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 Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Einstein's Fridge - Paul Sen ****

In Einstein's Fridge (interesting factoid: this is at least the third popular science book to be named after Einstein's not particularly exciting refrigerator), Paul Sen has taken on a scary challenge. As Jim Al-Khalili made clear in his excellent The World According to Physics , our physical understanding of reality rests on three pillars: relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics. But there is no doubt that the third of these, the topic of Sen's book, is a hard sell. While it's true that these are the three pillars of physics, from the point of view of making interesting popular science, the first two might be considered pillars of gold and platinum, while the third is a pillar of salt. Relativity and quantum theory are very much of the twentieth century. They are exciting and sometimes downright weird and wonderful. Thermodynamics, by contrast, has a very Victorian feel and, well, is uninspiring. Luckily, though, thermodynamics is important enough, lying behind ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Nanotechnology - Rahul Rao ****

There was a time when nanotechnology was both going to transform the world and wipe us out - a similar position to our view of AI today. On the positive transformation side there was K. Eric Drexler's visions in the 1986 Engines of Creation. Arguably as much science fiction as engineering possibilities, it predicted the ability to use vast armies of assemblers to put objects together from individual atoms.  On the negative side was the vision of grey goo, out of control nanotechnology consuming all in its path as it made more and more copies of itself. In 2003, for instance, the then Prince Charles made the headlines  when newspapers reported ‘The prince has raised the spectre of the “grey goo” catastrophe in which sub-microscopic machines designed to share intelligence and replicate themselves take over and devour the planet.’ These days the expectations have been eased down a notch or two. Where nanotechnology has succeeded, it has been with the likes of atom-thick mat...
Post a Comment
Read more