我们的地球是一个有生命的有机体,不仅有大气、陆地、海洋之间的物理化学过程,生物也会对环境产生重大影响,与环境组成一个相互作用的整体。进入人类世以来,人类更是成为驱动地球系统演变的主导力量,排放温室气体、开采资源,破坏地球系统的稳定性,而这反过来对人类自身的可持续发展构成挑战。地球系统与人类的福祉息息相关,理解其中复杂的物理、化学、生物和人类过程对我们具有重要意义。2020年1月发表于 nature reviews earth & environment 的文章“The emergence and evolution of Earth System Science”,回顾了地球系统科学发展的历程,强调了将孤立研究地球系统各个组分的传统学科连接起来,建立一个真正统一的地球系统科学的愿景。集智俱乐部组织翻译了全文,以飨读者。
过去对地球的概念化是现代地球系统科学理解的重要基础,例如1788年 J. Hutton 的《地球理论》、19世纪的洪堡科学(Humboldtian science,指19世纪德国科学家 Alexander von Humboldt 发起的一场科学运动)以及1926年 V. Vernadsky 的《生物圈》[7]。然而,地球系统科学的萌芽始于20世纪后半叶的冷战背景,当时地球科学和环境科学发生了重大变化[8]。由于军事发展的需要,地球物理学获得了前所未有的发展机遇[9]。此外,调查和监控全球环境已然成为一项战略必要,用于日后为现代地球系统科学提供信息[10-11]。20世纪中叶,以国际地球物理年1957-58为代表的国际科学开始发展[12]。这一史无前例的研究运动凝聚了67个国家的努力,获得了对地球圈,特别是冰川学、海洋学和气象学更为全面的了解。国际地球物理年的一个关键影响是:人们对地球运作方式的认识发生了持久性的转变。过去地理学家们推崇的基于实地观测研究地质和气候的经典方法,被实地测量、多变量连续定量监测和数值模型所取代[13]。这种转变催生了构成现代地球科学的两种范式:现代气候学(modern climatology)和板块构造学(plate tectonics)[14-15]。生态学和环境科学的发展也十分迅速[16]。生态系统生态学(Ecosystem ecology)诞生于 E. Hutchinson 及 H. Odum 和 G.E. Odum 两兄弟的研究成果,并得到了环境问题科学委员会(Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment,SCOPE)的支持。国际生物计划(International Biological Programme,IBP)[17]等大型项目是全球生态研究的重要基石,这些成果为理解生物圈在整个地球系统运作中的作用提供了坚实基础[18-22]。至上世纪60到70年代,科学界和公众对环境问题的意识在不断增强。R. Carson《寂静的春天》的出版[23]、1972年联合国人类环境会议上“只有一个地球”的演讲[24]、关于臭氧消耗和气候变化的首次警报[25-26]以及罗马俱乐部出版的《增长的极限》,无不在持续推动人们对环境的认识[27]。《增长的极限》一书警告,资源枯竭和环境污染将限制经济增长[28]。而随后1972年12月7日阿波罗17号航天器上的宇航员拍摄的“蓝色弹珠(The Blue Marble)”图片,向公众突出了地球的整体性,更展现了地球的脆弱性[29-31]。图2. “蓝色弹珠” | 来源:NASA在地球系统科学萌芽过程中,J. Lovelock 于1972年引入了盖亚假说,把地球比作一个能够自我调节的、有生命的有机体,即生物和与其相互作用的环境组成了一个整体,并且生物通过内稳态反馈来调节全球环境[32]。尽管这一假说引起了科学辩论和批判[33-34],但它也产生了一种思考地球的新方式,强调了生物群对全球环境的重大影响、连接地球系统主要组分之间的相互联系以及反馈的重要性[35-37]。
图3. James Lovelock 于2006年出版的《盖亚的复仇: 地球气候危机与人类命运》。更多有关盖亚假说的介绍可参考往期文章:《盖亚假说:地球是一个生命体吗?》
基于地球系统科学的目标,各类报告、研讨会和会议都一致认为,地球系统科学应该是跨学科的(因为相互作用并不分学科)和全球性的(因为研究的是全球现象)。虽然地球系统科学已经研究了地球各个组分之间的相互作用,但其重点应是理解物理、化学和生物过程之间的多组分相互作用。对于将地球作为一个整体来研究的地球系统科学来说,多学科融合是个不小的挑战。1986年,国际科学理事会(International Council for Science,ICSU)成立了国际地圈-生物圈计划 [5,43-45],并加入了世界气候研究计划(World Climate Research Proramme,WCRP),解决了国际投入和跨学科融合的挑战[46]。国际地圈-生物圈计划最初是为地球系统中生物地球化学方面的一些核心主题构建的:海洋碳循环、陆地生态系统、大气化学、水文循环等。国际地圈-生物圈计划中 PAGES(过往全球变化)和 GAIM(全球分析、综合和建模)两个项目,由于学科融合程度强而备受重视。此外,国际地圈-生物圈计划还专门开展了一个数据和信息系统,尤其针对遥感数据的项目,以支持这项研究。从以前孤立的过程研究,到研究过程之间的相互作用,以及日益增长的全球尺度的观察、分析和建模[47],地球系统科学在学科融合下加速发展,促进了从“多学科研究”(interdisciplinary research,指多学科合作解决共同问题)到”学科融合研究“(transdisciplinary research,指随着研究人员合作解决共同问题,学科边界逐渐消失)的转变。地球系统科学具有不同的认识论框架,通过融合不同学科的基本思想和方法来解决高难度的复杂问题。地球系统科学在20世纪80年代的繁荣也与对全球变化采取行动的政治举措有关。在《布伦特兰报告》(Brundtland Report (1987))、《我们共同的未来》[48]( Our Common Future)以及对可持续发展兴趣的推动下,许多人认为国际地圈-生物圈计划要提供与政策更相关的科学知识。对于国际地圈-生物圈计划研究的政策相关性,人们产生了一些分歧[49]。然而,政策上的国际研究工作直到地球系统科学发展的下一个阶段(1990s)才开展。到20世纪80年代末,跨学科研究方法快速发展,人们对全球变化的认识日益加深,地球系统科学成为一门强有力的学科。
发展历史3:地球系统科学的发展
1990年,国际地圈-生物圈计划正式启动,Bretherton图也被广泛使用,为地球系统科学的持续发展提供了动力。然而,尽管当前人类对资源的消耗极速增长,气候变化带来的影响逐渐显现,但地球系统科学却并不关注这背后的人为因素。一系列研究指出,生态研究对气候变化、生物多样性和更广泛的可持续性十分重要[50-51]。受此影响,国际生物多样性研究计划(DIVERSITAS)于1991年成立,致力于研究全球生物多样性的损失及变化[52],补充了国际地圈-生物圈计划在陆地和海洋生态系统功能方面研究的缺失。人类的影响导致地球气候改变、氮的固定、生物多样性损失、渔业崩溃,对这些影响的量化使得人们认识到地球被人类所主宰的事实 [53]。于1996年成立的国际全球环境变化人文因素计划(International Human Dimensions Proramme on Global Environmental change,IHDP),为社会科学研究提供了一个全球平台,探讨了导致地球系统变化的人类影响因素,以及地球系统的变化对人类和社会福祉的影响[54]。包括 WCRP、IGBP、DIVERSITAS 和 IHDP 在内的全球国际研究计划体系给不同学科的国际科学家提供了“工作空间”,让他们能聚集在一起,这对地球系统科学的发展至关重要。在21世纪初,这一整套更完整的全球变化规划与“可持续性”概念的出现[55],催生出可持续性科学(sustainability science)[56]。20世纪90年代末,H. J. Schellnhuber 引入并发展了两个对地球系统科学至关重要的概念[57-58]:1. 自然界和人类文明在行星尺度上的动态协同演化关系;2. 地球系统共同演化空间中突变域的可能性;其中,第一个概念将人类动力学完全融合到地球系统的概念框架中(见图5)。第二个概念引入了一种风险,即在人类施加的压力下,被触发的地球系统全球性变化可能是非线性的,是对人类来说如同灭顶之灾般的不可逆突变。事实上,平流层臭氧层空洞的发现就表明,人类已经凭借运气而不是能力,侥幸逃过一劫[59]。
更复杂的地球系统模型——大气环流模型(General Circulation Models,GCMs)也随之发展。大气环流模型基于气候系统的物理和化学,包括地球表面(陆地、海洋、冰,以及越来越多的生物圈)与大气之间的能量和物质的交换[86-87]。大气环流受人类温室气体和气溶胶排放影响,通过政府间气候变化专门委员会( Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,IPCC)的评估,能够预测未来气候可能的发展趋势和影响,为政策和治理提供信息。然而,由于参数化以及忽略或没有充分考虑对反馈过程和地圈与生物圈之间相互作用[88-89]的约束,大气环流模型的长期预测存在相当大的不确定性。此外,大气环流模型并没有将人类影响作为模型中不可分割的、相互作用的一部分,而是将人类的影响视为干扰生物地球物理地球系统的一种外力。
