The arithmetical narrative, an aid to environmental education

Review
This submission is for the Commentary section of UCL Open Environment. It is very similar in form and content to another pre-print on the journal's systems entitled "A simple climate change projection for the concerned public".

The content of both papers is more suitable for the Commentary section of the journal as the material discusses a perspective on the way climate science is communicated and in some ways (but not very clearly) advocates a change of approach to improve the way the public and, particularly perhaps, young people can better understand climate change. The paper argues that there is little practical difference between a linear fit to climate data and the modelled outputs obtained by more sophisticated modelling based on physical processes of the planet. There is not enough material in the paper that justifies this argument if it is to be taken as a purely scientific one. So, a switch in emphasis to arguing that a linear approach could be a useful educational aid seems more appropriate.

I suggest the first submission of the research paper "A simple climate change projection for the concerned public" should be withdrawn by the author or the editorial office and appropriate and attention focused on the second submission being reviewed here. This article is entitled: "The arithmetical narrative, an aid to environmental education".

Main review points are as follows and other detailed notes are in a Word file submitted to the editorial office:

1. The submission is long for a Commentary and several Figures and paragraphs could be removed with no loss (see detailed comments on Word file) to the overall thrust of the argument.

2. The submission opens with a critique of the IPCC processes and the complexity of its messaging without first setting out that the Commentary seeks, because of the complexity of IPCC messaging, to draw attention to the potential utility of a simple linear analysis for educational purposes that could also form the basis of materials to inform the general public. The Introduction should be amended to reflect the underlying aims of the Commentary.

3. UCL Open Environment has some papers and preprints that address climate change and education and this submission might reference those or at least take account of the points they make.

4. At least one section of the submission concerns accelerations in various climate change factors. If change is accelerating this suggest a linear approach will underestimate (when projected) what people hear about the record of change and what they might experience. An explanation is needed as to why in these accelerating circumstances a linear approach is to preferred to a non-linear one - which could also be quite simple and understandable. The relevant section of the paper is highlighted in light blue. If the overall idea is to project into the future by drawing on projection data contained in more sophisticated models then this point needs to be made more clearly. Basically then the issue is one of presentation of the material in observations or reconstructions to the present day and then presentation of material over the projected period. The draft Commentary needs to be much clearer of what data is being used and when.

5. There are too many very similar Figures. Fig 2, 3 and 4 are in effect the same figure. The point about linearity is made with Fig 1 and one other representative of the 21st century. It is not clear why other decadal/20 year periods in the 50 year period have not been presented. If that data is available it could be presented in a suitable table and that would enhance the Commentary substantially as it would draw on a longer time series analysed by 20 year periods of which there would be two available within the 50 year period. Another approach would be to analyse the data by decade or start 20 year periods each decade. At present the text and figures are somewhat inconsistent with references made to decadal and longer time periods at different points. This needs to be presented clearly if the educational value is to be seen.

6. The basic statistical approach of the analysis needs more explanation. A regression model has been used, it appears, when a correlation approach might be more appropriate.

7. It is not clear how this approach could be used in education or with the general public or how this would have advantages over a clearer presentation of the outputs from more complex models than that provided in IPCC documents. Some material of this kind needs to be included to draw a Commentary to a neat close.

Note:
This review refers to round 1 of peer review.