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

The Infinite Alphabet - Cesar Hidalgo ****

Although taking a very new approach, this book by a physicist working in economics made me nostalgic for the business books of the 1980s. More on why in a moment, but Cesar Hidalgo sets out to explain how it is knowledge - how it is developed, how it is managed and forgotten - that makes the difference between success and failure. When I worked for a corporate in the 1980s I was very taken with Tom Peters' business books such of In Search of Excellence (with Robert Waterman), which described what made it possible for some companies to thrive and become huge while others failed. (It's interesting to look back to see a balance amongst the companies Peters thought were excellent, with successes such as Walmart and Intel, and failures such as Wang and Kodak.) In a similar way, Hidalgo uses case studies of successes and failures for both businesses and countries in making effective use of knowledge to drive economic success. When I read a Tom Peters book I was inspired and fired up...
Post a Comment
Read more

God: the Science, the Evidence - Michel-Yves Bolloré and Olivier Bonnassies ***

This is, to say the least, an oddity, but a fascinating one. A translation of a French bestseller, it aims to put forward an examination of the scientific evidence for the existence of a deity… and various other things, as this is a very oddly structured book (more on that in a moment). In The God Delusion , Richard Dawkins suggested that we should treat the existence of God as a scientific claim, which is exactly what the authors do reasonably well in the main part of the book. They argue that three pieces of scientific evidence in particular are supportive of the existence of a (generic) creator of the universe. These are that the universe had a beginning, the fine tuning of natural constants and the unlikeliness of life.  To support their evidence, Bolloré and Bonnassies give a reasonable introduction to thermodynamics and cosmology. They suggest that the expected heat death of the universe implies a beginning (for good thermodynamic reasons), and rightly give the impression tha...
Post a Comment
Read more

The War on Science - Lawrence Krauss (Ed.) ****

At first glance this might appear to be yet another book on how to deal with climate change deniers and the like, such as How to Talk to a Science Denier.   It is, however, a much more significant book because it addresses the way that universities, government and pressure groups have attempted to undermine the scientific process. Conceptually I would give it five stars, but it's quite heavy going because it's a collection of around 18 essays by different academics, with many going over the same ground, so there is a lot of repetition. Even so, it's an important book. There are a few well-known names here - editor Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker - but also a range of scientists (with a few philosophers) explaining how science is being damaged in academia by unscientific ideas. Many of the issues apply to other disciplines as well, but this is specifically about the impact on science, and particularly important there because of the damage it has been doing...
Post a Comment
Read more