综合评估模型
人类动力学作为综合评估模型(Integrated Assessment Models,IAMs)的领域,通常将复杂程度不同的经济模型与复杂程度经过简化的气候模型耦合在一起[90-93]。综合评估模型有许多用途,例如:模拟特定气候下稳定政策的成本、根据一系列潜在政策探索气候风险和不确定性、确定特定气候目标下的最优政策,并对耦合系统内的反馈提供更全面的见解[94]。此外,综合评估模型还提供了未来温室气体和气溶胶排放情况的关键信息,这些信息可用于大气环流模拟。然而,综合评估模型的经济组分却很少与大气环流模型耦合,未能构建一个完全融合的地球系统模型。早期的一个例子是麻省理工学院综合全球系统模型(MIT Integrated Global System Model),它将一般均衡经济学的可计算模型(computable general equilibrium,CGE)与复杂的大气环流模型耦合[95-96]。
地球系统的中间复杂性模型
探索地球系统的复杂动力学,特别是在长时间尺度上,最强大的工具则是地球系统的中间复杂性模型(Earth system Models of Intermediate Complexity,EMICs)[97]。地球系统的中间复杂性模型包含与大气环流模型相同的主要过程,但它的空间分辨率较低,参数化过程较多,并支持更长的时间尺度模拟。该模型的模拟包含非线性作用力和地球系统各组分之间的反馈。例如,它可以在数十万年的时间尺度上进行模拟,根据古观测的结果进行检验,并探索遥远未来可能的气候[98-99]。总之,大气环流模型、综合评估模型和地球系统的中间复杂性模型为探索不同时空尺度上的地球系统动力学提供了强有效的方法。地球系统科学中可用的建模工具十分多样,在研究工作中发挥着重要的作用。虽然这些模型以模拟地球系统未来趋势的能力而闻名,但它们也可能是最有价值的知识集成工具:
“人类世”一词最初是20世纪80年代初 E. Stoermer 在淡水湖沼研究(freshwater limnology research)的特定背景下提出的。2000年,当这个短语重新被 P. Crutzen 独立地引入后[139,140],它在自然科学、社会科学和人文科学领域迅速传播开来。2000年提出的人类世有两层含义。在地质学背景下,Crutzen 提出人类世是地质时间尺度[140]中继全新世之后的一个新时代。与持续11700年且相对稳定的全新世不同,人类世在地球系统的背景下快速发展[60]。这两个定义虽然不完全相同,但有很多共同点[141]。
人类世的主要证据是大加速图("Great Acceleration" graphs),该图来自国际地圈-生物圈计划综合项目,突出了社会经济和地球系统的未来趋势[60,117,143];还证明了地球系统从全新世的快速衰退与20世纪中期以来人类事业的爆炸性增长直接相关。尽管这对地球系统科学来说很新奇,但历史学家 J. McNeill 已经对大加速进行了深入的探索[144]。
为了响应 Crutzen(2002)的建议,人类世应正式被纳入地质时间尺度[140],人类世工作组(Anthropocene Working Group,AWG)于2009年由第四纪地层学小组委员会(Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy,SQS)成立。2019年,经过十年的研究、出版、讨论和激烈辩论,人类世工作组正式决议:将人类世视为由全球边界层型剖面和点(Global boundary Stratotype Section and Point,GSSP)定义的正式年代地层单位,人类世的基准起始日期应为20世纪中期的一个地层标志[145-147]。
图6.作为人类世的主要证据的大加速图,反映了社会经济(a)及地球系统(b)重要指标的演化趋势。| 来源:Steffen W, Broadgate W, Deutsch L, Gaffney O, Ludwig C. The trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration. The Anthropocene Review. 2015;2(1):81-98. doi:10.1177/2053019614564785
目前,生物地球物理研究界正在努力解决第一个难题,它们研究的问题涉及地球系统的非线性[101,128],临界点相互作用和突变[123,129],以及可能的行星尺度阈值和状态转移[125]。然而,第二个挑战需要更大的努力,因为我们对地球系统的理解在很大程度上仍然局限于其生物地球物理成分。而最大的挑战是将社会科学和人文科学中体现的人类动力学与生物物理动力学充分结合起来,最终建立一个真正统一的地球系统科学。图5展示了这一挑战,该图将人类圈、地圈和生物圈作为地球系统中完全融合且相互作用的组分,其中各个领域间的作用和反馈包括涉及人类圈的心理-社会反馈(psycho-social feedbacks)[130],展现了地球系统作为一个整体的功能。因此,地球系统科学的人类维度必须远远超出经济模型(综合评估模型),需要融入更深层次的人类特征——即我们的核心价值观,以及我们看待人类与地球系统其他组分关系的方式。这些基本的人类特征是否包含在大规模的计算模型中是很难评估的,但是中等复杂程度的地球系统模型可能会提供第一个尝试这种计算“大融合”的框架。其它方法也有助于探索地球系统的未来。“复杂适应系统”的概念[80]可以为生物圈的共同演化和人类文化作为社会-生态系统提供理解和模拟的工具[131]。这些方法还可以为制定“人类世”的政策和管理提供重要的指导[132]。尽管人类动力学长期以来被主导地球系统科学的物理观点所忽视,但它对引导系统未来趋势来说至关重要[123,133,134]。技术在未来对地球系统科学也很重要。高速计算、数字化、大数据、人工智能和机器学习这些技术工具的出现[135],使我们实时感知、处理和解释大量数据的能力发生了巨大变化。这种新的能力可以加深我们对地球系统关键过程及其相互作用和非线性行为的理解,特别是人类圈对整个地球系统影响的理解。随着这些工具的进一步发展,我们不仅能更多地了解地球,还能更多地了解我们自己、我们的社会和治理体系以及我们的核心价值观和愿望。然而,要理解人类动力学,需要的不仅仅是技术。21世纪20年代的地球系统科学可以结合不断发展的创新研究和政策理念,提高我们对人类圈的理解。例如,从生物物理维度(例如气候)到社会科学和人文科学,都对地球系统发展趋势的预测提供了非常广泛的视角[90,116,136]。在政策领域,较早的以人为中心的千年发展目标现在已被可持续发展目标所取代。可持续发展目标保留了对发展、公平和其他人类问题的强烈关注,并将其纳入更广泛的地球系统背景之中。在所有新方法中,最具创新性的方法之一是“人类共同家园(Common Home of Humanity)”,它提出地球系统本身的稳定和适应性状态(即美国公共电视网定义的类似全新世的状态)应该在法律上被正式视为全人类的非物质自然遗产[137]。为了迎接这些挑战,地球系统科学必须更深入地融合各种研究团体的大量研究工具、方法和见解。努力发展地球系统科学背后的根本且不可避免的事实是:人类现在是驱动地球系统演变的主导力量,我们不再是“大星球上的小世界”,而是“小星球上的大世界”[138]。
参考文献
[1]Vernadsky, V.I. La Géochimie, Librairie Félix Acan, Paris. (Lectures at the Sorbonne in 1922-23) (1924) [2]Vernadsky, V.I. The Biosphere (complete annotated edition: Foreword by Lynn Margulis and colleagues, introduction by Jacques Grinevald, translated by David B. Langmuir, revised and annotated by Mark A.S. McMenamin). Copernicus (Springer-Verlag), New York, 192 pp. (1998 [1926]) [3]Lovelock, J. Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford University Press, 176pp. (1979). [4]NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) Earth System Science Overview. A program for global change. Prepared by the Earth System Sciences Committee, NASA Advisory Council. 