Climate Variability and Extremes during the Past 100 Years

Large progress has been made in the past few years towards quantifying and understanding climate variability during past centuries. At the same time, present-day climate has been studied using state-of-the-art data sets and tools with respect to the physical and chemical mechanisms governing climate variability. Both the understanding of the past and the knowledge of the processes are important for assessing and attributing the anthropogenic effect on present and future climate. The most important time period in this context is the past approximately 100 years, which comprises large natural variations and extremes (such as long droughts) as well as anthropogenic influences, most pronounced in the past few decades. Recent and ongoing research efforts steadily improve the observational record of the 20th century, while atmospheric circulation models are used to underpin the mechanisms behind large climatic variations. Atmospheric chemistry and composition are important for understanding climate variability and change, and considerable progress has been made in the past few years in this field. The evolving integration of these research areas in a more comprehensive analysis of recent climate variability was reflected in the organisation of a workshop “Climate variability and extremes in the past 100 years” in Gwatt near Thun (Switzerland), 24–26 July 2006. The aim of this workshop was to bring together scientists working on data issues together with statistical climatologists, modellers, and atmospheric chemists to discuss gaps in our understanding of climate variability during the past approximately 100 years.

Scientists’ situated knowledge: Strong objectivity in transdisciplinarity

Although transdisciplinary research has started addressing important epistemological challenges, as evidenced by the discussion about ‘mode 2’ knowledge production, its relation with postulations of ‘scientific objectivity’ is not yet well clarified. A common way of dealing with the epistemological challenge of situated knowledge production, as proposed by transdisciplinarity, is to point to the fundamental aspect of reflexivity. But reflexivity also includes being aware that power and control over the object is derived from the social position of researchers, an issue not often explicitly discussed in transdisciplinary research. Reflexivity thus represents an important but insufficient principle for guaranteeing appropriate levels of self-reflection within a process of knowledge coproduction. We therefore hypothesize that transdisciplinary research could greatly benefit from feminist scientific tradition, in particular the insights of standpoint theory and the concept of ‘strong objectivity’. We analyse, and reflect upon, how a recent transdisciplinary research initiative – conducted together with civil society organizations in (CSOs) in six countries: Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Ecuador and India – has benefited from the use of ‘strong objectivity’. We analyse how the social position of all stakeholders, including ourselves as the scientific actors in this initiative, influence the process and conditions of transdisciplinary knowledge co-production, and we discuss how power and control by scientists affects the process and conditions of interaction. Thereby we argue for the necessity of explicitly assuming sides in contested contexts for reaching objectivity in transdisciplinary research.

The Inverted Phantom Giant

In his famous children’s book, “Jim Button and Luke the Engine Driver”, Michael Ende describes a curious character: A phantom giant. Clothed in rags and with a long beard, the phantom giant appears enormous from far away, but shrinks to normal size as one gets closer. Most people avoid the poor creature, but the ones that dare approach it encounter a gentle, lonely being called Mr. Tur Tur. Chemical ecology is just the opposite of Mr. Tur Tur: A phantom dwarf. Or, in other words, an inverted phantom giant. From a distance, chemical ecology appears like a slightly odd, marginal section of biology and chemistry. But, as the interested scholar approaches, it starts growing and very quickly reaches gigantic dimensions, because all life is explained by chemistry, and all biological chemistry is guided by ecological principles. Herein lies the difficulty with chemical ecology: As it is not perceived well by biologists and chemists, few approach it to understand its significance, and the ones that do find themselves in front of a giant that defies their attempts to define and contain it. This is where the Journal of Chemical Ecology comes in: It invites us to take a closer look at an underestimated discipline and supports us to explore it and deal with its multidimensionality through the promotion of knowledge and methods. These services are unique and make the journal stand out of the crowd of scientific journals. Writing children’s books has become difficult in the era of information technology. And, so has the job of the Journal of Chemical Ecology. Young scientists gather information through accessible, dynamic websites and social platforms. They want articles that are available through a single mouse click, anywhere, anytime. They prefer advanced interactive hypertext protocols over clumsy pdf files. They care about transparency, non-profit and open access just as much as about traditional journal properties. In my view, reaching “the kids” is the major challenge of the Journal over the next years. Promoting an inverted phantom giant in the 21st century requires a combination of high-quality information and boosted visibility. In Michael Ende’s book, Jim and Luke follow exactly this strategy with Mr. Tur Tur: They become friends and offer him a job as a living lighthouse to protect their small island. They combine a quality relationship with high visibility, et voilà, the story ends well! I am looking forward to seeing if the Journal of Chemical Ecology will follow a similar path to reach the next generation of biologists and chemists. If yes, there is a good chance that in 40 years from now, somebody will write a laudation and refer to another famous book by Michael Ende: “The Neverending Story”.