Geoforum 36 (2005) 137148

www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

Critical Review

On the role of Geography in Earth System Science

A.J. Pitman
Department of Physical Geography, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia
Received 5 June 2003; received in revised form 12 November 2004

Abstract
Geography is fundamentally a non-reductionist and holistic discipline. While we tend to focus on particular areas (Physical,
Human, etc.), or we focus on specic successes (Quaternary studies for example) this paper argues that selling Geography though
emphasizing these specic areas or strengths misses a major potential contribution our discipline can make. While most sciences
have become reductionist over the last two centuries, they have recently discovered that the Earth is a complex system with emergent properties that cannot be explained through understanding the components parts individually. Many of these sciences are now
contributing to a major eort called Earth System Science, an integrative super-discipline that accepts that biophysical sciences and
social sciences are equally important in any attempts to understand the state, and future of the Earth System. This paper argues that
the development of Earth System Sciences is a risk for Geography since it is, in eect, Geography with few Geographers. While
representing a threat, the development of Earth System Science is also an opportunity. I argue that Geography could be a lead discipline among the other biophysical and social sciences that are now building Earth System Science to address key problems within
the Earth System. While I am optimistic about the potential of Geography to take this leadership role, I am pessimistic about the
likelihood that we will. I provide suggestions on how we might take on the leadership of Earth System Science including individual
engagement and a renement of tertiary training of some Geography students.
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Earth System Science; Role of Geography; Geographic leadership; Physical Geography; Human Geography

1. Introduction
While Geography has followed almost all 19th and
20th Century social and biophysical sciences along the
reductionist route, we have, in my view, tried to keep
an eye on the big picture better than most. We have
been criticised for this holistic (and traditionally rather
generalist) approach by other disciplines because
breadth across a range of disciplines tends to require a
somewhat less deep appreciation of any one discipline.
A fundamental (in the full sense of that word) change
is now taking place in those disciplines that endeavour
to understand the Earth System. After two centuries of
reductionist science, other biophysical and social sciences have begun to recognise the need to understand
E-mail address: apitman@penman.es.mq.edu.au
0016-7185/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.11.008

complex systems (the Earth System for example) holistically. Rather than attempting to break a biophysical
phenomenon into smaller and smaller parts in the hope
of nally understanding that part, the biophysical sciences have stepped back from dissecting nature into
its component parts (Lovelock, 2003) and started to
look at the total system. This approach, known as Earth
System Science is not new, it is a re-invention of Geography. Throughout the 20th Century, Geographers
have been doing this type of investigation and exploring the interrelationship between the biophysical and
social systems and some of the 20th Centurys leading
Geographers have written about the interconnectivity
of the Earth System (e.g. Davis, 1901; Strahler, 1951;
Chorley et al., 1984). While many in Geography have
followed the reductionist path, others have maintained
a broad multidisciplinary, multiscale, non-reductionist

138

A.J. Pitman / Geoforum 36 (2005) 137148

and genuinely holistic perspective. I argue that this is a

perspective we can aggressively build from: but what
we might develop has recently been independently
created by non-Geographers and called Earth System
Science. This paper presents the case that the recent
emergence of this new holistic approach to understanding the Earth (including Human-activity) is a
threat to our discipline, but I also want to argue that
it presents an opportunity for Geography and Geographers to re-engage with other biophysical and social sciences and lead this exciting super-discipline.
In this paper I want to look at Geography from outside and focus on the contribution Geography can make
to elements of the wider scientic community. Thrifts
(2002) contribution (and subsequent commentaries)
tend to reect the detail of a contribution by Geography
(an internal self-diagnosis in a sense) and focus on successes in specic areas of Geography. This is implicitly
reductionist and I argue that lying over all the topics
we might consider as Geographical is an umbrella
that holds all the pieces of the jig-saw together. Geography is not just a provider of pieces to that jig-saw (cf.
chemistry, biology, demography, economics), rather it
is the only discipline with the mind-set to take all the
pieces, position them, integrate them and explain the
big picture. This should place Geography at the centre
of all social and biophysical science, at the centre of
solutions to problems considered major outside our discipline, at the centre of Earth System Science. As a Physical Geographer with a global-scale Earth System
perspective, my interest is not what Geography is, or
should be, or could be as a discipline (see Turner,
2002a). Instead, my focus is that Geography could make
a major contribution to Earth System Science by leading
the international agenda. Individuals within Geography
with expertise across key components of Physical and
Human Geography have the skills to contribute solutions to the problems inherent in this new science. It is
my view that Geography has, to date, missed these
changes and that this questions the relevance of the discipline in the eyes of the broader scientic community.
There have been major attempts in the past to
encourage something like Earth System Science within
Geography. Some of these attempts are fundamental
to the entire discipline of Physical Geography. Davis
(1901) argued the need to consider the form of the
Earth as a whole, Strahler (1951) argued that while
focussing on a chosen speciality, a Physical Geograper
should be able to assemble and integrate pertinent
fragments of knowledge into a unied picture . . ..
Chorley et al. (1984) used knowledge of geology, chemistry, biology, hydrology, atmospheric and cryospheric
processes, integrated in a systems framework to advance
geomorphic knowledge. These, and very many others,
were seminal works that made Physical Geography a
sound discipline, while integrative and outwards looking

to Human Geography. However, it is simply indisputable that the new thrust in Earth System Science is largely independent of Geography. I appreciate that some
within Geography will nd this statement confronting
and point to Geographers who play a key role in Earth
System Science. My view is that these are either the
exceptions that prove the rule (e.g. B.L. Turner II from
Human Geography) or are mainly from the paleoclimate community (Frank Oldeld and John Dearing
for example, but also see Thrift, 2002; Alverson et al.,
2003). Part of the problem is that Earth System or
Earth System Science means dierent things to dierent people. I try to dene the context of this paper in the
following section.
I want to make it clear at this point that this paper
should not be read as an attempt to belittle Geography.
I do not argue that Geographers have somehow failed to
do useful work, they demonstrably have. I do, however,
argue that there has been an explosion within the international communitys eort in Earth System Science
independent of any signicant role or contribution from
Geography. The Earth System Science community
would likely fail to recognise names like Chorley, Dury,
Davis, etc. because this new Earth System Science has
emerged from mathematics, physics and biology. Thus,
while Geography has made many important contributions, it seems it has not done enough to prevent the
re-invention of Geography twice: once as Environmental Science and now as Earth System Science. I also wish
to defend why I do not discuss the detail of a suite of
internal Geography debates or paradigms in this paper.
I do not discuss the contemporary structure of Geography, its historical development, its heritage or the suite
of human-physical dialogues. Why? Simply because
these debates and issues seem unknown outside Geography. I therefore focus on a view of Geography from outside the discipline, identifying a major contribution
Geographers can make. Again, this is not intended to
belittle internal debates or perspectives. Since these are
internal to Geography they may be important to Geography but they are irrelevant to an external view of
what Geography might oer.
This paper briey outlines the change that has taken
place in the last ve years in Earth System Science. I
point out a few areas where Geography should have
led this change but did not. I then draw attention to a
major step underway in Earth System Science in the
hope that this will draw Geographers into the arena to
contribute in ways that will benet the discipline, and
the wider scientic community.

