Skip to main content

Predicting our Climate Future - David Stainforth ***(*)

This has probably been the hardest popular science book to review I've ever read, and because of this I'm going to give a relatively unusual structure to this write-up.

The topic is fascinating. It's about the reality of making predictions - in general, and particularly about climate change. David Stainforth is very firmly of the opinion that climate change is an emergency that requires our action - but he is unusually honest it admitting that the problems of forecasting how climate change will proceed are so great because we face a whole pile of issues along the way.

He highlights how predicting the way the climate will change is a 'one-shot bet' - we don't get to make a forecast time and time again, improving our technique. There will only be a single climate future. This isn't great because we are dealing with a very complex system, we are extrapolating into an unprecedented situation, and the chaotic, non-linear nature of the systems involved make predictions highly dependent on getting initial conditions just right. He also points out how our obsession with throwing computer power at the problem can distract from good design of models, the risk of talking at cross-purposes in an unusually multi-disciplinary science (because there's human science in here too when we attempt to get people to act) and the fact this isn't a purely academic domain, but one the public (rightly) takes a strong interest in.

From this starting point, Stainforth goes on to bring in a series of challenges climate modellers and others face from 'how to balance justified arrogance with essential humility' to 'how can we build physical and social science that is up to the task of informing society about what matters to society', with some thoughts on dealing with these challenges, before pulling it all together.

So, many real positives there. I'd also say that, had he been fiercely edited, he would be a really entertaining writer. Admittedly his attempts at quirky humour can occasionally feel a touch juvenile - when he refers to  something being 'a very different kettle of fish' he shows a picture of a fish kettle. Later on, when comparing the predictability of what happens when we boil a kettle with the vastly more complex climate system, he shows us... a picture of a kettle. (What is it about kettles?) However, there is a genial, conversational style to Stainforth's writing, and a refreshing honesty about the limitations we have with certain kinds of prediction.

I should, then, be giving this book five stars - and I would, but it's simply far too long and repetitive. It's only 356 pages including notes and index, admittedly of small print, but Stainforth makes the same points over and over again, and spends many paragraphs making a point that could have been put across in a single sentence. This meant I found myself repeatedly trying to skip through the text to find the next interesting bit. 

It's such a shame - and given the impressive nature of the content, I still do recommend reading it. But it could have been so much better with more editorial input. I get the impression that many publishers don't put as much effort as they need to into editing - and this is a great example of why they should do more.

Hardback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are
Post a Comment
Read more

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re
Post a Comment
Read more

Deep Utopia - Nick Bostrom ***

This is one of the strangest sort-of popular science (or philosophy, or something or other) books I've ever read. If you can picture the impact of a cross between Douglas Hofstadter's  Gödel Escher Bach and Gaileo's Two New Sciences  (at least, its conversational structure), then thrown in a touch of David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest , and you can get a feel for what the experience of reading it is like - bewildering with the feeling that there is something deep that you can never quite extract from it. Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom is probably best known in popular science for his book Superintelligence in which he looked at the implications of having artificial intelligence (AI) that goes beyond human capabilities. In a sense, Deep Utopia is a sequel, picking out one aspect of this speculation: what life would be like for us if technology had solved all our existential problems, while (in the form of superintelligence) it had also taken away much of our appare
Post a Comment
Read more