Climatic Change

, Volume 111, Issue 3–4, pp 497–518 | Cite as

Human control of climate change

Article

Abstract

The use of analogies and repeated feedback might help people learn about the dynamics of climate change. In this paper, we study the influence of repeated feedback on the control of a carbon-dioxide (CO2) concentration to a goal level in a Dynamic Climate Change Simulator (DCCS) using the “bathtub” analogy. DCCS is a simplification of the complex climate system into its essential elements: CO2 concentration (stock); man-made CO2 emissions (inflow); and natural CO2 removal or absorption in the atmosphere (outflow). In a laboratory experiment involving DCCS, we manipulated feedback delays in two ways: the frequency of emission decisions and the rate of CO2 absorption from the atmosphere (climate dynamics). Our results revealed that participants’ ability to control the CO2 concentration generally remained poor even in conditions where they were allowed to revise their emission decisions frequently (i.e., every 2 years) and where the climate dynamics were rapid (i.e., 1.6% of CO2 concentration was removed every year). Participants’ control of the concentration only improved with repeated feedback in conditions of lesser feedback delay. Moreover, the delay due to climate dynamics had a greater effect on participants’ control than the delay due to emission decisions frequency. We provide future research directions and highlight the potential of using simulations like DCCS to help people learn about dynamics of Earth’s climate.

Supplementary material

10584_2011_202_MOESM1_ESM.doc (826 kb)
ESM 1(DOC 825 kb)

References

  1. Booth Sweeney L, Sterman JD (2000) Bathtub dynamics: initial results of a systems thinking inventory. Syst Dyn Rev 16(4):249–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bostrom A, Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Read D (1994) What do people know about global climate change? Part 1: Mental models. Risk Anal 14(6):959–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brehmer B (1989) Feedback delays and control in complex dynamic system. In: Milling PM, Zahn EKO (eds) Computer based management of complex systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 189–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cramer W, Bondeau A, Woodward FI, Prentice C, Betts RA, Brovkin V et al (2001) Global response of terrestrial ecosystem structure and function to CO2 and climate change: Results from six dynamic global vegetation models. Glob Ch Biol 7:357–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cronin M, Gonzalez C (2007) Understanding the building blocks of system dynamics. Syst Dyn Rev 23(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cronin M, Gonzalez C, Sterman JD (2009) Why don’t well-educated adults understand accumulation? A challenge to researchers, educators and citizens. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 108(1):116–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. CSIRO Australia (2006) Increase in carbon dioxide emissions accelerating, Australian Research Shows. ScienceDaily, December 8Google Scholar
  8. Diehl E, Sterman JD (1995) Effects of feedback complexity on dynamic decision making. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 62(2):198–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dörner D (1980) On the difficulties people have in dealing with complexity. Simul and Games 11(1):87–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dörner D, Kimber R (1997) The logic of failure: recognizing and avoiding error in complex situations. Basic Books, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Dutt V, Gonzalez C (2008a) Instance and strategy based models in ACT-R. In: Proceedings of 2008 Modeling, Simulation & Gaming (MS&G) Student Capstone Conference, Suffolk, VA, p19Google Scholar
  12. Dutt V, Gonzalez C (2008b) Instance and strategy ACT-R models of choice in a dynamic control task: A model comparison story. In: Proceedings of 2008 Fifteenth Annual Workshop and Summer School by ACT-R RESEARCH GROUP. Pittsburgh, PA, p43Google Scholar
  13. Dutt V, Gonzalez C (2010) Decisions from experience reduces “wait-and-see” behavior in climate change. Manuscript submitted for publicationGoogle Scholar
  14. Forrester JW (1961) Industrial dynamics. Pegasus Communications, WalthamGoogle Scholar
  15. Gonzalez C (2005) Decision support for real-time dynamic decision making tasks. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 96:142–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gonzalez C, Dutt V (2011) A generic dynamic control task for behavioral research and education. Manuscript accepted for publication in Comp in Hum BehavGoogle Scholar
  17. Houghton J, Ding Y, Griggs D, Noguer M, van der Linden P, Dai X, Maskell K, Johnson C (eds) (2001) Climate change 2001: The scientific basis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Jain AK, Kheshgi HS, Wuebbles DJ (1994) Integrated science model for assessment of climate change. In: Proceedings of the 87th Annual Meeting and Exhibition of the Air & Waste Management Association. Cincinnati, Ohio, 94-TP59.08Google Scholar
  19. Joos F, Prentice IC, Sitch S, Meyer R, Hooss G, Plattner GK, Gerber S, Hasselmann K (2001) Global warming feedbacks on terrestrial carbon uptake under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emission scenarios. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 15(4):891–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kunzig R (2009) The carbon bathtub. Article available on “National Geographic” website, http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/big-idea/05/carbon-bath. December
  21. Matear RJ, Hirst AC (1999) Climate change feedback on the future oceanic CO2 uptake. Tellus 51B:722–733Google Scholar
  22. Moxnes E (2004) Misperceptions of basic dynamics: The case of renewable resource management. Syst Dyn Rev 20(2):139–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moxnes E, Saysel AK (2009) Misperceptions of global climate change: information policies. Clim Chang 93:15–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nakicenovic N, Alcamo J, Davis G, de Vries B, Fenhann J, Gaffin S, Gregory K, Grubler A, Jung TY, Kram T, La Rovere EL, Michaelis L, Mori S, Morita T, Pepper W, Pitcher H, Price L, Riahi K, Roehrl A, Rogner H-H, Sankovski A, Schlesinger M, Shukla P, Smith S, Swart R, van Rooijen S, Victor N, Dadi Z (2000) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change special report on emissions scenarios. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Nordhaus WD (1992) The “DICE” model: Background and structure of a dynamic integrated climate economy model of economics of global warming. Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper No. 1009, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics at Yale University, New Haven, CTGoogle Scholar
  26. Paich M, Sterman JD (1993) Boom, bust, and failures to learn in experimental markets. Manag Sci 39(12):1439–1458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Read D, Bostrom A, Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Smuts D (1994) What do people know about global climate change? Part 2: Survey studies of educated laypeople. Risk Anal 14(6):971–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sarmiento JL, Le Quéré C (1996) Oceanic carbon dioxide uptake in a model of century-scale global warming. Science 274:1346–1350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sterman JD (1989) Misperceptions of feedback in dynamic decision making. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 43(3):301–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sterman JD (2000) Learning in and about complex systems. Reflections (J of the Soc for Organ Learn) 1(3):24–51Google Scholar
  31. Sterman JD, Booth Sweeney L (2002) Cloudy skies: Assessing public understanding of global warming. Syst Dyn Rev 18(2):207–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sterman JD, Booth Sweeney L (2007) Understanding public complacency about climate change: Adults’ mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter. Clim Chang 80(3–4):213–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dynamic Decision Making LaboratoryCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations