From the Environmental Research Letters, there’s a new letter with a rather shocking discovery!
There are several reasons to strengthen the cooperation between the integrated assessment (IA) and earth system (ES) modeling teams in order to better understand the joint development of environmental and human systems. This cooperation can take many different forms, ranging from information exchange between research communities to fully coupled modeling approaches. Here, we discuss the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches and try to establish some guidelines for their applicability, based mainly on the type of interaction between the model components (including the role of feedback), possibilities for simplification and the importance of uncertainty. We also discuss several important areas of joint IA–ES research, such as land use/land cover dynamics and the interaction between climate change and air pollution, and indicate the type of collaboration that seems to be most appropriate in each case. We find that full coupling of IA–ES models might not always be the most desirable form of cooperation, since in some cases the direct feedbacks between IA and ES may be too weak or subject to considerable process or scenario uncertainty. However, when local processes are important, it could be important to consider full integration. By encouraging cooperation between the IA and ES communities in the future more consistent insights can be developed.
If that gobblygook verbiage is a bit confusing, I’ll try to interpret via the ERL news page…….
The paper, shockingly, sees value in interdisciplinary cooperation among the various fields of science.
Now, this is a bit humorous on more than one level. I don’t know a skeptic out there who hasn’t stated this. We’ve been stating this for years. Of course, none of us ever thought that is was necessary to formally present this idea in the form of reviewed research. It’s as if the thought isn’t valid unless some pinheads review the formalized idea and approve of the thought that scientists studying the climate may wish to consult a geologist when doing a proxy study, or perhaps an economist or two when proposing radical changes to energy use policies. Shocking, I now. The authors fall well short of having a comprehensive look at all of the interdisciplinary considerations in the climate discussion, but it’s a start I suppose. Here’s a simplistic flow chart of sorts offered by the authors ….
Well, it’s a start. But, looking back at the abstract, we see they’re trying to formalize the interaction, which is absurd. But, if we give it some thought, we understand why they would.
Some of these disciplines actually adhere to the various principles of hard science, such as empirical evidence based conclusions, and adhering to the practice of the null hypothesis.
And, this is why one may file this paper with all of the other work which suggests a need for interdisciplinary cooperation. Post-normal science is rejected by many fields. You can read the paper here.