气候临界点和专家判断

IF 9.4 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change Pub Date : 2022-10-18 DOI:10.1002/wcc.805
Vincent Lam, Mason Majszak
{"title":"气候临界点和专家判断","authors":"Vincent Lam, Mason Majszak","doi":"10.1002/wcc.805","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Expert judgment can be seen throughout climate science and even more prominently when discussing climate tipping points. To provide an accurate characterization of expert judgment we begin by evaluating the existing literature on expertise as it relates to climate science as a whole, before then focusing the literature review on the role of expert judgment in the unique context of climate tipping points. From this we turn our attention to the structured expert elicitation protocols specifically developed for producing expert judgments about tipping points. We highlight that expert elicitation is not only used for the quantification of uncertainty in this context, but also for the very identification and characterization of tipping points and their interactions, making expert judgment in itself a genuine scientific output. The central role of expert judgment in this domain raises several epistemic issues that require careful attention. Among other topics, we discuss the relationship between expert judgment and modeling, as well as the nonepistemic values that are involved in the production of expert judgments, highlighting how the elicitation protocols can be used to manage these values. In the perspective of climate change, clarifying the epistemic foundations of expert judgment in this context can help to navigate the epistemic situation between self‐defeating alarmism and blind dismissal, thus contributing to a better understanding of the challenges related to climate (and Earth system) tipping points.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Climate tipping points and expert judgment\",\"authors\":\"Vincent Lam, Mason Majszak\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/wcc.805\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Expert judgment can be seen throughout climate science and even more prominently when discussing climate tipping points. To provide an accurate characterization of expert judgment we begin by evaluating the existing literature on expertise as it relates to climate science as a whole, before then focusing the literature review on the role of expert judgment in the unique context of climate tipping points. From this we turn our attention to the structured expert elicitation protocols specifically developed for producing expert judgments about tipping points. We highlight that expert elicitation is not only used for the quantification of uncertainty in this context, but also for the very identification and characterization of tipping points and their interactions, making expert judgment in itself a genuine scientific output. The central role of expert judgment in this domain raises several epistemic issues that require careful attention. Among other topics, we discuss the relationship between expert judgment and modeling, as well as the nonepistemic values that are involved in the production of expert judgments, highlighting how the elicitation protocols can be used to manage these values. In the perspective of climate change, clarifying the epistemic foundations of expert judgment in this context can help to navigate the epistemic situation between self‐defeating alarmism and blind dismissal, thus contributing to a better understanding of the challenges related to climate (and Earth system) tipping points.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23695,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.805\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.805","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在整个气候科学中都可以看到专家的判断,在讨论气候临界点时更是如此。为了提供专家判断的准确特征,我们首先评估与气候科学相关的现有专业知识文献,然后将文献综述集中在专家判断在气候临界点的独特背景下的作用上。由此,我们将注意力转向结构化的专家启发协议,专门为产生关于临界点的专家判断而开发。我们强调,专家启发不仅用于这种情况下的不确定性量化,而且还用于临界点及其相互作用的识别和表征,使专家判断本身成为真正的科学产出。专家判断在这一领域的核心作用提出了几个需要仔细注意的认识问题。在其他主题中,我们讨论了专家判断和建模之间的关系,以及涉及专家判断产生的非认知值,强调了如何使用启发协议来管理这些值。从气候变化的角度来看,在这种情况下,澄清专家判断的认识论基础有助于在自我破坏的危言耸听和盲目忽视之间的认识论局面中进行导航,从而有助于更好地理解与气候(和地球系统)临界点相关的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Climate tipping points and expert judgment
Expert judgment can be seen throughout climate science and even more prominently when discussing climate tipping points. To provide an accurate characterization of expert judgment we begin by evaluating the existing literature on expertise as it relates to climate science as a whole, before then focusing the literature review on the role of expert judgment in the unique context of climate tipping points. From this we turn our attention to the structured expert elicitation protocols specifically developed for producing expert judgments about tipping points. We highlight that expert elicitation is not only used for the quantification of uncertainty in this context, but also for the very identification and characterization of tipping points and their interactions, making expert judgment in itself a genuine scientific output. The central role of expert judgment in this domain raises several epistemic issues that require careful attention. Among other topics, we discuss the relationship between expert judgment and modeling, as well as the nonepistemic values that are involved in the production of expert judgments, highlighting how the elicitation protocols can be used to manage these values. In the perspective of climate change, clarifying the epistemic foundations of expert judgment in this context can help to navigate the epistemic situation between self‐defeating alarmism and blind dismissal, thus contributing to a better understanding of the challenges related to climate (and Earth system) tipping points.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES-
CiteScore
20.00
自引率
2.20%
发文量
58
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: WIREs Climate Change serves as a distinctive platform for delving into current and emerging knowledge across various disciplines contributing to the understanding of climate change. This includes environmental history, humanities, physical and life sciences, social sciences, engineering, and economics. Developed in association with the Royal Meteorological Society and the Royal Geographical Society (with IBG) in the UK, this publication acts as an encyclopedic reference for climate change scholarship and research, offering a forum to explore diverse perspectives on how climate change is comprehended, analyzed, and contested globally.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information A “greenhouse gas balance” for aviation in line with the Paris Agreement Distributive justice and the global emissions budget Histories of habitability from the oikoumene to the Anthropocene Multilevel intergroup conflict at the core of climate (in)justice: Psychological challenges and ways forward
×
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