Tales of twin cities: what are climate analogues good for?

IF 1.5 1区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE European Journal for Philosophy of Science Pub Date : 2024-07-22 DOI:10.1007/s13194-024-00597-2
Giovanni Valente, Hernán Bobadilla, Rawad El Skaf, Francesco Nappo
{"title":"Tales of twin cities: what are climate analogues good for?","authors":"Giovanni Valente, Hernán Bobadilla, Rawad El Skaf, Francesco Nappo","doi":"10.1007/s13194-024-00597-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article provides an epistemological assessment of climate analogue methods, with specific reference to the use of spatial analogues in the study of the future climate of target locations. Our contention is that, due to formal and conceptual inadequacies of geometrical dissimilarity metrics and the loss of relevant information, especially when reasoning from the physical to the socio-economical level, purported inferences from climate analogues of the spatial kind we consider here prove limited in a number of ways. Indeed, we formulate five outstanding problems concerning the search for best analogues, which we call the problem of non-uniqueness of the source, problem of non-uniqueness of the target, problem of average, problem of non-causal correlations and problem of inferred properties, respectively. In the face of such problems, we then offer two positive recommendations for a fruitful application of this methodology to the assessment of impact, adaptation and vulnerability studies of climate change, especially in the context of what we may prosaically dub “twin cities”. Arguably, such recommendations help decision-makers constrain the set of plausible climate analogues by integrating local knowledge relevant to the locations of interest.</p>","PeriodicalId":48832,"journal":{"name":"European Journal for Philosophy of Science","volume":"69 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal for Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-024-00597-2","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article provides an epistemological assessment of climate analogue methods, with specific reference to the use of spatial analogues in the study of the future climate of target locations. Our contention is that, due to formal and conceptual inadequacies of geometrical dissimilarity metrics and the loss of relevant information, especially when reasoning from the physical to the socio-economical level, purported inferences from climate analogues of the spatial kind we consider here prove limited in a number of ways. Indeed, we formulate five outstanding problems concerning the search for best analogues, which we call the problem of non-uniqueness of the source, problem of non-uniqueness of the target, problem of average, problem of non-causal correlations and problem of inferred properties, respectively. In the face of such problems, we then offer two positive recommendations for a fruitful application of this methodology to the assessment of impact, adaptation and vulnerability studies of climate change, especially in the context of what we may prosaically dub “twin cities”. Arguably, such recommendations help decision-makers constrain the set of plausible climate analogues by integrating local knowledge relevant to the locations of interest.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
双城记:气候模拟有什么用?
本文从认识论的角度对气候模拟方法进行了评估,特别提到了在研究目标地点未来气候时空间模拟方法的使用。我们的论点是,由于几何异同度量标准在形式和概念上的不足以及相关信息的缺失,特别是从物理层面到社会经济层面进行推理时,我们在此考虑的空间类气候类似方法的所谓推论证明在许多方面存在局限性。事实上,我们提出了五个与寻找最佳类比相关的突出问题,分别称为来源的非唯一性问题、目标的非唯一性问题、平均问题、非因果相关性问题和推断属性问题。面对这些问题,我们提出了两个积极的建议,以便在评估气候变化的影响、适应性和脆弱性研究中卓有成效地应用这一方法,特别是在我们可以称之为 "孪生城市 "的背景下。可以说,这些建议有助于决策者通过整合与相关地点有关的当地知识来限制一系列可信的气候类比。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal for Philosophy of Science
European Journal for Philosophy of Science HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
13.30%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: The European Journal for Philosophy of Science publishes groundbreaking works that can deepen understanding of the concepts and methods of the sciences, as they explore increasingly many facets of the world we live in. It is of direct interest to philosophers of science coming from different perspectives, as well as scientists, citizens and policymakers. The journal is interested in articles from all traditions and all backgrounds, as long as they engage with the sciences in a constructive, and critical, way. The journal represents the various longstanding European philosophical traditions engaging with the sciences, but welcomes articles from every part of the world.
期刊最新文献
Questioning origins: the role of ethical and metaethical claims in the debate about the evolution of morality The extraterrestrial hypothesis: an epistemological case for removing the taboo Nagelian reduction and approximation The replication crisis is less of a “crisis” in Lakatos’ philosophy of science than it is in Popper’s Stopping rule and Bayesian confirmation theory
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1