untitled Where lies the horizontal scientist? JUKKA KÄYHKÖ Käyhkö, Jukka (2001). Where lies the horizontal scientist? Fennia 179:2, pp. 181–184. Helsinki. ISSN 0015-0010. Comment on Professor Ronald F. Abler’s speech. Jukka Käyhkö, Department of Geography, University of Turku, FIN-20014 Turku, Finland. MS received 19th November, 2001 (revised 21st November, 2001) Professor Abler, dear colleagues, dear friends. It is indeed a great pleasure to be here at the opening of the Geography Department’s new premises in Kumpula. Knowing that the good old sofa is still to be found somewhere at the depart- ment and seeing the numerous familiar faces in the audience makes one feel at home. I have to admit, however, that there is one aspect to be longed for: the revolving doors of Porthania. Would it still be possible to negotiate with the ar- chitect about reconsidering this small detail? It is an equal pleasure and honour to have the opportunity to comment on Professor Ron Abler’s presentation on Geography among the sciences. It is, however, also a grand challenge. Anyone would find himself in a rather exciting position commenting on such a thorough and knowledge- able presentation. Professor Abler did very well indeed in cover- ing the whole discipline. Therefore, it is best not to try to re-invent geography here. Instead, I shall give a snapshot of a narrow slice of the neigh- bouring, newly emerging fields of science which Professor Abler referred to as the grand challeng- es, namely Earth System Science, and its close rel- ative, Global Change Science. In this presentation, I shall briefly try to formu- late the relationship between these disciplines and geography, as we know it. Environmental scientists often make the head- lines nowadays as global environmental prob- lems, such as climate change or land degradation, are tackled. The complexity and interconnections of various environmental problems have set whole new requirements for the research community. Politicians and decision-makers in general cur- rently harass scientists with the most convoluted queries about, say, whether there are indeed any harmful changes in nature, what causes these changes, and how we should mitigate or adapt to these dilemmas. Questions arise, such as whether our energy sector should invest in nuclear energy or natural gas, whether we should protect old growth forests or concentrate on increasing biodiversity in com- mercial forests, how to allocate aid to develop- ing countries, or how to balance urbanisation, in- creasing poverty and inequality on a regional and global scale, just to give a few examples. Suddenly, environmental sciences are all very policy relevant. A beautiful example of an increasing demand for scientific expertise in policy is climate change. I suppose we all clearly remember the internation- al meeting on emission reductions in Bonn in July. The participants encountered severe problems and disagreement about carbon sinks and forest accounting, with perhaps less emphasis on true emission reductions. The Intergovernmental Pan- el on Climate Change, the IPCC, had slightly ear- lier published its third assessment report on cli- mate change. We remember how the US presi- dent, George W. Bush, questioned the scientific merit of the “Summary for policymakers” (IPCC 2001) and established a small group of experts within the National Science Foundation to review the report. The outcome of the review was that the IPCC report was scientifically valid, but this finding did not stop President Bush from with- drawing from the Kyoto protocol. Global environ- mental problems have indeed taken science onto a completely new level of policy relevance. How- ever, let us move back to geography now. 182 FENNIA 179: 2 (2001)Jukka Käyhkö The complexity of Mother Earth has opened the eyes of many scientists to realise that a narrow, traditional, discipline-oriented approach will not suffice. Among other researchers, Dr. Hans- Joachim Schellnhuber, a renowned physicist who has lately been appointed as the director of the multidisciplinary Tyndall Centre for climate re- search in the UK, has suggested Earth System Sci- ence (ESS) as an aid in solving global environmen- tal problems (Schellnhuber 1999). The diagram (Fig. 1, the right hand panel exclud- ed) presents the Earth as a simplified, conceptual model, which is referred to as the Earth System. As geographers we are naturally familiar with this flow model of the Earth. It includes various ecosystems, oceans and biogeochemical cycles. However, something is lacking: the human factor. In the Earth System Science approach, the human dimension has been reduced to the three ellipsoids on the right. It does not look too comprehensive as an ap- proach to a geographer, does it? But let me come back to this ESS issue slightly later. Similarly, Dr. John Lawton, a biochemist and the head of the Natural Environment Research Council in the UK, stated in the Editorial of Sci- ence in June (see the insert on page 184), that Earth System Science is the ultimate solution to environmental problems (Lawton 2001). It stud- ies not only the main components of the planet Earth, such as the atmosphere, the oceans etc., but also their interactions – a revolutionary ap- proach. Professor Abler critically commented on this “not-so-revolutionary” view in the AAG Newsletter later in the summer from the geogra- pher’s point of view (Abler 2001). Indeed, let us go back to the Schellnhuber dia- gram for a second and revise it somewhat by add- ing some socio-economical aspects and humani- ties (cf. Fig 1, right hand panel included). Now we have a more complete model of the planet Earth, as we geographers know it. The Earth sys- tem appears now more realistic with topics such as development, technology, urbanisation and transportation included. It is, however, also much Fig. 1. The proposed scientific approach, “the global change science”, consists of the (physical) earth system science (e.g., Schellnhuber 1999) and the socio-economic (human) system plus their interaction. The scope therefore reminds that of traditional geography, but the vast spatial dimension calls for multidisciplinary collaboration. FENNIA 179: 2 (2001) 183Where lies the horizontal scientist? less readily predictable! Suddenly we have to deal with democratic elections, revolutions, black