-typing keyboard
>
> On Jul 22, 2011, at 16:38, John Nissen < <johnnissen2...@gmail.com>
> johnnissen2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Ken,
>
> I've already looked at this interesting paper [1], from Jim Hansen and
> Mikiko Sato - but I'd not read before of his conjecture about rate of ice
> mass loss doubling per decade, producing many metres of sea level rise this
> century. But the implication is that the situation can be saved simply by
> reducing fossil fuel emissions! Is that the prescription that you are
> complaining about? Wouldn't a well-considered prescription be welcome from
> somebody as eminent as Prof Hansen? Geoengineering for example! I don't
> see a way out of our predicament without it. Do you, Ken?
>
> Does Hansen accept that 90% sea ice could be gone as soon as at end summer
> 2016? (BTW, I've another reference to this date we've been arguing about
> [2].)
>
> Hansen seems to dismiss methane as always producing less forcing than CO2:
>
> "*This sensitivity has the merit that CO2 is the principal GHG forcing and
> perhaps the only one with good prospects for quantification of its long-term
> changes.*" (page 15)
>
> However the paper is relevant to the methane issue in several ways. One
> argument, which I've heard from Jeff Ridley, is that there is no sign of a
> methane excursion at previous interglacials* such as end-Eemian, when it was
> hotter, so we don't need to worry about having an excursion now. Hansen
> shows that it was never hotter than it is now (in Holocene) by more than one
> degree.
>
> Elsewhere Hansen points out that the current rate of global warming is much
> higher than it has been for millions of years. Andrew Lockley suggests it's
> higher than even it was at the PETM some 55.8 million years ago, when
> temperatures rose about 6 C [3]. That rate of change is important, because
> of methane's short lifetime. The increasing speed of change implied by
> Hansen's climate sensitivity is thus relevant to methane.
>
> A further way that the paper is relevant to methane is because of climate
> sensitivity to radiative forcing. The paper suggests various alternative
> values that could be taken - see [1] table 1. If we get over 2 W/m-2 from
> methane, then that certainly takes us over the danger line of 2 degrees
> global warming, using his argument.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
> * During the past 800,000 years, methane never rose much above 700 ppb
> until recently, see [1] figure 2
>
> [1] Full paper
> <http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1105/1105.0968.pdf><http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1105/1105.0968.pdf>
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1105/1105.0968.pdf
>
> Abstract here:
> <http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0968v3> <http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0968v3>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0968v3
>
> [2]
> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13002706><http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13002706>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13002706
>
> [3]
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
>
> ---
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Emily <
> <em...@lewis-brown.net><em...@lewis-brown.net>
> em...@lewis-brown.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> here is a recent paper from Jim Hansen,including some figures I've read
>> before, which stunned me:
>>
>> "In the early Pliocene global temperature was no more than 1-2°C warmer
>> than today, yet sea level was 15-25 meters (50-80 feet) higher."
>>
>> best wishes,
>>
>> Emily.
>>
>>
>> *Paleoclimate Implications: Accepted Paper and 'Popular Science'*
>>
>>
>> "Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change" has been
>> reviewed, revised in response to the referee's suggestions, and accepted
>> for publication in "Climate Change at the Eve of the Second Decade of
>> the Century: Inferences from Paleoclimate and Regional Aspects:
>> Proceedings of Milutin Milankovitch 130th Anniversary Symposium" (Eds.
>> A. Berger, F. Mesinger and D Šijački), Springer.
>>
>> This final version has also been published in arXiv:1105.0968v3
>> [physics.ao-ph]
>> <<http://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=fbefcc8464&e=60a7483168><http://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=fbefcc8464&e=60a7483168>
>> http://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=fbefcc8464&e=60a7483168
>> >
>>
>> A__'popular science' summary
>> <<http://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=d3b93e0894&e=60a7483168><http://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=d3b93e0894&e=60a7483168>
>> http://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=d3b93e0894&e=60a7483168
>> >
>> of the paper, intended for lay audience, is available.
>>
>> Thanks especially to reviewer Dana Royer for helpful comments,
>> foundations and NASA program managers for research support, and a number
>> of people for comments on an early draft of the paper, as delineated in
>> the acknowledgements.
>>
>> Jim Hansen
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "geoengineering" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to
>> <geoengineering@googlegroups.com><geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
>> geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> <geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com><geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
>> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en><http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>>
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> <geoengineering@googlegroups.com><geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> <geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com><geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> <http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en><http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en>
> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>
--
Jerome Whitington
Anthropology, UC Berkeley 2008
Climate Justice Research Project
Dartmouth College
+1 415 763 8605
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