48pp. (1986) [5]Dutreuil, S. Gaïa: hypothèse, programme de recherche pour le système Terre, ou philosophie de la nature? Phd Thesis, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris, 859pp. (2016). [6]Lenton, T.M. Earth System Science. A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 153pp. (2016). [7]Grinevald, J. La Biosphère de l’Anthropocène: climat et pétrole, la double menace. Repères transdisciplinaires (1824–2007). Geneva, Switzerland: Georg/Editions Médecine & Hygiène (2007). [8]Oreskes, N. & Krige, J. Science and Technology in the Global Cold War. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 464pp. (2014). [9]Doel, R.E. Constituting the Postwar Earth Sciences: The Military’s Inflfluence on the Environmental Sciences in the USA after 1945, Social Studies of Science 33, 635–666(2003). [10]Turchetti, S. & Roberts, P. The surveillance imperative: geosciences during the Cold War and beyond. Palgrave MacMillan, New York, 278pp. (2014) [11]Hamblin, J.D. Arming mother nature: the birth of catastrophic environmentalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 320pp. (2013). [12]Beynon, W.J.G. (ed) Annals of the International Geophysical Year. Pergamon Press, 179pp. (1970). [13]Oreskes, N. & Doel, R.E. The Physics and Chemistry of the Earth. In M. Nye (ed.), The Cambridge History of Science, Vol. 5, The Modern Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 538-557 (2008). [14]Edwards, P.N. A vast machine: Computer models, climate data, and the politics of global warming, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 552pp. (2010).[15]Oreskes, N. The rejection of continental drift: Theory and method in American Earth science, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 432pp. (1999). [16]Warde, P., Robin, L. & Sörlin, S. The Environment. A History of the Idea. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 244pp. (2018) [17]IBP (International Biological Programme) http://www.nasonline.org/aboutnas/history/archives/collections/ibp-1964-1974-1.html. Accessed on 15 April 2019 (2019). [18]Aronova, E., Baker, K.S. & Oreskes, N. Big science and big data in biology: from the International Geophysical Year through the International Biological Program to the Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) network, 1957 –present. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 40, 183–224 (2010).[19]Grinevald, J. Sketch for the history of the idea of the biosphere. In: Bunyard, P. (ed) Gaia in Action: Science of the Living Earth, Floris Books, Edinburgh, pp. 34–53 (1996). [20]Grienvald, J. The invisibility of the vernadskian revolution. pp. 20-32 in: Vernadsky V, The biosphere, Copernicus (Springer-Verlag), New York, 192 pp. (1998). [21]Kwa, C. Representations of nature mediating between ecology and science policy: the case of the International Biological Programme. Social Studies of Science 17, 413–442 (1987). [22]Kwa, C. Modeling the grasslands. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 24, 125–155 (1993). [23]Carson, R. Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin, 368pp. (1962). [24]United Nations (UN) https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/milestones/humanenvironment (1972) .[25]Farman, J.C., Gardiner, B.G. & Shanklin, J.D. Large losses of total ozone in Antarctica reveal seasonal interaction. Nature 315, 207-210 (1985). [26]Besel, R.D. (2013) Accommodating climate change science: James Hansen and the rhetorical/political emergence of global warming". Science in Context 26, 137–152. doi:10.1017/S0269889712000312 (2013). [27]Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J. & Behrens III, W.W. (1972) Limits to Growth. Potomic Associates - Universe Books, 205pp. (1972). [28]Vieille Blanchard, E. Les limites à la croissance dans un monde global: modélisations, prospectives, refutations, PhD thesis, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, 692 pp. (2011). [29]Poole, R. Earthrise: How man fifirst saw the Earth. Yale University Press, New Haven,236pp. (2008).