M. Gardezi, Semhar Michael, R. Stock, S. Vij, A. Ogunyiola, Asif Ishtiaque
Extant systematic literature reviews on the topic of climate smart agriculture (CSA) have mainly focused on two issues: reviewing framing of the CSA discourse in the academic and policy literature; and policy initiatives in the Global South that enhance the adoption of climate‐smart agricultural practices. Yet, there is little systematic investigation into how international organizations can help smallholder farmers manage agricultural systems to respond to climate change. Analyzing these organization's priorities and highlighting their knowledge gaps are crucial for designing future pathways of CSA. We intend to use this article to identify overarching CSA themes that can guide large international organizations to focus their CSA agenda in the hope of achieving goals associated with food security and sustainable intensification. We specifically ask the following question: How have the key CSA topics and themes emerged in the gray literature of international organizations between 2010 and 2020? We adopted a topic modeling approach to identify how six international organizations engaged with several topics related to CSA. Following the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) approach, we identified eight topics in the documents, representing four overarching themes: gender research, weather and climate, CSA management and food security. We found that there is insufficient discussion on the issues relating to governance measures and gender mainstreaming, with a larger focus on techno‐managerial measures of CSA. We conclude that research and training related to CSA must offer opportunities for marginalized and disproportionately vulnerable populations to participate and raise their voices and share innovative ideas at different levels of governance.
{"title":"Prioritizing climate‐smart agriculture: An organizational and temporal review","authors":"M. Gardezi, Semhar Michael, R. Stock, S. Vij, A. Ogunyiola, Asif Ishtiaque","doi":"10.1002/wcc.755","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.755","url":null,"abstract":"Extant systematic literature reviews on the topic of climate smart agriculture (CSA) have mainly focused on two issues: reviewing framing of the CSA discourse in the academic and policy literature; and policy initiatives in the Global South that enhance the adoption of climate‐smart agricultural practices. Yet, there is little systematic investigation into how international organizations can help smallholder farmers manage agricultural systems to respond to climate change. Analyzing these organization's priorities and highlighting their knowledge gaps are crucial for designing future pathways of CSA. We intend to use this article to identify overarching CSA themes that can guide large international organizations to focus their CSA agenda in the hope of achieving goals associated with food security and sustainable intensification. We specifically ask the following question: How have the key CSA topics and themes emerged in the gray literature of international organizations between 2010 and 2020? We adopted a topic modeling approach to identify how six international organizations engaged with several topics related to CSA. Following the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) approach, we identified eight topics in the documents, representing four overarching themes: gender research, weather and climate, CSA management and food security. We found that there is insufficient discussion on the issues relating to governance measures and gender mainstreaming, with a larger focus on techno‐managerial measures of CSA. We conclude that research and training related to CSA must offer opportunities for marginalized and disproportionately vulnerable populations to participate and raise their voices and share innovative ideas at different levels of governance.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2021-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47928433","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Machine‐assisted big data (MABD) research is enabling quantitative studies of large‐scale social phenomena, including societal responses to climate change. The rise of MABD science is causing both enthusiasm and concerns. Reviewing prominent criticisms of MABD and their relevance for MABD explorations of macro‐structural factors shaping media coverage of climate change, this article finds that the quality and contributions of such studies depend on avoiding common pitfalls. The review focuses specifically on MABD studies' attempts to identify and make sense of correlations—or lack thereof—between climate vulnerability and climate coverage in different countries. The review draws on insights from a single, nationally focused, context‐attentive, and relatively more qualitative “small data” study in the Global South (Brazil) to shed critical light on assumptions, claims, and policy recommendations made based on the computer‐assisted macro‐studies. The review illustrates why more narrowly focused and qualitative small data studies are complementary and indispensable. Besides providing vital understanding of causal relationships that elude MABD studies, more narrowly focused and context‐sensitive qualitative studies can foster understanding of the consequential mediating roles of place‐specific meaning‐making and political strategizing in how climate and weather phenomena are framed by social actors and mass media in particular places. These are dimensions that escape the Big Data quantitative methods, but that are vital to sound policy advice, as illustrated by the Small Data research from Brazil.