2. Earth System Science and Geography

Earth System Science is the study of the Earth as a
single, integrated physical and social system. Earth Sys-

A.J. Pitman / Geoforum 36 (2005) 137148

tem Science views the Earth-System holistically based on

the new understanding of the processes, non-linearities
and feedbacks which dominate the system and contribute to emergent phenomenon. Emergence is part of complex system theory and is used to indicate the arising of
patterns, structures or properties that are not adequately
explained by study of the sub-components of the system.
These patterns may be the structure of a karst pavement,
the stream pattern in a delta, a land-use or settlement
pattern, or the pattern of industrial development. Sometimes these patterns can be explained, other times they
appear random or inexplicable. But they may in fact
be a deeper reection of the interactions of complex systems, patterns that emerge from apparent randomness. Complex systems theory and emergence oers
Geography a possible key to unlocking the patterns we
see in both Physical and Human Geography.
Earth System Science is not Earth Sciencesthe
addition of system fundamentally changes the focus
of this super-discipline. Earth System Science studies
the functioning of, and interactions between Humans
(including population change, economic growth, social
change) and biophysical systems (including soils,
hydrology, the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and ecology) via biogeochemical cycles. This has traditionally
been a science that prescribed the role of Humans within
the biophysical system (i.e. Humans have been seen as
external to the system, see for example Houghton
et al., 1996, 2001). There are now some new initiatives
that are drawing on the social sciences which attempt
to bring Humans into a total view of the Earth System
(i.e. Humans are seen as internal to the system, see for
example Kates et al., 2001; Steen et al., 2002; Clark
et al., 2003). Overall, it is the holistic philosophy, combining a rigorous, physically based approach with the
understanding of Human-systems from the social sciences that make Earth System Science refreshing and
new. Earth System Science does not add the social sciences to the biophysical sciences, rather it re-evaluates
the nature of the Earth System so that the full complexity of Earth System Science is considered. It can only
really be explored by individuals with genuine respect
for both biophysical and social science.
When all the pieces of the biophysical and social science jigsaw are combined and one attempts to understand the way the pieces t together as the Earth
System, the discipline of Geography springs to mind,
since Geography has traditionally explored how these
sub-disciplines combine and interact. However, in Britain and Australia at least, Geography is commonly split
into Physical and Human Geography and exists within
educational programs, journals and conferences (see discussion by Thrift, 2002). While links between the two
sub-disciplines obviously exist, the utterly fundamental
and causal role of Humans within Physical Geography
that results from modications to the Earth System

139

has not been integral. This is because the specialization

encouraged in Physical Geography, as far back as Davis
(1901), tended to encourage the same reductionist approach common in our associated disciplines, within
which we strived to be respected (see Thrift, 2002).
The environment has now changed and we now know
that any notion that a single part of the Earth System
can be fully understood in isolation from other parts,
or that elements that might be within the realm of Physical Geography can be understood without an appreciation of the role of Humans, is naive. Humans have
changed the driving force behind the basic operation of
the Earththe inuence of the Sunby increasing the
greenhouse gas concentrations within the atmosphere,
adding radiative forcing (or energy) to the Earth System
(Houghton et al., 2001). Humans have also deeply affected the landscape (Turner et al., 1990; Vitousek
et al., 1997a) with only recent appreciation of the scale
of deforestation in Human history (Williams, 2003). It
is noteworthy that Geographers have been at the forefront of assessments of the scale of land cover change:
a major contribution by our discipline.
It is now realised that looking at how the biophysical
system works without including Humans at the core of
any mathematical or conceptual model of that system
is naive. This has clearly been recognised by the International Geosphere Biosphere Program (IGBP, see Steen
et al., 2002, 2003; Kabat et al., 2003). The central role
that Humans play in all aspects of modern Earth System
Science was highlighted by Schellnhuber (1999), the
director of the Potsdam Institute in Germany. He states
that the Earth System (E) can, at the highest level of
abstraction, be represented as:
E N ; H

where N = (a, b, c, . . . the components of the biophysical

system); H = (A, S). This equation highlights the role of
the biophysical system (N) and the Human system (H)
which comprises the aggregate of all human lives, actions and products (A) and the metaphysical sub-component (S) which manifests itself, for example, via the
adoption of international protocols for climate protection. The point here is that Schellnhuber (1999) places
the Human role at the same level as the biophysical role
in understanding the Earth System. This might seem
reasonable to Geographers, but it is an insight that led
to a major paper in Nature (Schellnhuber, 1999) suggesting that it was quite revolutionary to those within the
broader scientic community. This change was also
highlighted in the 2001 Amsterdam Declaration on Global Change which, in part, states that the Earth System
behaves as a single, self-regulating system comprised of
physical, chemical and human components (see also
Steen et al., 2003). This sounds like a statement from
a 100-level Geography course but it has led to some
interesting debate within the literature (e.g. Lovelock,

140

A.J. Pitman / Geoforum 36 (2005) 137148

2003) and is considered a revolution by some biophysical scientists, and wrong by others.
Why does Earth System Science move consideration
of the Earth System as a physical system where Humans
are external, to a biophysical-social system where
Human activity is considered an internal inuence?
There is now virtually no place within the Earth System
that does not show evidence of the Human ngerprint
(deep within the oceans and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets may remain pristine). The addition of carbon dioxide (CO2), sulphur and nitrogen into the
atmosphere, via Human activity, has changed the chemistry of rainwater (Charlson et al., 1992) and the deposition of trace elements onto the biosphere (Vitousek
et al., 1997b; Butcher et al., 1992; Prentice et al.,
2001). The addition of CO2 acts directly to fertilize
plants and changes species composition and plant structure and function (Gitay et al., 2001; Prentice et al.,
2001). No study of the soil, the geomorphology, the
ora and fauna of any place on Earth can be assumed
to be independent of the role of Humans. The hydrology
is aected by Human-induced land clearance, re and
urbanization (Beven, 2000). Soils are aected by changes
in atmospheric chemistry, nitrogen deposition and land
management practices (Huggett, 2003). The ecology is
aected directly by Human-induced clearance (Gitay
et al., 2001; Prentice et al., 2001) and changes in nitrogen
and sulphur deposition (Prentice et al., 2001), and indirectly by changes in species composition and by the indirect eect of increasing CO2 (Stocker et al., 2001).
Climate is aected by land clearance (Stocker et al.,
2001) and by increasing greenhouse gases and sulphate
aerosols (Houghton et al., 2001). In eect, the nature
of the Earth System is now aected by Human-activity
at a level that rivals natural variability (Turner et al.,
1990; Steen et al., 2003; Williams, 2003). In each case
(and there are, of course, many more) Humans initiate
the change, but Human development may, in turn, be
aected by the changes in the biophysical system. In
some areas (uvial hydrology, catchment management,
river rehabilitation) the role of Humans is becoming
better appreciated and more central to management
approaches (e.g. Brierley and Fryirs, 2004). Geographers have made a key contribution to environmental
management (e.g. Cooke and Doornkamp, 1974)
although the eld of environmental management and
environmental sustainability is rapidly evolving in terms
of complex self-organizing systems (Kates et al., 2001).
Overall, it is important to note that the biophysical
environment aects Humans, and that Humans aect
the biophysical environment. This is a two-way process
with extremely complex, yet intimate interactions and
feedbacks that, at its heart, Geography attempts to
understand. However, despite Geography retaining a
broader perspective than other disciplines, most Geographers are not multidisciplinary in this sense. This is

