Claim: Climate Models Are Imprecise, Because Psychologists Were Not Consulted

Essay by Eric Worrall

According to Nature “Human behaviour is a neglected factor in climate science”.

Published: 

Climate change and human behaviour

Nature Human Behaviour (2022)

Climate change is an immense challenge. Human behaviour is crucial in climate change mitigation, and in tackling the arising consequences. In this joint Focus issue between Nature Climate Change and Nature Human Behaviour, we take a closer look at the role of human behaviour in the climate crisis.

Human behaviour is a neglected factor in climate science

In the light of the empirical evidence for the role of human behaviour in climatic changes, it is curious that the ‘human factor’ has not always received much attention in key research areas, such as climate modelling. For a long time, climate models to predict global warming and emissions did not account for it. This oversight meant that predictions made by these models have differed greatly in their projected rise in temperatures8,9.

Human behaviour is complex and multidimensional, making it difficult — but crucial — to account for it in climate models. In a Review, Brian Beckage and colleagues thus look at existing social climate models and make recommendations for how these models can better embed human behaviour in their forecasting.

The psychology of climate change

The complexity of humans is also reflected in their psychology. Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, research suggests that many people underestimate the effects of it, are sceptical of it or deny its existence altogether. In a Review, Matthew Hornsey and Stephan Lewandowsky look at the psychological origins of such beliefs, as well as the roles of think tanks and political affiliation.

To limit global warming to a minimum, system-level and individual-level behaviour change is necessary. Several pieces in this Focus discuss how such change can be facilitated.

Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01490-9

There is a delightful 90s sitcom Frasier. The main character, Frasier Crane, has a radio talkback show, in which he tries to help people with psychological issues. A consistent theme of the sitcom is the contrast between the theoretical psychology knowledge of the neurotic lead character, and the down to earth practical skills of the people around him, such as his ex-police officer father, and his amoral showbiz agent, who always manages to ruthlessly manipulate Frasier and everyone around him into doing exactly what she wants.

I would love for psychologists to become more involved in climate modelling, particularly the kind of psychologists who think the research efforts of our old friend Stephan Lewandowsky add value to the process. In my opinion the resulting real life sitcom would ensure plenty of entertaining new material for WUWT to write about.

4.6 18 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

128 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
cognog2
November 17, 2022 7:44 am

And here is me thinking that ‘Climate Change’ was invented by psychologists. There is a strong consensus value of 1 here; so I know I’m right. (/s

November 17, 2022 12:53 pm

look at existing social climate models

WTF are those?

Reply to  doonman
November 17, 2022 4:22 pm

Feelings affect climate.
Who knew

Reply to  doonman
November 18, 2022 10:49 am

Political “poles”?

November 17, 2022 4:33 pm

The good folks over at The Daily Sceptic web site had a recent posting:

Climate Models Can Never Work, Says Computer Modeller

If you cannot make a model to predict the outcome of the next draw from a lottery ball machine, you are unable to make a model to predict the future of the climate, suggests former computer modeller Greg Chapman, in a recent essay in Quadrant. Chapman holds a PhD in physics and notes that the climate system is chaotic, which means “any model will be a poor predictor of the future”. A lottery ball machine, he observes, “is a comparatively much simpler and smaller interacting system”.

Reply to  Paul Hurley
November 17, 2022 6:27 pm

Edward Lorenz, the discoverer of chaos theory, wrote this in the 1960’s. It’s called the butterfly effect. Nothing has changed. Models cannot predict chaos.

prjndigo
November 17, 2022 8:26 pm

The “models” are inaccurate because neither a high school physics nor a high school statistics book were referenced in their creation.

They don’t even meet the minimum standards for modele, they’re simply bat-shit fantasies.

November 18, 2022 2:08 am

There IS a role for a good psychiatrist in the production of every climate model. His/her role sould be to point out the psychiatric problems of the modeler that are being incorporated into the model so those errors can be backed out.

Jeff Crump
November 18, 2022 4:02 am

That’s right out of Atlas Shrugged! The social considerations.

November 18, 2022 11:34 am

So these psychologists see it as their job to ‘persuade’ the public into believing the drivel which they believe. From the paper:

“Most actors in the human system do not experience climate change as average changes in global temperature but rather experience and respond to local weather conditions, which are composed of both anthropogenic forcing and natural variability in climate.”

Anthropogenic forcing potentially effects the mean, not the variability.