{"title":"Evaluating the computational (“Big Data”) turn in studies of media coverage of climate change","authors":"M. Lahsen","doi":"10.1002/wcc.752","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.752","url":null,"abstract":"Machine‐assisted big data (MABD) research is enabling quantitative studies of large‐scale social phenomena, including societal responses to climate change. The rise of MABD science is causing both enthusiasm and concerns. Reviewing prominent criticisms of MABD and their relevance for MABD explorations of macro‐structural factors shaping media coverage of climate change, this article finds that the quality and contributions of such studies depend on avoiding common pitfalls. The review focuses specifically on MABD studies' attempts to identify and make sense of correlations—or lack thereof—between climate vulnerability and climate coverage in different countries. The review draws on insights from a single, nationally focused, context‐attentive, and relatively more qualitative “small data” study in the Global South (Brazil) to shed critical light on assumptions, claims, and policy recommendations made based on the computer‐assisted macro‐studies. The review illustrates why more narrowly focused and qualitative small data studies are complementary and indispensable. Besides providing vital understanding of causal relationships that elude MABD studies, more narrowly focused and context‐sensitive qualitative studies can foster understanding of the consequential mediating roles of place‐specific meaning‐making and political strategizing in how climate and weather phenomena are framed by social actors and mass media in particular places. These are dimensions that escape the Big Data quantitative methods, but that are vital to sound policy advice, as illustrated by the Small Data research from Brazil.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":"33 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2021-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41263445","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Climate change certainly shapes weather events. However, describing climate and weather as the cause of disasters can be misleading, since disasters are caused by pre‐existing fragilities and inequalities on the ground. Analytic frames that attribute disaster to climate can divert attention from these place‐based vulnerabilities and their socio‐political causes. Thus, while politicians may want to blame crises on climate change, members of the public may prefer to hold government accountable for inadequate investments in flood or drought prevention and precarious living conditions. To be both strategic and moral, framing choices must therefore be sensitive to context‐dependent political meanings and particularities, and to how the values implicit within analytic frames about the causes of disasters shape policy responses. Such sensitivity requires multicausal analysis of weather‐linked disasters to illuminate a broader range of means to reduce the damages associated with climate change and weather extremes. Through examples from around the world, and especially Brazil, we discuss how and why climate‐centric disaster framing can erase from view—and, thus, from policy agendas—the very socio‐economic and political factors that most centrally cause vulnerability and suffering in weather extremes and disasters. We also offer a theoretical discussion of why attribution is not neutral. Analytic frameworks always embed choices about factors that matter, and thus are inherently normative and consequential for understandings of responsibility and action.
{"title":"Politics of attributing extreme events and disasters to climate change","authors":"M. Lahsen, J. Ribot","doi":"10.1002/wcc.750","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.750","url":null,"abstract":"Climate change certainly shapes weather events. However, describing climate and weather as the cause of disasters can be misleading, since disasters are caused by pre‐existing fragilities and inequalities on the ground. Analytic frames that attribute disaster to climate can divert attention from these place‐based vulnerabilities and their socio‐political causes. Thus, while politicians may want to blame crises on climate change, members of the public may prefer to hold government accountable for inadequate investments in flood or drought prevention and precarious living conditions. To be both strategic and moral, framing choices must therefore be sensitive to context‐dependent political meanings and particularities, and to how the values implicit within analytic frames about the causes of disasters shape policy responses. Such sensitivity requires multicausal analysis of weather‐linked disasters to illuminate a broader range of means to reduce the damages associated with climate change and weather extremes. Through examples from around the world, and especially Brazil, we discuss how and why climate‐centric disaster framing can erase from view—and, thus, from policy agendas—the very socio‐economic and political factors that most centrally cause vulnerability and suffering in weather extremes and disasters. We also offer a theoretical discussion of why attribution is not neutral. Analytic frameworks always embed choices about factors that matter, and thus are inherently normative and consequential for understandings of responsibility and action.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2021-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49116011","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The first trigger to any form of personal and collective change begins with emotions. They influence whether and how our attention is drawn to stimuli, how we reflect upon those stimuli, and how we choose courses of action. Emotions are thus at the center of social responses to climate change. We offer a selective, interdisciplinary review of emotions research to inform the development of a hypothetical emotion–cognition model of climate change response, followed by exploration of the emotional precedents supporting three prevailing behavioral responses which support inaction: apathy, denial, and withdrawal. We then review research that can inform emotion triggers to pro‐climate adaptive and mitigative action. We conclude with a discussion of two key research needs: intersectionality and interdisciplinarity. Addressing these needs will enhance our ability to respond to the climate emergency.