as a result of the split between Human Geography and

Physical Geography which starts within many High
School curriculum and tends to force students to specialize in either biophysical or social sciences. This produces
students poorly equipped to address the complexity of
multidisciplinary problems, and the lack of mathematics
and physics in Physical Geography education makes
embracing the advances in complex systems theory
challenging.
Earth System Science is gaining considerable momentum (note how many of the citations in this paper are
post 2000). The recognition that problems within the
Earth System cannot be solved from just a biophysical
perspective, and that solutions must be sourced by integrating biophysical and social science expertise, is reorganizing major science groups. The expectation is that
Earth System Science will provide solutions to major
world problems because it moves away from reductionist approaches and does not recognise discipline boundaries. The international scientic community has
developed Earth System Science with little reference to
the Geography community. What Geography may be
able to oer this new area, why the discipline remains
highly relevant and why it has been ignored are addressed in the remainder of this paper.

3. Why is Earth System Science important?

Earth System Science is a genuinely four dimensional problem. It is ultimately about understanding
the Earth and its response to Human-induced change.
It has evolved from the remarkable visions of scientists
like Vernadsky (1926) and Lovelock (1979) who stood
back from the minutiae of classical scientic investigation and looked at the Earth as a single integrated system. While Lovelocks (1979) ideas were initially
viewed unfavourably within the scientic community,
they now form the key building block of the Earth System Science revolution.
Earth System Science is underpinned by a time series
that, bar the rst photographs of Earth from space, will
have the greatest consequences on Human development
since the Industrial Revolution (because to turn this
trend around requires a change from a fossil fuel-based
economy to something fundamentally dierent). Since
1958, Dr. Charles D. Keeling, of the Scripps Institution
of Oceanography at the University of California, San
Diego, has measured the atmospheric CO2 concentration at the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii. This record constitutes the longest, continuous record of
atmospheric CO2 concentrations available in the world
and shows increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere
(Fig. 1) which we know to be caused by Human activity
(Houghton et al., 2001). Understand the changes shown
in Fig. 1 requires an Earth System Science approach. It

A.J. Pitman / Geoforum 36 (2005) 137148

(c) a partial understanding of how the levels of greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols will evolve in
the future.

Carbon dioxide concentration (ppmv)

380
370
360
350
340
330
320
310
1958

141

1964

1970

1976

1982

1988

1994

2000

Year
Fig. 1. The increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere
at Mauna Loa observatory (data from Keeling and Whorf, 2002).

is not just a biophysical problem, given the trend shown

in Fig. 1 is primarily due to human-activity. It is not just
a social science problem, given the removal of CO2 from
the atmosphere is a biophysical process. Understanding
Fig. 1 requires a Earth System Science approach to identify and understand the sources and the sinks of CO2.
Further, we need to know how Fig. 1 will evolve over
the next century and what will happen as this concentration changes in the future, recognising that Humans will
not be passive as climate changes following increases in
CO2.
It is a basic tenant of this paper that these two questions, for dierent reasons, need Geographers to play a
central and forceful role, otherwise others without the
breadth of understanding implicit in Geography will
do it for us.

4. The role of Geography in Earth System Science

4.1. Physical Geography
Projections of future climates are made with climate
models. These are mathematically and computationally
complex representations of some elements of the Earths
climate system (see McGue and Henderson-Sellers,
2001) and are traditionally the domain of uid dynamics. There are three basic areas which limit our ability
to project the future climate using climate models:
(a) a partial understanding about the nature of the
real world (i.e. a lack of observations or a poor
spatial or temporal coverage of observations);
(b) a partial understanding of how biophysical processes operate in the real world;

Physical Geographers can play a role in reducing

these uncertainties via observation of the functioning
of the biophysical system, and by providing the climate
modelling groups with knowledge on the spatial distribution of key quantities, such as soil and vegetation type
(Wilson and Henderson-Sellers, 1985). We can also help
climate modelling groups understand how biophysical
processes operate. For example, Biogeographers know
how vegetation patterns change in time and can play
an important role in this eld. While a key role may require sound mathematical and computing skills, an
important role need only require knowledge. It is worth
noting that most of the advances in this area have been
led by a small group of ecologists who are prepared to
consider the interaction between large scale perturbations and the functioning of plants (e.g. Larcher, 1995;
Smith et al., 1997), or by physicists who have crossed
discipline boundaries and started to use their basic (as
in fundamental) understanding of how things work to
model processes for which they have little formal experience. One might say that the discipline of Biogeography, which was in Geography, has been taken from us
and infused by fresh ideas from other disciplines or by
ecologists moving more into the Human-domain (see
for example http://www.gcte.org/ or Canadell and
Noble, 2001). It now forms part of the core of Earth
System Science.
Another area of strength in Physical Geography,
quite rightly highlighted by Thrift (2002) is the general
area of Quaternary studies (see also Alverson et al.,
2003). Work on reconstructing past environments, dating, etc. is dominated by Physical Geographers leading
to outstanding papers in Nature, Science and more discipline-specic journals. One major contribution from
this group is an understanding of climate variability,
or the likely sensitivity of global climate to an external
perturbation (say a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere).
It was this work that permitted the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to assess whether global temperatures in the last decade have been anomalous and whether the rate of global warming is
anomalous (Houghton et al., 2001).
A third key area in climate modelling is soil science, a
discipline with a ne history in Geography. Bouwman
(1990) documented the then available digital soils data,
noting that one of these, by Wilson and Henderson-Sellers (1985), was created in the Physical Geography
department at Liverpool University. However, a large
amount of soil measurements and knowledge obtained
by Geographers is probably never communicated to
the Earth System Science community and is never incorporated into updates of these global data sets. Finally,