Tuesdays on the stock market, even wars. The world is not only stirred – it is shaken. I may not be the first one, but I call this ap- proach global change science. It is probably en- lightening to stress here that global change is not a synonym for climate change, as is so often mis- takenly considered to be, even in scientific con- tributions. Global change is much more than cli- mate. It covers all spheres, both natural and hu- man systems. However, why call it global change? What’s wrong with good old geography? Very simply, geography cannot do this all by it- self. Very few of us geographers do atmospheric modelling, calculate the national price tag for Kyoto emission reductions, or investigate the ju- ridical matters with regard to the biodiversity con- vention and the rights of aboriginal tribes in the Amazon region. Geographers use the results for regional syntheses, but they do not necessarily undertake the primary work. There is still a clear, justified need for specialists, and we know it. I shall try to conceptualise global change meth- odology in a simple diagram (Fig. 2), showing the various research fields needed to implement the approach. First, we need traditional (what I call) “vertical scientists” (physicists, chemists, geologists, econ- omists, lawyers etc) to dig deep into their own fields of speciality and feed facts into the data- base. Second, we need futures researchers: scientists investigating potential, largely unpredictable fu- tures with various scenario approaches. This is an autonomous field of research in its own right. Third, someone has to build the enormously complex models to run the scenarios. We need modellers to do the trick. Finally, in the middle of the diagram (cf. Fig. 2), “lies” the horizontal scientist – we may wish to call him a geographer – who understands in- teractions, spatial and regional entities, and both natural and anthropogenic processes, to aid in putting together the model of Mother Earth, or a part of it. This whole entity is global change sci- ence. It is more than what can be accomplished by geographers on their own, but it will be diffi- cult to complete without one. What is surprising, and annoying as well, I guess, is the fact that geographers seem not to have been able to sufficiently show their abilities. It is as if the whole discipline of integration had been invented only now, when our fellows among the vertical scientists have realised that integra- tion is the magic word in better understanding our environment. Let me give an example from Fin- land. The Finnish Global Change Research Pro- gramme, FIGARE, is funded by the Academy of Finland and consists of nearly 40 projects from all over Finland. To my knowledge, there is only one geographer among the 120 researchers. Hard- ly any geographer sent in an application three years ago when the global change research pro- gramme was established. Why don’t geographers get excited of a topic, which should by definition be their slice of bread? I believe that there is a paradox here. The strength of geography lies in its unified approach, its abil- ity to bridge the natural sciences and humanities into purposeful and practical applications. How- ever, these very same qualities may dilute the scope and aims in the contemporary world. It is difficult to be a specialised generalist. Perhaps we geographers are not very good in marketing our expertise and ourselves. Perhaps we should stop jealously protecting our own discipline and look confidently for collaboration, proud of the strengths of geographical approach, to offer our- selves as linkages between vertical scientists. No- body will do this for us. Whether or not geogra- phy will be among the big-S sciences in the fu- ture, as professor Abler expressed it, is up to you and me. Fig. 2. A conceptual ‘global change science’ approach showing the four fields of research required for the comple- tion of the system. 184 FENNIA 179: 2 (2001)Jukka Käyhkö I would like to end here by thanking Professor Abler for his thought-provoking presentation, and wishing the Geography Department a successful future. The new, once again unified premises of Kumpula will certainly serve for geography’s ben- efit. I would also like to invite geographers to col- laborate and integrate forces, not only within your own department, but also with colleagues work- ing elsewhere in Finland and abroad. Viribus unitis. REFERENCES Abler R (2001). Earth System Science. AAG News- letter of the Association of American Geographers 36: 8, 2. IPCC (2001). Summary for Policymakers. Report of the Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC Third Assessment Report. Käyhkö J (2001). Global change science – a revolu- tionary approach in climate change research. The Northern Review (in press). Lawton J (2001). Earth System Science. Science 292, 1965. Schellnhuber HJ (1999). ‘Earth system’ analysis and the second Copernican revolution. Nature 402: 6761, Supplement, C19–C23. Prof. John Lawton, Science Editorial, 15 June 2001 (partially) One of the great scientific challenges of the 21st century is to forecast the future of the planet Earth. As human activities push atmospheric car- bon dioxide and methane concentrations far be- yond anything seen for nearly half a million years (prompting the strongest statement yet from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that human activities are warming the world), we find ourselves, literally in uncharted territory, perform- ing an uncontrolled experiment with planet Earth that is terrifying in its scale and complexity. Wrestling to understand these challenges is the young, still emerging, discipline of Earth System Science (ESS). … ESS takes the main components of planet Earth – the atmosphere, oceans, freshwater, rocks, soils and biosphere – and seeks to understand major patterns and processes in their dynamics. To do this, we need to study not only the processes that go within each component, but also interactions between these components. It is the need to study and understand these between-component inter- actions that defines ESS as a discipline in its own right. … It is hard to imagine a more important discipline than Earth System Science. We urgently need to overhaul our thinking and rejig our institutions to allow this crucial new science to flourish.