Deutsch
 
Datenschutzhinweis Impressum
  DetailsucheBrowse

Datensatz

 
 
DownloadE-Mail
  A comparison of two causal methods in the context of climate analyses

Docquier, D., Di Capua, G., Donner, R. V., Pires, C. A. L., Simon, A., Vannitsem, S. (2024): A comparison of two causal methods in the context of climate analyses. - Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 31, 1, 115-136.
https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-31-115-2024

Item is

Dateien

einblenden: Dateien
ausblenden: Dateien
:
29641oa.pdf (Verlagsversion), 3MB
Name:
29641oa.pdf
Beschreibung:
-
Sichtbarkeit:
Öffentlich
MIME-Typ / Prüfsumme:
application/pdf / [MD5]
Technische Metadaten:
Copyright Datum:
-
Copyright Info:
-

Externe Referenzen

einblenden:

Urheber

einblenden:
ausblenden:
 Urheber:
Docquier, David1, Autor
Di Capua, Giorgia2, Autor              
Donner, Reik V.2, Autor              
Pires, Carlos A. L.1, Autor
Simon, Amélie1, Autor
Vannitsem, Stéphane1, Autor
Affiliations:
1External Organizations, ou_persistent22              
2Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, ou_persistent13              

Inhalt

einblenden:
ausblenden:
Schlagwörter: -
 Zusammenfassung: Correlation does not necessarily imply causation, and this is why causal methods have been developed to try to disentangle true causal links from spurious relationships. In our study, we use two causal methods, namely, the Liang–Kleeman information flow (LKIF) and the Peter and Clark momentary conditional independence (PCMCI) algorithm, and we apply them to four different artificial models of increasing complexity and one real-world case study based on climate indices in the Atlantic and Pacific regions. We show that both methods are superior to the classical correlation analysis, especially in removing spurious links. LKIF and PCMCI display some strengths and weaknesses for the three simplest models, with LKIF performing better with a smaller number of variables and with PCMCI being best with a larger number of variables. Detecting causal links from the fourth model is more challenging as the system is nonlinear and chaotic. For the real-world case study with climate indices, both methods present some similarities and differences at monthly timescale. One of the key differences is that LKIF identifies the Arctic Oscillation (AO) as the largest driver, while the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is the main influencing variable for PCMCI. More research is needed to confirm these links, in particular including nonlinear causal methods.

Details

einblenden:
ausblenden:
Sprache(n): eng - Englisch
 Datum: 2024-02-012024-02-272024-02-27
 Publikationsstatus: Final veröffentlicht
 Seiten: 22
 Ort, Verlag, Ausgabe: -
 Inhaltsverzeichnis: -
 Art der Begutachtung: Expertenbegutachtung
 Identifikatoren: DOI: 10.5194/npg-31-115-2024
MDB-ID: No data to archive
PIKDOMAIN: RD1 - Earth System Analysis
Organisational keyword: RD1 - Earth System Analysis
Working Group: Earth System Modes of Operation
OATYPE: Gold Open Access
 Art des Abschluß: -

Veranstaltung

einblenden:

Entscheidung

einblenden:

Projektinformation

einblenden:

Quelle 1

einblenden:
ausblenden:
Titel: Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics
Genre der Quelle: Zeitschrift, SCI, Scopus, p3, oa
 Urheber:
Affiliations:
Ort, Verlag, Ausgabe: -
Seiten: - Band / Heft: 31 (1) Artikelnummer: - Start- / Endseite: 115 - 136 Identifikator: CoNE: https://publications.pik-potsdam.de/cone/journals/resource/journals364
Publisher: Copernicus