142

A.J. Pitman / Geoforum 36 (2005) 137148

the sort of soils teaching needed to support eorts in

Earth System Science (basically soil physics, e.g. Hillel,
1998) requires undergraduate level calculus, physics,
chemistry and biology and is not generally taught to
undergraduate Geographers.
A fourth key area in climate modelling is hydrology.
Hydrology is taught in some Physical Geography
departments but the approach is usually largely qualitative, catchment based and involves analyses of streamow records and assessments of changes in those
records. The types of physical hydrology described by
Beven (2000) and used by Kabat et al. (2003) are not
taught in Physical Geography departments for the same
reasons as soil physics is not taught (physical hydrology
tends to be taught in Environmental Science or Engineering departments).
Land cover mapping and remote sensing plays a
major role within Earth System Science. Major recent
work on data set creation known to the Earth System
Science community include DeFries et al. (1995), Sellers
et al. (1996), Ramankutty and Foley (1998), DeFries et
al. (1999), DeFries et al. (2000) and Goldewijk (2001).
These data have been used extensively for assessing the
impact of past and future land cover change on climate
(e.g. DeFries et al., 2002; Bounoua et al., 2002). While
individuals like Ruth DeFries and John Townshend
have made very signicant contributions to Earth System Science, this is not always recognised by the Earth
System Science community as a contribution by Geographers, in part because their high-prole work is published in remote sensing and global change journals.
The nal area is climate and atmospheric science.
Most Physical Geography departments teach climate
and most have moved on from the early qualitative approaches to something requiring a little mathematics or
physics. Sadly, without strong foundations in mathematics, most Geography students soon become lost in
literature more complex than Barry and Chorley
(1976). Consider for example the levels of mathematics
literacy required for Barry and Chorley (1976) compared to Oke (1978) and Stull (1988).
The aim of this discussion is to demonstrate that in
each of the areas Physical Geography would consider itself strong (soils, biogeography, hydrology, climate),
with the notable exception of the palaeo-sciences, the
development of Earth System Science and the demands
of that science for physically based, quantitative and
computer based modelling limits the potential role of
Physical Geographers. Physical Geographers continue
to make exceptionally valuable contributions to their
discipline, but these are rarely recognized or incorporated into Earth System Science. Some signicant work
by individuals like Arnell (e.g. Arnell, 1996, 1999) and
Parry (Parry, 1990, 1998, 2002) represent areas where
Geography has made a contribution, but a few individuals do not provide the critical mass required to estab-

lish the credibility of a discipline in the eyes of the

wider community. We need critical mass involvement
to highlight our contribution. There are two reasons
why Physical Geography struggles in Earth System Science: First, most Physical Geographers do not typically
have the training required to cope in this arena; and the
pedologist, hydrologist or biogeographer working in a
specic region is probably unaware that the wider community is very interested in their measurements and
knowledge. Second, others from dierent disciplines
are pursuing many of the same goals in multidisciplinary
teams (see Vorosmarty et al., 1989, 2000; Kates et al.,
2001) and unless Physical Geography recognises this,
the ability to compete in these areas of traditional
strength will be limited.
It is, of course, quite reasonable for Physical Geographers to contribute to Earth System Science on an individual basis. My argument is that, given what Physical
Geographers can provide, combined with their knowledge and understanding of the nature of the biophysical
environment, this opportunity is wasted. Where Physical
Geographers have contributed, such as in the broad area
of Quaternary studies, our contribution is quite clearly
highly respected.
4.2. Human Geography
Even if we had a climate model that perfectly described all biophysical processes, we could not predict
the climate of say 2100 without an understanding of
how greenhouse gases, sulphur dioxide and land cover
will evolve in the future. In 1992, the IPCC began a process of developing a set of emission scenarios which
describe, based on a series of storylines, how greenhouse gases may evolve between now and 2100. An update of emission scenarios began in 1996 and the
resulting scenarios were agreed in 2000 (known as the
SRES scenarios, Nakicenovic et al., 2000). Each family
of emission scenarios cover a wide range of the main
demographic, economic and technological driving forces
for future greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols.
The A1 storyline and scenario family describes a future world of rapid economic growth, global population
that peaks in mid-century and declines thereafter, and a
rapid introduction of new and more ecient technologies. Major underlying themes include capacity building
and increased cultural and social interactions with a
substantial reduction in regional dierences in per capita
income. The A1 scenario family (Fig. 2) develops into
three groups that describe alternative directions of technological change (in terms of energy supply). Group
A1Fl (Fig. 2) assumes development will be fossil fuel
intensive, group A1T will utilize non-fossil fuel sources
and group A1B assumes a balance across all energy
sources. The A2 storyline and scenario family describes
a very heterogeneous world. The underlying theme is self

A.J. Pitman / Geoforum 36 (2005) 137148

Fig. 2. Projections of carbon dioxide concentrations based on various

scenarios (or storylines) from the present to 2100 (from Houghton
et al., 2001).

reliance and preservation of local identities. Population

continues to increase and economic development is
primarily regionally driven, leading to fragmented per
capita income growth and technological change.
The B1 storyline and scenario family describes a convergent world with the same population changes as A1,
but with rapid change in economic structures towards a
service and information economy, with reductions in
material intensity and the introduction of clean and resource ecient technologies. The emphasis is on global
solutions to economic, social and environmental sustainability including improved equity but without additional climate initiatives. The B2 storyline and scenario
family describes a world where the emphasis is on local
solutions to economic, social and environmental sustainability. The global population continues to grow,
but at a lower rate than A2 with and intermediate levels
of economic development and less rapid but more diverse technological change than in the A1 or B1 scenarios. While this scenario is also orientated towards
environmental protection and social equity, it focuses
on local and regional levels.
The point about this discussion is that these families
of scenarios each require information on how populations might change in the future, the types of economic
growth that may occur, the rate of economic development and the nature of technological change. This information is required at regional detail for the entire globe.
As yet, these scenarios omit future land cover change,
but this omission will need to be rectied in the near future. The impact of these dierent scenarios on the future of the planet are almost inconceivably large for
both CO2 concentration (Fig. 2) and sulphate aerosols.

143

By 2100, a range in the emissions of greenhouse gases

develops from about 5 Gt C to 29 Gt C per year. This
translates into CO2 concentrations ranging from 550
to 950 ppmv (Fig. 2). What this means is that uncertainty in how population, economic development and
technological change, once converted into emissions of
carbon, leads to uncertainty in the emission of carbon
by 2100 of 24 Gt. This uncertainty in emissions leads
to uncertainty in the concentration of CO2 of 400 ppmv
(this uncertainty is more than the current CO2 concentration in the atmosphere). In terms of sulphur dioxide
emissions from industry, dierent scenarios translate
into emissions of around 20 million tonnes to just under
150 million tonnes of sulphur per year. The combination
of uncertainty in carbon emissions with sulphate emissions, translates into uncertainty about how the globally
averaged temperature may change in the future. Fig. 3
shows a projection of the envelope of temperature
change (Houghton et al., 2001). It ranges from about
1.4 C to 5.8 C. This global average masks large regional dierences and makes future planning very dicult.
This range in scenarios or storylines therefore contributes a huge uncertainty regarding the future of the
Earth. Minimizing this uncertainty requires reducing
our uncertainty on population change (the eld of population geographers) and changes in economic growth
(economic geographers) and development (development
geographers). Policy relevant research on minimizing
the development of inequities in future development
(social geography), providing advice to government on
socially sensitive policy (social geography) and the
development and implementation of appropriate technologies are all essential. It is important here to recognise

Fig. 3. Projections of global temperature change based on various

scenarios (or storylines) from the present to 2100 (from Houghton
et al., 2001).

144

A.J. Pitman / Geoforum 36 (2005) 137148

that the future scenarios for emissions are written in

terms of storylines. Thus, all Human Geographers have
to do to contribute to this particular area is to communicate their knowledge and expertise in wordsthey do
not have to become experts in mathematics. Some of the
uncertainty in Fig. 3 comes from the lack of understanding about the nature of the real world and the lack of
understanding of how biophysical processes operate in
the real world. These are areas where Physical Geography can assist. Thus, Geographers, as a group, could
contribute in virtually all of the areas which lead to
the uncertainty in our estimates of global temperature
rise, but again, it requires a critical mass of like-minded
individuals to be involved, not just a small number of
committed individuals.

5. The future of Earth System Science

The sponsoring body for Earth System Science is the
International Geosphere Biosphere Programme (IGBP).
A major meeting was held in 2001 in Amsterdam at
which the contribution made to science by the IGBP
over the last decade (see Steen et al., 2003) was synthesized. The foreword to this synthesis was signed by the
Chair of IGBP (Berrien Moore), the Chair (Arild
Underdal) of the International Human Dimensions Program on Global Environmental Change (IHDP), the
Chair of the World Climate Research Programme (Peter
Lemke) and the co-Chair (Michel Loreau) of DIVERSITAS (an international programme of biodiversity science). IGBP is sponsored by a wide range of groups
and societies (http://www.igbp.kva.se/cgi-bin/php/frameset.php). IHDP is co-sponsored by the International
Social Science Council (ISSC) and the International
Council for Science (ICSU), WCRP is co-sponsored
by the World Meteorology Organization (WMO), the
International Council for Science (ICSU) and the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of
UNESCO and DIVERSITAS is co-sponsored by six
international agencies: the International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS), the Scientic Committee on
Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), the United
Nations Educational, Scientic, and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), the International Union of Microbiological Societies (IUMS), the International Council for
Science (ICSU) and the IGBP. The point of this detail
is that the directions and strategies highlighted by IGBP
at the Amsterdam Conference in 2001 are underpinned
by both the international science and international social science organizations. The directions and strategies
are likely, therefore, to be inuential and formulative
in terms of the directions Earth System Science takes
in the next decade or two. It is interesting for Geography
to ponder the directions this new science is taking. Quoting the IGBP:

The challenge of understanding a changing Earth

demands not only systems science but also a new
system of science. This new approach must retain
and strengthen existing tools for studying the planetary machinery, develop new systems level
approaches for integration and build an eective
framework for substantial collaboration between
the social and natural sciences
So, according to the IGBP (and therefore implicitly
the sponsoring agencies) we need an eective framework
for substantial collaboration between the social and natural sciences. This may sound familiar to Geographers.
Geography has, at its core, precisely that and it has been
doing it for over a century. Sadly, the eorts of the biophysical and social sciences to underpin the major thrust
to solve the Earths problems our eorts in this area do
not seem to have been noticed. This is sobering and casts
doubt on the relevance of our discipline beyond our discipline. Basically, these new sciences are aiming, independent of Geography, to do what Geography has and
continues to seek to do. If they achieve their aims independent of us and without our aid, where does that leave
us? Perhaps spending large amounts of time . . . circulating though the same old conferences and thereby conrming Geographys presence as themselves which
Thrift (2002) quite rightly refers to as lethal.
Part of the plan by the IGBP to address the issue of
Earth System Science relates to a revolution that is
underway in how climate models are constructed: a revolution which takes these models from a climate focus to
an Earth Systems focus. While most climate modelling
groups still retain the largely traditional focus on mathematics and physics, some are retooling quite dramatically, and in ways that give Geography a chance to gain
signicant inuence. An example of this change is the
Potsdam Institute for Climate Research in Germany
that hosts departments of Climate Systems, Natural Systems, Social Systems, Data and Computation, and Integrated Systems Analysis. The rst two are natural
sciences and would be neatly paralleled within the Hadley Centre (probably the premier climate modelling centre in the world, now located in Exeter). The third is in
the socio-economic eld, the last two are what may be
considered structure sciences, namely computer science
and mathematics, which again would be paralleled within many major research institutes. The dierence is the
department of Social Systems within an Institute for Climate Research which also deals with the other biophysical sciences. The social sciences are not seen as some
peripheral discipline to be brought on board. Rather it
is seen that, in order to deal with Earths problems,
the social sciences are as important as the physical sciences (e.g. Eq. (1)). This structure brings social science
into the core of the Potsdam Institute and is fundamentally dierent from inviting social scientists to collabo-

A.J. Pitman / Geoforum 36 (2005) 137148

rate with eorts to understand the Earth System. It is

partly a perception issue. The structure at the Potsdam
Institute says that the leadership truly believes that social science is at the core of Earth System Science. It is
the mutual respect sought by Thrift (2002) and at
the Potsdam Institute this respect comes from applied
mathematicians and physicists.

6. Why are Geographers so poorly represented?

As climate modelling developed, groups grew reecting the skills needed to function within this science. As
the skills required evolved, those same groups attempted
to develop these skills rather than look outward to disciplines which had already developed the expertise. We
might think that the climate modelling groups should
have integrated expertise from Physical Geography,
but they did not. Within Physical Geography, the biogeographers struggled with the need to develop globally
applicable models to represent the response of the biota
to changing climate, while ecologists like Bonan (see
Bonan, 1995), Prentice and Foley (see Foley et al.,
1998) made major progress. The hydrologists, who knew
how a catchment functioned, struggled to come to terms
with the need for a generalised global scale approach
while Wood, Koster and others made fundamental advances (see Wood et al., 1992; Koster et al., 2000).
The descriptive climatologists did not have the numerical literacy to contribute. Within elds of relevance to
Human Geography, the Earth System Science community is just beginning to look for help. For advice on economic development, they are looking to economists. For
advice on population change they are looking to demographers. For help on technological change they are
looking to engineers. Some innovative scientists like
Schellnhuber (Schellnhuber and Wenzel, 1998; Schellnhuber, 1999) and Schneider (e.g. Schneider, 1998, 2000)
are integrating across the biophysical and social systems
in ways long suggested by Geographers. Human Geography is at risk of losing opportunities because Earth
System Science is not looking to Human Geographers
for advice and thus is unlikely to obtain the best advice
available. One of our champions is B.L. Turner II and I
suggest that many Geographers at odds with his contribution to this discussion (Turner, 2002b) might be looking a little inwards at Geography rather than
outwards at making a signicant and widely relevant
contribution to the broader community.
How can Geographers gain the initiative? I suggest
that getting involved in international science would be
the rst step, and this can be as simple as identifying
others working in Earth System Science and talking to
them. The IGBP web site (http://www.igbp.kva.se/cgibin/php/frameset.php) has details on the Chairs of all
the key projects and an e-mail to one of these people,