[30]Grevsmühl, S.V. Images, imagination and the global environment: towards an interdisciplinary research agenda on global environmental images. Geo 3 https://rgsibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/geo2.20 (2016). [31]Höhler, S. Spaceship Earth in the environmental age,1960-1990. Routledge, London, 256pp. (2015). [32]Lovelock, J. & Margulis, L. Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere: the Gaia hypothesis. Tellus 26, 2–10 (1974). [33]Doolittle, F.W. Is nature really motherly? CoEvolution Quarterly 29, 58–63 (1982). [34]Kirchner, J. The Gaia hypothesis: can it be tested? Rev. Geophysics 27, 223–235 (1989). [35]Lovelock, J. & Whitfield, M. Life span of the biosphere. Nature 296, 561–563 (1982). [36]Charlson, R.J., Lovelock, J.E., Andreae, M.O. & Warren, S.G. Oceanic phytoplankton, atmospheric sulphur, cloud albedo and climate. Nature 326, 655-661 (1987). [37]Dutreuil, S. James Lovelock’s Gaia Hypothesis: “A New Look at Life on Earth” . . . for the Life and the Earth Sciences, pp.272-287 in: Dietrich, M.R. & Harman, O: Dreamers, visionaries and revolutionaries in the life sciences, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 336pp. (2017). [38]Latour, B. Facing Gaia. Eight Lectures on the New Climatic Regime. Polity Press (2017). [39]Waldrop, M.M. (1986) Washington embraces global earth sciences. Science 233, 1040–1042. (1986) [40]Edelson, E. Laying the foundation. MOSAIC, 19(3-4), 4–11 (1988). [41]Conway, E.M. Atmospheric science at NASA: a history, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 416pp. (2008). [42]Bretherton, F.P. Earth system science and remote sensing. Proceedings of the IEEE, 73, 1118–1127 (1985). [43]Kwa, C. Local ecologies and global science discourses and strategies of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme. Social Studies of Science 35, 923–950 (2005). [44]Kwa, C. The programming of interdisciplinary research through informal sciencepolicy interactions. Science and Public Policy 33, 457–467 (2006). [45]Uhrqvist, O. Seeing and knowing the Earth as a system: an effective history of global environmental change research as scientifific and political practice, PhD Thesis, Linköping University (2014). [46]WCRP (World Climate Research Programme) https://www.wcrp-climate.org (2019). [47]Richardson, K. & Steffen, W. Network of cooperation between science organizations. In: Handbook of Science and Technology Convergence. Springer International Publishing Switzerland. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-04033-2_80-1 (2014). [48]Brundtland Commission. Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press, 383pp. (1987) [49]Roederer, J.G. ICSU gives green light to IGBP. EOS Trans. Am. Geophysical Union 67, 777-781 (1986). [50]Lubchenco, J. et al. The Sustainable Biosphere Initiative: An Ecological Research Agenda. Ecology 72, 371-412 (1991). [51]Huntley, B.J. et al. A sustainable biosphere: the global imperative. The International Sustainable Biosphere Initiative. Ecology International 20, 1-14 (1991). [52]IUBS (International Union of Biological Sciences) https://web.archive.org/web/20130602185409/http://www.iubs.org/iubs/diversitas.html (2014). [53]Vitousek, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Lubchenco, J. & Melillo, J.M. Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277, 494-499 (1997). [54]IHDP (International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change) About IHDP. http://www.ihdp.unu.edu/pages/?p=about (2014). [55]Clark, W.C. & Munn, R.E. Sustainable development of the biosphere. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 491pp. (1986). [56]Kates, R.W. et al. Sustainability science. Science 292, 641-642 (2001). [57]Schellnhuber, H.J. Earth System analysis: the scope of the challenge. In: Schellnhuber, H.J. & Wentzel, V. (eds) Earth System Analysis. Integrating Science for Sustainability. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp. 3-195 (1998). [58]Schellnhuber, H.J. ‘Earth system’ analysis and the second Copernican revolution. Nature402, C19-C23 (1999). [59]Crutzen, P.J. My life with O3, NOx and other YZOxs, in Les Prix Nobel (The Nobel Prizes). Almqvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm, pp.123-157 (1995). [60]Steffen, W. et al. Global Change and the Earth System: A Planet Under Pressure. The IGBP Book Series, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 336 pp. (2004). [61]Leemans, R. et al. Developing a common strategy for integrative global environmental change research and outreach: the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP). Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 1, 4-13 (2009). [62]Seitzinger, S. et al. International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme and Earth system science: Three decades of co-evolution. Anthropocene 12, 3-16 (2015).[63]Harris, D.C. Charles David Keeling and the story of atmospheric CO2 measurements. Anal. Chem. 82, 7865-7870. doi.org/10.1021/ac1001492 (2010). [64]Le Quéré, C. et al. Global Carbon Budget 2018. Earth System Science Data Discussions 10, 1-54. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-1-2018 (2018). [65]Conway, E.M. Drowning in data: Satellite oceanography and information overload in the Earth sciences. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 37, 1 (2006). [66]Toth, C. & Jóźków, G. Remote sensing platforms and sensors: A survey. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 115, 22-36. doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2015.10.004 (2016) [67]Silsbe, G.M., Behrenfeld, M.J., Halsey, K.H., Milligan, A.J., & Westberry, T.K. The CAFE model: A net production model for global ocean phytoplankton. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 30, 1756–1777, doi:10.1002/2016GB005521. (2016). [68]Yang, Y., Donohue, R.J. & McVicar, T.R. Global estimation of effective plant rooting depth: Implications for hydrological modeling. Water Resour. Res. 52, 8260–8276. doi:10.1002/2016WR019392. (2016). [69]NOAA (National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration) Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL), Global Monitoring Division. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ (2019) [70]Ramanathan, V., Crutzen, P.J., Mitra, A.P. & Sikka, D. The Indian Ocean Experiment ad the Asian brown cloud. Current Science 83, 947-955 (2002). [71]LBA-ECO (Large Scale Biosphere-Atmosphere Experiment). https://daac.ornl.gov/cgibin/dataset_lister.pl?p=11. Archived by ORNL DACC (NASA). (2019) [72]Broecker, W.S., Takahashi, T., Simpson, H.J. & Peng, T-H. Fate of fossil fuel carbon dioxide and the global carbon budget. Science 206, 409-418 DOI: 10.1126/science.206.4417.409 (1979). [73]Petit, J.R. et al. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399, 429-436 (1999). [74]PAGES (Past Interglacial Working Group of Past Global Changes) Interglacials of the last 800,000 years. Rev. Geophys. 54, doi:10.1002/2015RG000482 (2016). [75]Summerhayes, C.P. Earth’s Climate Evolution. Wiley, Chichester, 394pp. (2015) [76]McInerney, F.A. & Wing, S.L. The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum – a perturbation of carbon cycle, climate, and biosphere with implications for the future. Ann. Rev. Earth Planetary Sci. 39, 489-516 (2011). [77]Williamson, P. et al. Ocean fertilization for geoengineering: A review of effectiveness, environmental impacts and emerging governance. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 90, 475–488 (2012).[78]Norby, R.J. & Zak, D.R. Ecological lessons from Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) experiments. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 42: 181-203 (2011). [79]Aronson, E. & McNulty, S.G. Appropriate experimental ecosystem warming methods by ecosystem, objective, and practicality. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 149, 1791-1799 (2009). [80]Levin, S. Fragile Dominion: Complexity and the Commons. Helix Books, 292pp. (1999) [81]Lenton, T.M. et al. Tipping elements in Earth’s climate system. Proc Nat. Acad. Sci USA 105, 1786-1793 (2008). [82]Scheffer, M. Critical Transitions in Nature and Society, Princeton University Press (2009). [83]Budyko, M.I. The effect of solar radiation on the climate of the earth. Tellus 21, 611-619 (1969). [84]Sellers, W. A climate model based on the energy balance of the earth-atmosphere system. J. Applied Meteorology 8, 392-400 (1969). [85]Watson, A. & Lovelock, J. Biological homeostasis of the global environment: the parable of Daisyworld. Tellus B, 35, 284–289 (1983). [86]Dahan, A. Putting the Earth System in a numerical box? The evolution from climate modelling toward global change. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 41, 282-292 (2010). [87]Flato, G. et al. Evaluation of Climate Models. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F. et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. (2013). [88]Kiehl, J.T. & Shields, C.A. Sensitivity of the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum climate to cloud properties. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 371, 20130093 (2013). [89]Kump, L.R. & Pollard, D. Amplification of Cretaceous warmth by biological cloud feedbacks. Science 320, 195 doi: 10.1126/science.1153883 (2008). [90]Heymann, M. & Dahan Dalmedico, A. Epistemology and politics in Earth System modelling: historical perspectives. J. Advances on Modeling Earth Systems https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001526 (2019). [91]van Vuuren, D.P. et al. How well do integrated assessment models simulate climate change? Climatic Change 104, 255–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9764-2 (2011) [92]NAS (National Academy of Sciences (USA)) Fostering Advances in Interdisciplinary Climate Science. See also http://www.nasonline.org/climate-science.html and https://www.pnas.org/content/110/Supplement 1 (2019) [93]RS-NAS (Royal Society (UK) and National Academy of Sciences) Modeling Earth’s Future: Integrated assessments of linked human-natural systems. http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2013/modeling-earths-future (2019). [94]IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Technical Summary (Edenhofer, O. et al.), (2014) [95]Prinn, R. et al. Integrated global system model for climate model assessment: feedbacks and sensitivity studies. Climatic Change 41, 469-546 (1999). [96]Prinn, R. Development and application of earth system models. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 3673-3680 (https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1107470109) (2012). [97]Claussen, M. et al. Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexity: Closing the Gap in the Spectrum of Climate System Models. Climate Dyn. 18, 579-586 (2002). [98]Ganopolski, A., Winkelmann, R. & Schellnhuber, H.J. Critical insolation–CO2 relation for diagnosing past and future glacial inception. Nature 529, 200-203 (2016). [99]Clark, P.U. et al. Consequences of twenty-first-century policy for multi-millennial climate and sea-level change. Nature Clim Change, doi: 10.1038/nclimate2923 (2016). [100]IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C. Accessed at: http://ipcc.ch/report/sr15/. (2018). [101]IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere. Accessed at: https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/home/ (2019). [102]Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Northrop, E. & J. Lubchenco, J. The ocean is key to achieving climate and societal goals. Science 365: http://science.