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 Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...
Post a Comment
Read more

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...
Post a Comment
Read more

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more