145

within an individuals areas of interest, would usually

initiate contacts. It is hard to nd expertise, and if someone with expertise volunteers to contribute to the IGBP,
that help is commonly enthusiastically accepted.
A major problem within the Earth System Science
community is the reputation of Geography outside our
discipline. I can accept Thrifts (2002) positive comments
on the role of Geographers, but I rarely hear non-Geographers giving us any credit. For example, after the
IPCC report by Houghton et al. (1996) was published,
a group wishing to attack the scientic ndings within
the report claimed that it was written by a group of
Geographers. This problem of perception of Geography
is interesting. It stems in part from our lack of a hard
science background, and in part because the breadth
of our discipline demands generality to some degree.
We have also been less willing than, say, biologists to
adopt the reductionist approach, retaining a more holistic perspective. This is precisely what Earth System
Science is now encouraging, and other sciences are
embracing. Yet, paradoxically, it remains an implicit
basis for criticism from colleagues in other disciplines
struggling to overcome the signicant limitation of their
own reductionist traditions. This problem of perception
also stems in part from our need to include the role of
Humans within our work, a role that cannot easily be
described mathematically. Those working within Earth
System Science have recognised this diculty and are
developing methodologies to deal with the diculty of
incorporating the uncertainties of economic development, population change, technological change, etc.,
into projections of the future. They are examining the
opportunities that fuzzy logic, chaos theory, ensemble
simulations, emergence, uncertainty analysis and systems theory oer, and these approaches are likely to
bear fruit. Geographers who do not understand this terminology will struggle to communicate with those in
Earth System Science in the future. They are also
embracing a vulnerability framework (Pielke and Bravo
de Guenni, 2003) within probability-based projections.
This is something Geographers are already familiar with
(Cutter, 2003).

7. Educating Geographers for Earth System Science

At the tertiary level we certainly need to address the
skills base. Literacy is the key need, and that is in the
biophysical sciences, social sciences, and a range of
numerate disciplines. Clearly, Physical and Human
Geographers, at the tertiary level, teach a lot of students
who, in wanting to study Geography, would not want
to learn the mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology,
economics, politics, law, statistics and computer science
required for literacy in Earth System Science. I am
not arguing here for a redevelopment of the entire

146

A.J. Pitman / Geoforum 36 (2005) 137148

Geography curriculum in an attempt to train students

for Earth System Science. However, there are not many
Physical Geography students with a good economics
background nor many Human Geographers with a
strong physics grounding. For Geography to play a leadership role in Earth System Science we need to be more
exible in developing degrees within which good students
are encouraged to become deeply engaged in both the
physical sciences and the social sciences. Human Geography students need to be encouraged to study the physical
sciences (preferably physics, the language of biophysical
systems) and Physical Geographers need to be encouraged to study the social sciences (preferably economics,
the language of political decision making and policy
development), but in both cases they need to do the specialized subjects, not those general programs commonly
oered for the non-specialists. This places an enormous
intellectual demand upon some students, but the rewards
for those students will be considerable.

8. Summary
Earth System Science is a major initiative which recognises the need to integrate biophysical and social sciences
into mathematical models of the Earth System. The development of this initiative has occurred to address the problem of Human-induced change within the Earth System. I
have argued that Earth System Science is really Geography, but with little involvement of Geographers.
Earth System Science has developed an understanding
of the biophysical system with little reference to Physical
Geography. Physical Geography has not contributed signicantly because we do not have the literacy to communicate our knowledge in this new discipline. There are, of
course, major exceptions where Physical Geographers do
play a signicant role, but our presence does not give
critical mass and our inuence is not seen as originating from Geography. The incorporation of the social sciences into Earth System Science is now being performed
with little reference to Human Geography, despite the
major contribution that could be made. Rather than
use Human Geography or Physical Geography, Earth
System Science is using physicists, demographers, economists and biologists, and these groups are each making
major contributions and casting doubt on the relevance
of Geography beyond the connes of our own discipline.
To address this concern I have argued that we need to:
(a) volunteer our services via contact with the appropriate international science bodies; and
(b) recognise that some Geography students with
undergraduate training in both the biophysical sciences (probably physics) and the social sciences
(probably economics) would have the literacy to
contribute to Earth System Science.

If we can give a few of these students enough Geography so that they understand why what we do is fundamentally dierent from reductionist sciences, then a
new generation of Geographers will emerge with skills,
knowledge and experience with which no other discipline can compete. It will also raise the reputation of
Geographers in the market place, beyond that which
other disciplines can provide.
I therefore argue that the role of Geography should
be much more that the study of the key components that
Thrift (2002) demonstrates to be healthy. We are the
natural discipline to embrace the genuinely multidisciplinary science that is Earth System Science. We naturally view the Earth as a combination of biophysical
and social sciences. Yet other disciplines that actively
embraced the reductionist approach through the 20th
Century have now discovered the need for a more holistic perspective. They are rapidly and enthusiastically
developing an Earth System Science perspective that is
independent of, yet parallels Geography. If Geography
does not take leadership in this arena, it will not be long
before other disciplines fully take this opportunity from
us and Earth System Science will continue to develop in
parallel with Geographyat our expense. While it may
be too late, given the momentum Earth System Science
has already developed (Steen et al., 2002, 2003; Clark
et al., 2003; Kabat et al., 2003) and that groups such
as the Potsdam Institute and the Earth System Initiative
at MIT (http://web.mit.edu/esi/) already bridge the biophysical and social sciences, I believe that an active
engagement by Geography in Earth System Science
would be welcomed.

Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Bob Fagan and Richie Howitt
for their insight and advice on a draft of this paper. I
would also like to thank several anonymous reviewers
who provided extremely valuable advice. Finally, I am
sincerely grateful for Ms. Karyn Knowles for her editorial advice and her comments that aided the clarify of
this paper.

References
Alverson, K.D., Bradley, R.S., Pedersen, T.F. (Eds.), 2003. Paleoclimate, Global Change and the Future. Springer, 220pp.
Amsterdam Declaration on Global Change, 2001. http://www.sciconf.igbp.kva.se/fr.html. Issued at Challenges of a Changing Earth:
Global Change Open Science Conference, a joint meeting of: the
International GeosphereBiosphere Programme (IGBP), the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP), the World Climate Research Programme
(WRCP) and the International Biodiversity Programme (DIVERSITAS), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1013 July 2001.