{"title":"Emotional pathways to climate change responses","authors":"D. Davidson, Maik Kecinski","doi":"10.1002/wcc.751","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.751","url":null,"abstract":"The first trigger to any form of personal and collective change begins with emotions. They influence whether and how our attention is drawn to stimuli, how we reflect upon those stimuli, and how we choose courses of action. Emotions are thus at the center of social responses to climate change. We offer a selective, interdisciplinary review of emotions research to inform the development of a hypothetical emotion–cognition model of climate change response, followed by exploration of the emotional precedents supporting three prevailing behavioral responses which support inaction: apathy, denial, and withdrawal. We then review research that can inform emotion triggers to pro‐climate adaptive and mitigative action. We conclude with a discussion of two key research needs: intersectionality and interdisciplinarity. Addressing these needs will enhance our ability to respond to the climate emergency.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2021-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48660776","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
It is well‐established that human population growth is a leading cause of increased greenhouse gas emissions and accelerating global climate change. After decades of neglect, philosophical ethicists have, over the past decade, taken up the issue of climate change and population policy and there are now numerous articles and books which explore the subject. Both rights‐based and consequentialist approaches seek to balance reproductive rights against other human rights and interests threatened by overpopulation and ecological degradation. While biocentric ethicists have additional reasons to advocate for smaller human populations, even anthropocentrists affirm the need to balance reproductive rights against reproductive responsibilities in order to promote the well‐being of future generations. There is a particularly strong consensus on the value of choice‐enhancing population policies that reduce fertility voluntarily, such as securing universal access to modern contraception and promoting equal rights and opportunities for women. There is strong support for government policies that incentivize smaller families, some support for policies that disincentivize larger ones, and little to no support for punitive policies. Many ethicists warn that failure to enact reasonable population policies now may necessitate harsher policies in the future, a common theme in climate ethics generally.
{"title":"Climate ethics and population policy: A review of recent philosophical work","authors":"Philip Cafaro","doi":"10.1002/wcc.748","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.748","url":null,"abstract":"It is well‐established that human population growth is a leading cause of increased greenhouse gas emissions and accelerating global climate change. After decades of neglect, philosophical ethicists have, over the past decade, taken up the issue of climate change and population policy and there are now numerous articles and books which explore the subject. Both rights‐based and consequentialist approaches seek to balance reproductive rights against other human rights and interests threatened by overpopulation and ecological degradation. While biocentric ethicists have additional reasons to advocate for smaller human populations, even anthropocentrists affirm the need to balance reproductive rights against reproductive responsibilities in order to promote the well‐being of future generations. There is a particularly strong consensus on the value of choice‐enhancing population policies that reduce fertility voluntarily, such as securing universal access to modern contraception and promoting equal rights and opportunities for women. There is strong support for government policies that incentivize smaller families, some support for policies that disincentivize larger ones, and little to no support for punitive policies. Many ethicists warn that failure to enact reasonable population policies now may necessitate harsher policies in the future, a common theme in climate ethics generally.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2021-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44982514","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Stimulating public participation in decision making is heralded as a way to get climate policies accepted by the public. Yet, little is known about whether and when public participation can increase policy acceptability. This is true in particular of practices organized by responsible parties to engage the public in decision making. Based on a vast body of interdisciplinary literature, four types of normative standards for effective public participation can be distilled, which I call the four Ds: dialogue, decision‐making power, diversity, and deliberation. However, normative standards may not be enough for reaching socially acceptable climate policies, if people do not want to participate, or want to participate too late in decision making, and are not open to different perspectives. The result can be fake participation, exclusion, and polarization—all which may reduce, rather than increase, public acceptability of climate policies. Understanding public preferences for participation is therefore critical for the implementation of the four Ds and for reaching socially acceptable climate policies. This Perspective article is relevant for scientists, policy makers, NGO's, businesses, interest groups, and other parties wanting to understand how to engage the public in climate decision making.
