ESHS/HSS Annual Meeting

Whose ‘Collapse’? The Interaction Between Mathematical, Textual, and Visual Representations in the History of Research on Atlantic Ocean Circulation

• In Event: Universal Claims and Their Consequences in the 20th- and 21st-Century Earth and Climate Sciences

English Abstract

Tipping points and abrupt transitions of climate systems are currently being intensely discussed in climate research. One particularly contested issue is the potential collapse of the Atlantic ocean circulation. Such a collapse would have profound consequences on the climate system. When facing the challenge of representing the collapse of this highly complex system, actors used different kinds of representations together. We trace the interaction between three key types of representations: mathematical, textual, and visual. Studying representations from 1985 to the present, we explore the ways in which collapse was formalised, conceptualised, and portrayed. At the textual level, we analyse how terms such as “collapse”, “abrupt”, “terminal decline”, “bifurcation point”, and “shutdown” were used in arguments about the potential collapse of the Atlantic ocean circulation. At the visual level, representations of ocean circulation were often highly complex and showed dynamics of water, temperature, and salinity in different regions and depths, and sometimes made simplifications. At the mathematical level, non-linear dynamical models incorporated both deterministic and stochastic aspects of ocean circulation while excluding some of the complexity afforded by general circulation models.

We use oral history interviews with physical oceanographers, climate physicists, and mathematicians to contextualise and explore nuances in the discussion of collapse. Discussions of changes to ocean circulation are not just about controversy surrounding definitions but also efforts aimed at stabilising concepts. We argue that the study of the interaction of different forms of representations can be crucial for understanding scientists’ practices, conceptualisations, and arguments.

Authors

• Emilie Skulberg, University of Copenhagen

• Martin Speirs, University of Copenhagen