A.J. Pitman / Geoforum 36 (2005) 137148

Arnell, N.W., 1996. Global Warming, River Flows and Water
Resources. Wiley, Chichester.
Arnell, N.W., 1999. Climate change and global water resources.
Global Environ. Change 9, 531549.
Barry, R.G., Chorley, R.J., 1976. Atmosphere, Weather and Climate,
third ed. Methuen and Co. Ltd, 432pp.
Beven, K.J., 2000. Rainfall-Runo Modelling. J. Wiley and Sons,
360pp.
Bonan, G.B., 1995. Landatmosphere CO2 exchange simulated by a
land surface process model coupled to an atmospheric general
circulation model. J. Geophys. Res. 100, 28172831.
Bounoua, L., DeFries, R., Collatz, G.J., Sellers, P.J., Khan, H., 2002.
Eects of land cover conversion on surface climate. Climatic
Change 52, 2964.
Bouwman, A.F., 1990. In: Soils and the Greenhouse Eect. Proceedings of the International Conference on Soils and the Greenhouse
Eect. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 575pp.
Brierley, G., Fryirs, K., 2004. Geomorphology and River Management: Application of the River Styles Framework. Blackwell,
Oxford.
Butcher, S.S., Charlson, R.J., Orians, G.H., Wolfe, G.V. (Eds.), 1992.
Global Biogeochemical Cycles. Academic Press, London, 377pp.
Canadell, J., Noble, I., 2001. Challenges of a changing Earth: change
open science conference. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16, 664666.
Charlson, R.J., Orians, G.H., Wolfe, G.V., Butcher, S.S., 1992.
Human modication of global biogeochemical cycles. In: Butcher,
S.S., Charlson, R.J., Orians, G.H., Wolfe, G.V. (Eds.), Global
Biogeochemical Cycles. Academic Press, London, 377pp (Chapter
16).
Chorley, R.J., Schumm, S.A., Sugden, D.E., 1984. Geomorphology.
Methuen, London, 605pp.
Clark, W.A., Crutzen, P., Schellnhuber, H.-J., 2003. Earth System
Analysis for Sustainability. Dahem Workshop report no. 91, MIT
Press (forthcoming), Cambridge, MA.
Cooke, R.U., Doornkamp, J.C., 1974. Geomorphology in Environmental Management: an Introduction. Clarendon Press, Oxford,
413pp.
Cutter, S., 2003. The vulnerability of science and the science of
vulnerability. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geographers 93, 112.
Davis, W.M., 1901. Elementary Physical Geography. Ginn and Co,
Boston, p. 401.
DeFries, R.S., Field, C.B., Fung, I., Justice, C.O., Los, S., Matson,
P.A., Matthews, E., Mooney, H.A., Potter, C.S., Prentice, K.,
Sellers, P.J., Townshend, J.R.G., Tucker, C.J., Ustin, S.L.,
Vitousek, P.M., 1995. Mapping the land surface for global
atmospherebiosphere models: toward continuous distributions
of vegetations functional properties. J. Geophys. Res. 100, 20867
20882.
DeFries, R.S., Townshend, J.R.G., Hansen, M.C., 1999. Continuous
elds of vegetation characteristics at the obal scale at 1-km
resolution. J. Geophys. Res. 104, 1691116923.
DeFries, R., Hansen, M., Townshend, J.R.G., Janetos, A.C., Loveland, T.R., 2000. A new global 1 km data set of percent tree cover
derived from remote sensing. Global Change Biol. 6, 247254.
DeFries, R.S., Bounoua, L., Collatz, G.J., 2002. Human modication
of the landscape and surface climate in the next fty years. Global
Change Biol. 8, 438458.
Foley, J.A., Levis, S., Prentice, I.C., Pollard, D., Thompson, L., 1998.
Coupling dynamic models of climate and vegetation. Global
Change Biol. 4, 561579.
Gitay, H., Brown, S., Easterling, W., Jallow, B., Antle, J., Apps, M.,
Beamish, R., Chapin, T., Cramer, W., Frangi, J., Laine, J., Erda,
L., Magnuson, J., Noble, I., Price, J., Prowse, T., Root, T.,
Schulze, E., Sirotenko, O., Sohngen, B., Soussana, J., 2001.
Ecosystems and Their Goods and Services. In: McCarthym, J.J.,
Canziani, O., Leary, N.A., Dokken, D.J., White, K.S. (Eds.),
Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.

147

Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
New York, NY, USA (Chapter 5).
Goldewijk, K.K., 2001. Estimating global land use change over the
past 300 years: the HYDE database. Global Biogeochem. Cycles
15, 417434.
Hillel, D., 1998. Environmental Soil Physics. Academic Press, London,
771pp.
Houghton, J.T., Meira Filho, L.G., Callender, B.A., Harris, N.,
Kattenberg, A., Maskell, K. (Eds.), 1996. Climate Change 1995:
The Science of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, UK,
572pp.
Houghton, J.T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D.J., Noger, M., van der Linden, P.J.,
Dai, X., Maskell, K., Johnson, C.A. (Eds.), 2001. Climate Change,
2001. The Scientic Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the
Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 881pp.
Huggett, R.J., 2003. Fundamentals of Geomorphology. Routledge,
386pp.
Kabat, P., Claussen, M., Dirmeyer, P.A., Gash, J.H.C., de Guenni,
L.B., Meybeck, M., Vorosmarty, C.J., Hutjes, R.W.A., Lutkemeier, S. (Eds.), 2003. Vegetation, Water, Humans and the Climate.
Springer Verlag, Heidelberg Germany, 550pp.
Kates, R.W., Clark, W.C., Corell, R., Hall, J.M., Jaeger, C.C., Lowe,
I., McCarthy, J.J., Schellnhuber, H.J., Bolin, B., Dickson, N.M.,
Faucheux, S., Gallopin, G.C., Grubler, A., Huntley, A., Jager, J.,
Jodha, N.S., Kasperson, R.E., Mabogunje, A., Matson, P.,
Mooney, H., Moore III, B., ORiordan, T., Svedlin, U., 2001.
Sustainability science. Science 292, 641642.
Keeling, C.D., Whorf, T.P., 2002. Atmospheric CO2 records from sites
in the SIO air sampling network. In: Trends: A Compendium of
Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis
Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, US Department of
Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA.
Koster, R.D., Suarez, M.J., Ducharne, A., Stieglitz, M., Kumar, P.,
2000. A catchment-based approach to modeling land surface
processes in a general circulation model 1. Model structure. J.
Geophys. Res. 105, 24,80924,822.
Larcher, W., 1995. Physiological Plant Ecology. Springer, 506pp.
Lovelock, J., 1979. GAIA, A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 185pp.
Lovelock, J.E., 2003. GAIA and emergence: a response to Kirchner
and Volk. Climate Change 57, 13.
McGue, K., Henderson-Sellers, A., 2001. Forty years of numerical
climate modelling. Int. J. Climatol. 21, 10671109.
Nakicenovic, N., Alcamo, J., Davis, G., de Vries, B., Fenhann, J.,
Gan, S., Gregory, K., Grubler, A., Jung, T.-Y., Kram, T., La
Rovere, E.L., Michaelis, L., Mori, S., Morita, T., Pepper, W.,
Pitcher, H., Price, L., Riahi, K., Roehrl, A., Rogner, H.-H.,
Sankovski, A., Schlesinger, M., Shukla, P., Smith, S., Swart, R.,
van Rooijen, S., Victor, N., Dadi, Z., 2000. IPCC Special Report
on Emissions Scenarios. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK, 599pp.
Oke, T.R., 1978. Boundary Layer Climates. J. Wiley and Sons, 372pp.
Parry, M., 1990. Climate Change and World Agriculture. Earthscan
Publ., 157pp.
Parry, M., 2002. Scenarios for climate impact and adaptation
assessment. Global Environ. Change 12, 149153.
Parry, M.L., Arnell, N.W., Hulme, M., Nicholls, R., Livermore, M.,
1998. Adapting to the inevitable. Nature 395, p741.
Pielke, R.A. Sr., Bravo de Guenni, L., 2003. How to evaluate the
vulnerability in changing environmental conditions. In: Kabat, P.,
Claussen, M., Dirmeyer, P.A., Gash, J.H.C., de Guenni, L.B.,
Meybeck, M., Vorosmarty, C.J., Hutjes, R.W.A., Lutkemeier, S.
(Eds.), Vegetation, Water, Humans and the Climate. Springer
Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, 550pp.

