Deutsch
 
Datenschutzhinweis Impressum
  DetailsucheBrowse

Datensatz

DATENSATZ AKTIONENEXPORT

Freigegeben

Zeitschriftenartikel

A comparison of two causal methods in the context of climate analyses

Urheber*innen

Docquier,  David
External Organizations;

/persons/resource/dicapua

Di Capua,  Giorgia
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research;

/persons/resource/Reik.Donner

Donner,  Reik V.
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research;

Pires,  Carlos A. L.
External Organizations;

Simon,  Amélie
External Organizations;

Vannitsem,  Stéphane
External Organizations;

Externe Ressourcen
Es sind keine externen Ressourcen hinterlegt
Volltexte (frei zugänglich)

29641oa.pdf
(Verlagsversion), 3MB

Ergänzendes Material (frei zugänglich)
Es sind keine frei zugänglichen Ergänzenden Materialien verfügbar
Zitation

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


Zitierlink: https://publications.pik-potsdam.de/pubman/item/item_29641
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.