{"title":"Contested climate policies and the four Ds of public participation: From normative standards to what people want","authors":"G. Perlaviciute","doi":"10.1002/wcc.749","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.749","url":null,"abstract":"Stimulating public participation in decision making is heralded as a way to get climate policies accepted by the public. Yet, little is known about whether and when public participation can increase policy acceptability. This is true in particular of practices organized by responsible parties to engage the public in decision making. Based on a vast body of interdisciplinary literature, four types of normative standards for effective public participation can be distilled, which I call the four Ds: dialogue, decision‐making power, diversity, and deliberation. However, normative standards may not be enough for reaching socially acceptable climate policies, if people do not want to participate, or want to participate too late in decision making, and are not open to different perspectives. The result can be fake participation, exclusion, and polarization—all which may reduce, rather than increase, public acceptability of climate policies. Understanding public preferences for participation is therefore critical for the implementation of the four Ds and for reaching socially acceptable climate policies. This Perspective article is relevant for scientists, policy makers, NGO's, businesses, interest groups, and other parties wanting to understand how to engage the public in climate decision making.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2021-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43252034","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In WIREs Climate Change, Issue 1(4), 2010, I suggested a typology of the data and methods used to assess links between climate change, environmental degradation and migration (Piguet, 2010). My review of the literature included publications up to 2009. Since then, the number of empirically based scientific publications on this topic has risen substantially to average 40 articles per year and the scope of methods, stock of results and diversity of questions has widened. Based on the CLIMIG database—a systematic and analytic collection of scientific references published on migration and the environment—this new synthesis provides a methodological typology of an exceptionally large number of published case studies. This will complement existing reviews and meta‐studies and allow a global overview of the state of research by identifying consensus and disagreements, revisiting methodological challenges and mapping current and future research questions.
{"title":"Linking climate change, environmental degradation, and migration: An update after 10 years","authors":"E. Piguet","doi":"10.1002/wcc.746","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.746","url":null,"abstract":"In WIREs Climate Change, Issue 1(4), 2010, I suggested a typology of the data and methods used to assess links between climate change, environmental degradation and migration (Piguet, 2010). My review of the literature included publications up to 2009. Since then, the number of empirically based scientific publications on this topic has risen substantially to average 40 articles per year and the scope of methods, stock of results and diversity of questions has widened. Based on the CLIMIG database—a systematic and analytic collection of scientific references published on migration and the environment—this new synthesis provides a methodological typology of an exceptionally large number of published case studies. This will complement existing reviews and meta‐studies and allow a global overview of the state of research by identifying consensus and disagreements, revisiting methodological challenges and mapping current and future research questions.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45115179","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01Epub Date: 2021-08-31DOI: 10.1002/wcc.737
Reiner Grundmann
The cases of COVID-19 and climate change highlight the central role of scientific research which supposedly guides political decision-making. Models and scenarios assume a central role. However, science cannot tell us what to do. While it provides important facts and metrics, uncertainties remain and decisions are based on considerations pertaining to fundamental values. Apart from these similarities, my aim is to emphasize some significant differences. They relate to policy goals, international cooperation, data and metrics, values, and the time horizons involved. This article is categorized under:Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Climate Science and Decision Making.
{"title":"COVID and Climate: Similarities and differences.","authors":"Reiner Grundmann","doi":"10.1002/wcc.737","DOIUrl":"10.1002/wcc.737","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The cases of COVID-19 and climate change highlight the central role of scientific research which supposedly guides political decision-making. Models and scenarios assume a central role. However, science cannot tell us what to do. While it provides important facts and metrics, uncertainties remain and decisions are based on considerations pertaining to fundamental values. Apart from these similarities, my aim is to emphasize some significant differences. They relate to policy goals, international cooperation, data and metrics, values, and the time horizons involved. This article is categorized under:Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Climate Science and Decision Making.</p>","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":"12 6","pages":"e737"},"PeriodicalIF":9.4,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8646552/pdf/WCC-12-e737.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39720170","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Hundreds of coral paleoclimate records have been developed over the past several decades, significantly extending the instrumental record and improving our understanding of tropical climate variability and change in otherwise data‐poor regions. Coral “proxy” records measure the change in skeletal geochemistry or growth as a function of ocean conditions at the time of calcification. Over the past decade (since 2010), new syntheses have identified coherent patterns of warming and variability that are unique within the paleo record (albeit not yet unprecedented). In turn, ocean warming and acidification have had a detrimental impact on coral growth, with reduced extension and increased stress banding. Methodological advances have constrained uncertainties and improved our understanding of the processes by which climate information is archived in coral skeletons. Models that describe these processes have been developed to facilitate proxy‐model comparisons, identify sources of uncertainties, and provide a benchmark upon which forced changes may be detected within a highly variable climate system. Finally, several innovative new proxies have expanded the climate and environmental information that may be obtained from corals, including: seawater pH, aragonite saturation, anthropogenic nitrogen, runoff, and trade winds. Further extending established and novel proxies should remain a priority, along with seawater monitoring and density measurements with which to screen and calibrate these records. As this critical climate archive is increasingly threatened by warming and ocean acidification, the community must work closely together to collect this invaluable climate data in an ecologically and culturally sensitive manner, before it is too late.