148

A.J. Pitman / Geoforum 36 (2005) 137148

Prentice, I.C., Farquhar, G.D., Fasham, M.J.R., Goulden, M.L.,

Heimann, M., Jaramillo, V.J., Kheshgi, H.S., Le Quere, C.,
Scholes, R.J., Wallace, D.W.R., 2001. The carbon cycle and
atmospheric carbon dioxide. In: Houghton, J.T., Ding, Y., Griggs,
D.J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P.J., Dai, X., Maskell, K.,
Johnson, C.A. (Eds.), Climate Change 2001: The Scientic Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, USA, pp. 183237.
Ramankutty, N., Foley, J.A., 1998. Characterizing patterns of global
land use: an analysis of global croplands data. Global Biogeochem.
Cycles 12, 667685.
Schellnhuber, H.J., 1999. Earth System analysis and the second
Copernican revolution. Nature 402, C19C23.
Schellnhuber, H.J., Wenzel, V., 1998. Earth System Analysis: Integrating Science for Sustainability. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Schneider, S.H., 1998. Kyoto protocol: the unnished agenda.
Climatic Change 39, 121.
Schneider, S.H., 2000. Adaptation: sensitivity to natural variability,
agent assumptions and dynamic climate changes. Climatic Change
45, 203221.
Sellers, P.J., Meeson, B.W., Gloss, J., Collate, J., Corprew, F.,
Dazlich, D., Hall, F.G., Kerr, Y., Koster, R., Los, S., Mitchell, K.,
McManus, J., Myers, D., Sun, K.-J., Try, P., 1996. The ISLSCP
initiative1 global datasets: surface boundary conditions and atmospheric forcings or landatmosphere studies. Bull. Am. Meteorol.
Soc. 77, 19872005.
Smith, T.M., Shugart, H.H., Woodward, F.I. (Eds.), 1997. Plant
Functional Types. International Geosphere Biosphere Program
Book Series, 369pp.
Steen, W., Jager, J., Carson, D.J., Bradshaw, C. (Eds.), 2002.
Challenges of a Changing Earth. Proceedings of the Global Change
Open Science Conference, Amsterdam, 1013 July 2001. The IGBP
Global Change Series. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New
York, 216pp.
Steen, W., Sanderson, A., Tyson, P., Jager, J., Matson, P., Moore, B.
III, Oldeld, F., Richardson, K., Schellnbuber, H.-J., Turner,
B.L. II, Wasson, R. (Eds.), 2003. Global Change and the Earth
System: A Planet under Pressure. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Stocker, T., Clarke, G.K.C., Le Treut, H., Lindzen, R.S., Meleshko,
V.P., Mugara, R.K., Palmer, T.N., Pierrehumbert, R.T., Sellers,
P.J., Trenberth, K.E., Willebrand, J., 2001. Physical climate
processes and feedbacks. In: Houghton, J.T., Ding, Y., Griggs,

D.J., Noger, M., van der Linden, P.J., Dai, X., Maskell, K.,
Johnson, C.A. (Eds.), Climate Change, 2001, The Scientic Basis.
Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Third Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK (Chapter 7).
Strahler, A.N., 1951. Physical Geography. J. Wiley and Sons,
New York, 534pp.
Stull, R.B., 1988. An Introduction to Boundary Layer Meteorology.
Kluwer Academic Publishing, Berlin, 666pp.
Thrift, N., 2002. The future of geography. Geoforum 33, 291298.
Turner II, B.L., 2002a. Contested identities: Humanenvironmental
geography and disciplinary implications in a restructuring academy. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geographers 92, 5274.
Turner II, B.L., 2002b. Response to thrifts The future of geography.
Geoforum 33, 427429.
Turner, B.L II, Clark, W.C., Kates, R.W., Richards, J.F., Mathews,
J.T., Meyer, W.B. (Eds.), 1990. The Earth as Transformed by
Human Action Global and Regional Changes in the Biosphere
over the Past 300 years. Cambridge University Press.
Vernadsky, V.I., 1926. The Biosphere. Springer-Verlag, New York,
192pp.
Vitousek, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Lubchenco, J., Melillo, J.M., 1997a.
Human domination of Earths ecosystems. Science 277, 494499.
Vitousek, P.M., Aber, J.D., Howarth, R.W., Likens, G.E., Matson,
P.A., Schindler, D.W., Schlesinger, W.H., Tilman, D.G., 1997b.
Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: sources and
consequences. Ecol. Appl. 7, 737750.
Vorosmarty, C.J., Moore III, B., Grace, A.L., Gileda, M.P., Melillo,
J.M., Peterson, B., Jrastetter, E.B., Steudler, P.A., 1989. Continental scale models of water balance and uvial transport: an
application to South America. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 3, 241
256.
Vorosmarty, C.J., Green, P., Salisbury, J., Lammers, R.B., 2000.
Global water resources: vulnerability from climate change and
population growth. Science 289, 284288.
Williams, M., 2003. Deforesting the Earth. From Prehistory to Global
Crisis. University of Chicago Press, 689pp.
Wilson, M.F., Henderson-Sellers, A., 1985. A global archive of land
cover and soil data sets for use in general circulation climate
models. J. Climatol. 5, 119143.
Wood, E.F., Lettenmaier, D.P., Zartarian, V.G., 1992. A landsurface
hydrology parameterization with subgrid variability for general
circulation models. J. Geophys. Res. 97, 27172728.