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/science.aaz4390?ijkey=ChCE3OrLfCe/c&keytype =ref&siteid=sci (2019)[103]Reid, W.V. & Mooney, H.A. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: testing the limits of interdisciplinary and multi-scale science. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 19, 40-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.11.009 (2016). [104]IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) https://www.ipbes.net/news/ipbes-global-assessment-summary-policymakers-pdf (2019). [105]Walker, B., Steffen, W., Canadell, J. & Ingram, J. The Terrestrial Biosphere and Global Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK. 439pp. (1999) [106]Crossland, C.J. et al. (eds) Coastal Fluxes in the Anthropocene. Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York, 231pp. (2005).[107]Fasham, M.J.R. Ocean Biogeochemistry. Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York, 297pp. (2003). [108]Kabat, P., et al. (eds) Vegetation, Water, Humans and the Climate: A New Perspective on an Interactive System. Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York, 566pp. (2004). [109]Alverson, K.D., Bradley, R.S. & Pedersen, T.F. (eds) (2003) Paleoclimate, Global Change and the Future. Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York, 220pp (2003). [110]Brasseur, G.P., Prinn, R.G. & Pszenny, A.A.P. (eds) Atmospheric Chemistry in a Changing World. Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York, 300pp. (2003) [111]Lambin, E.F. & Geist, H.J. Land-Use and Land-Cover Change. Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York, 222pp. (2006). [112]Brondizio, E.S. et al. Re-conceptualizing the Anthropocene: a call for collaboration. Global Environ. Change 39, 318-327 (2016). [113]Dube, O.P. & Sivakumar, M. Global environmental change and vulnerability of Least Developed Countries to extreme events: Editorial on the special issue. Weather and Climate Extremes 7, 2-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2015.03.003 (2015). [114]Palsson, G. et al. Reconceptualizing the ‘Anthropos’ in the Anthropocene: Integrating the social sciences and humanities in global environmental change research. Environmental Science & Policy 28, 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.11.004 (2013). [115]Biermann, F. et al., Down to Earth: Contextualizing the Anthropocene. Global Environ. Change 39, 341-350 (2015). [116]Malm, A. & Hornborg, A. The geology of mankind? A critique of the Anthropocene narrative. The Anthropocene Review 1, DOI:10.1177/2053019613516291 (2014). [117]Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney, O. & Ludwig, C. The trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration. The Anthropocene Review 2, 81-98 (2015). [118]Lövbrand, E., Stripple, J. & Wiman, B. Earth System governmentality: Reflections on science in the Anthropocene. Global Environ. Change 19, 7-13 (2009). [119]Steffen, W. et al. The Anthropocene: From Global Change to Planetary Stewardship. Ambio 40, 739. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0185-x (2011). [120]Schellnhuber, H.J. & Held, H., Managing the Earth. In: The Eleventh Linacre Lectures (J.C. Briden & T. Downing (eds.), Oxford University Press (2002). [121]Kriegler, E., Hall, J.W., Held, H., Dawson, R. & Schellnhuber, H.J. (2009) Imprecise probability assessment of tipping points in the climate system. Proc Nat. Acad. Sci USA 106, 5041-5046 (2009). [122]Schellnhuber, H.J., Rahmstorf, S. & Winkelmann, R. Why the right climate target was agreed in Paris. Nature Climate Change 6, 649-653 (2016).[123]Cai, Y., Lenton, T.M., & Lontzek, T.S. Risk of multiple interacting tipping points should encourage rapid CO2 emission reduction. Nature Clim. Change 6, 520-525 (2016). [124]Hansen, J., et al. Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2°C global warming could be dangerous. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 16, 3761–3812 (2016). [125]Steffen W, et al. Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA), doi:10.1073/pnas.1810141115. (2018) [126]Aykut, S. Les "limites" du changement climatique. Cités, 63, 193–236 (2015). [127]Rockström, J. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472-475 (2009). [128]Drijfhout, S. et al. Catalogue of abrupt shifts in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate models. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) 112: E5777-E5786 (2015). [129]Rocha, J.C., Peterson, G., Bodin, Ö., & Levin, S. Cascading regime shifts within and across scales. Science 362, 1379-1383 (2018). [130]Alvaredo, F., Chancel, L, Piketty, T., Saez, E. & Zucman, G. (eds) (2018) World inequality report 2018. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge. 331pp (2018). [131]Levin, S. et al. Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems: modeling and policy implications. Environment and Development Economics 18, 111-132 (2013). [132]Lubchenco, J., Cerny-Chipman, E.B., Reimer, J.N. & Levin, S.A. The right incentives enable ocean sustainability successes and provide hope for the future. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113, 14507-14514 (2016). [133]Folke, C., Biggs, R., Norström, A.V., Reyers, B. & Rockström J. Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecology and Society 21(3), 41, doi:10.5751/ES-08748-210341 (2016). [134]Carpenter, S.R., Folke, C., Scheffer, M. & Westley, F.R. Dancing on the volcano: social exploration in times of discontent. Ecology and Society 24, doi.org/10.5751/ES-10839-240123 (2019). [135]Haff, P. Humans and technology in the Anthropoene: Six rules. The Anthropocene Review 1, 126-136 (2014). [136]Picketty, T. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Harvard University Press, 696pp. (2014). [137]Magalhães, P., Steffen, W., Bosselmann, K., Aragão, A. & Soromenho-Marques, V. The Safe Operating Space Treaty: A new approach to managing our use of the Earth System. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 315pp. (2016).[138]Rockström, J. & Klum, M. Big World, Small Planet: Abundance within Planetary Boundaries. Yale University Press, 208pp (2015). [139]Crutzen, P.J. & Stoermer, E.F. The “Anthropocene”. IGBP Newsletter 41, 17-18 (2000). [140]Crutzen, P.J. Geology of mankind – the Anthropocene. Nature 415: 23 (2002). [141]Steffen, W. et al. Stratigraphic and Earth System approaches to defining the Anthropocene. Earth's Future 4, doi: eft2/2016EF000379 (2016) [142]Hibbard, K.A. et al. Decadal interactions of humans and the environment. In: Costanza, R., Graumlich, L. & Steffen, W. (eds) Integrated History and Future of People on Earth, Dahlem Workshop Report 96, pp 341-375 (2007). [143]Steffen, W., Crutzen, P.J. & McNeill, J.R. The Anthropocene: Are humans now overwhelming the great forces of Nature? Ambio 36, 614-621 (2007). [144]McNeill, J.R. Something New Under the Sun. W.W. Norton, 421pp. (2000) [145]AWG (Anthropocene Working Group). Results of binding vote by AWG. Released 21st May 2019. http://quaternary.stratigraphy.org/working-groups/anthropocene/(2019) [146]Waters, C.N. et al. The Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene. Science 351, 6269 (2016). [147]Zalasiewicz, J. et al. When did the Anthropocene begin? A mid-twentieth century boundary level is stratigraphically optimal. Quaternary International 383, 196-203. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2014.11.045 (2015). [148]Malhi, Y. The concept of the Anthropocene. Annual Rev. Environ. Resources. 42, 77-99 (2017). [149]Bonneuil, C. & Fressoz, J.B. The shock of the Anthropocene: the Earth, history and us. Verso, London, 320pp. (2016) [150]Bai, X. et al. (2016) Plausible and desirable futures in the Anthropocene: A new research agenda. Global Environ. Change 39, 351-362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.017 (2016).