{"title":"Environmental records from coral skeletons: A decade of novel insights and innovation","authors":"D. Thompson","doi":"10.1002/wcc.745","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.745","url":null,"abstract":"Hundreds of coral paleoclimate records have been developed over the past several decades, significantly extending the instrumental record and improving our understanding of tropical climate variability and change in otherwise data‐poor regions. Coral “proxy” records measure the change in skeletal geochemistry or growth as a function of ocean conditions at the time of calcification. Over the past decade (since 2010), new syntheses have identified coherent patterns of warming and variability that are unique within the paleo record (albeit not yet unprecedented). In turn, ocean warming and acidification have had a detrimental impact on coral growth, with reduced extension and increased stress banding. Methodological advances have constrained uncertainties and improved our understanding of the processes by which climate information is archived in coral skeletons. Models that describe these processes have been developed to facilitate proxy‐model comparisons, identify sources of uncertainties, and provide a benchmark upon which forced changes may be detected within a highly variable climate system. Finally, several innovative new proxies have expanded the climate and environmental information that may be obtained from corals, including: seawater pH, aragonite saturation, anthropogenic nitrogen, runoff, and trade winds. Further extending established and novel proxies should remain a priority, along with seawater monitoring and density measurements with which to screen and calibrate these records. As this critical climate archive is increasingly threatened by warming and ocean acidification, the community must work closely together to collect this invaluable climate data in an ecologically and culturally sensitive manner, before it is too late.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2021-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43223098","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Reid Allen Bryson (1920–2008) was a forceful orator who consistently fought against institutional pressures to get his messages out to the public. In the 1960s, Bryson was a leader in the wider academic turn toward politically charged interdisciplinarianism. To the dismay of many of his colleagues, he publicly made climatological prognoses in the 1970s, becoming a significant figure in the media landscape. He was not swayed by the arguments for global warming, even as the framing became the recognized face of climate change in the late 1980s. By examining the controversies that Bryson instigated and the currents that he swam against, we can see the wider community crystallizing and promoting positions that may have previously gone unstated. In addition, Bryson's personal contribution to the rise of climate discourse has been underexplored in the historical literature. Bryson was instrumental in bringing climate onto the political radar during the World Food Crisis of 1973, shocking both the US and Canadian political establishments into paying more attention to the issue. Bryson's narrative linking climate change to both food supply and a series of climate anomalies in the 1970s remained predominant in the first World Climate Conference of 1979. Bryson also helped break a seal on climatologists speaking directly to the media, leading to unprecedented climate discourse in the 1970s and giving climate change a springboard to become one of the defining issues of the 21st century.
{"title":"Reid Bryson: The crisis climatologist","authors":"R. L. Naylor","doi":"10.1002/wcc.744","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.744","url":null,"abstract":"Reid Allen Bryson (1920–2008) was a forceful orator who consistently fought against institutional pressures to get his messages out to the public. In the 1960s, Bryson was a leader in the wider academic turn toward politically charged interdisciplinarianism. To the dismay of many of his colleagues, he publicly made climatological prognoses in the 1970s, becoming a significant figure in the media landscape. He was not swayed by the arguments for global warming, even as the framing became the recognized face of climate change in the late 1980s. By examining the controversies that Bryson instigated and the currents that he swam against, we can see the wider community crystallizing and promoting positions that may have previously gone unstated. In addition, Bryson's personal contribution to the rise of climate discourse has been underexplored in the historical literature. Bryson was instrumental in bringing climate onto the political radar during the World Food Crisis of 1973, shocking both the US and Canadian political establishments into paying more attention to the issue. Bryson's narrative linking climate change to both food supply and a series of climate anomalies in the 1970s remained predominant in the first World Climate Conference of 1979. Bryson also helped break a seal on climatologists speaking directly to the media, leading to unprecedented climate discourse in the 1970s and giving climate change a springboard to become one of the defining issues of the 21st century.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2021-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44386851","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：