Macdonald et al. (5), realizing that the human factor removes the ability to model predictions – like van Vuuren et al. () a few years later – give a hint of what complexity means for the empirical analysis of environmental impacts exacerbated by global and climate change when they write about the interaction of physical and biological, but also social, systems in the Arctic.
Concentrating on the pathways of contaminants, Macdonald et al. realise the high degree of complexity of the factors involved when attempting to model such integrated systemic regimes. The complexity of modelling the pathway of contaminants is true for both the biological systems affected by contaminants and the human emitters of contaminants.
Arguably, political agencies – but also many scientists, as demonstrated here and previously in the introduction – have a peculiar understanding of
complexity. It appears that complexity is taken for complicatedness. But how can those concepts be distinguished? Generally, governance has a strictly linear outlook. Governance exists at many different levels: governmental as well as personal, familial and corporate as well as regional and intergovernmental (Sovacool ). While it has the afore-mentioned orientation towards the future, independent of who is governing, governance assumes that different factors can be aligned so as to control a particularly desired outcome.
Governance thus attempts to establish hierarchical structures or systems of control. Goldammer and Kaehr () show the problematics of using concepts like linearity and complexity without establishing an explanatory framework first: problems which occur likewise when applying the rationality of politics to scientific research. Goldammer and Kaehr begin by introducing the concepts of complicatedness and hierarchy and contrast them with their equivalents, complexity and heterarchy.
The concept of the complex system refers to the degree of complexity of its description. Complex systems consist of hierarchically and heterarchically – i.e., superordinated and coordinated – organised structures. A hierarchy is described using a single-value logic, which in the case of governance, which has a linear outlook, translates as: ‘Government wants to control, therefore government can’.
Heterarchy, in contrast, implies a multitude of logics. In the case of governance, this translates as: ‘Government wants to control. However, there are also other rationalities besides the political’. Thus, complexity describes the measure of the number of logics placed in a certain setting (cf. Goldammer & Kaehr ).
This corresponds to Casti’s thesis:
How many inequivalent descriptions of N can our observer generate? The complexity of a system N as seen by an observer is directly proportional to the number of such descriptions. (Casti cited in Dijkum , ) Complicated systems should be seen as complementary to complex systems.
Complicatedness refers to the parameter structure to describe a system. A machine may be very complicated in this respect, but the machine is not complex;
it is engineered, after all. A description of amoebae in the Arctic, themselves uni-cellular systems of relatively low complicatedness that continuously change shape, is, on the other hand, of comparatively high complexity (cf. Beyens &
Chardez 5; Goldammer & Kaehr ).
This insight into complexity arguably affects the scientific understanding of climate change and its impact in the Arctic and beyond. The insight leads to diversity in understanding, assumptions and expectations ranging from, for example, the positions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (e.g., Anisimov et al. ; Solomon et al. ; Smit et al. ) and the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment 5) to assessments such as that of Gerlich (). Following are a number of statements comprising observations and proposed actions which are particularly relevant for a better understanding of the complexity of climate change:
In order to limit the forthcoming rise of global temperatures at the agreed target of maximum of degrees above pre-industrial levels, global greenhouse gas emissions should peak no later than 5, and then be reduced by at least 5%, but perhaps as much as 5% compared to
levels. Act now, in particular on energy efficiency and renewable energy.
(Commission of the European Communities )
At the heart of the problem is the production and use of fossil fuel – particularly the emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of coal, oil and gas. There are laws in place now that can address this; encourage the enforcement of the law to combat climate change. (Climate Justice Programme )
Climate change impacts on everyday life by changing expectations.
Indigenous peoples request empowerment to cope with changes. (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment 5)
There is no global radiation budget. Local temperatures determine heat radiation, not vice versa. The application of physical principles will correct incorrect assumptions. (Gerlich )
Thus, we can observe diversity, which leads to the formation of complexity.
This complexity in climate change is also mirrored in recent reflections even on the validity of climate change and its impact. Those who doubt the seriousness of climate change are called sceptics. The sceptical group has increased in size sufficiently to generate serious resistance to plans to implement mitigation and
adaptation measures. Hence, there is even a growing body of scientific and popular literature that is sceptical about climate change. This body reflects how climate change research is observed, by scientists and laypeople alike. Examples include Rahmstorf (4), who divides sceptics into three different groups, namely trend sceptics (arguments against the warming trend), attribution sceptics (arguments against the human contribution to climate change), and impact sceptics (arguments against the negative impact of climate change). Poortinga et al. () found in a corresponding study that climate change scepticism is currently not very widespread. Although uncertainty and scepticism about the potential impact of climate change are rather common, trend and attribution scepticism are far less widespread. Their conclusions seem, in any case, somewhat cliché-like, stating, for example, that climate scepticism appears to be especially common among older individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds who are politically conservative and who have traditional values. On the other hand, climate scepticism is far less common among younger individuals from higher socio-economic backgrounds who have self-transcendental and environmental values.