过去的高峰期：综合评估建模在政府间气候变化专门委员会中不断变化的作用。

IF 4.6 2区综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES

iScience Pub Date : 2024-10-19 eCollection Date: 2024-11-15 DOI:10.1016/j.isci.2024.111213

Ema Gusheva, Stefan Pfenninger, Johan Lilliestam

{"title":"过去的高峰期：综合评估建模在政府间气候变化专门委员会中不断变化的作用。","authors":"Ema Gusheva, Stefan Pfenninger, Johan Lilliestam","doi":"10.1016/j.isci.2024.111213","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The main task of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to provide comprehensive assessments of climate science. However, there are accusations of bias toward certain research fields based on limited empirical evidence. By analyzing the evidence base of Working Group 3 (WG3) reports, we show that integrated assessment modeling (IAM) research was influential in all six assessments, and overrepresented in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). Further, we show that a small number of men working in Western Europe and the USA dominate IAM research. Thus, global climate negotiations and science may have historically prioritized mitigation solutions suggested by an unrepresentative scientific sample and missed solutions from other perspectives like those of females and non-Western cultures. However, we also show that IAM research influence decreased in AR6, implying a leveling playing field between research fields. But more effort is needed to ensure a comprehensive assessment.","PeriodicalId":342,"journal":{"name":"iScience","volume":"27 11","pages":"111213"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11568358/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Past peak prominence: The changing role of integrated assessment modeling in the IPCC.\",\"authors\":\"Ema Gusheva, Stefan Pfenninger, Johan Lilliestam\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.isci.2024.111213\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The main task of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to provide comprehensive assessments of climate science. However, there are accusations of bias toward certain research fields based on limited empirical evidence. By analyzing the evidence base of Working Group 3 (WG3) reports, we show that integrated assessment modeling (IAM) research was influential in all six assessments, and overrepresented in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). Further, we show that a small number of men working in Western Europe and the USA dominate IAM research. Thus, global climate negotiations and science may have historically prioritized mitigation solutions suggested by an unrepresentative scientific sample and missed solutions from other perspectives like those of females and non-Western cultures. However, we also show that IAM research influence decreased in AR6, implying a leveling playing field between research fields. But more effort is needed to ensure a comprehensive assessment.\",\"PeriodicalId\":342,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"iScience\",\"volume\":\"27 11\",\"pages\":\"111213\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11568358/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"iScience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2024.111213\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"iScience","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2024.111213","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

政府间气候变化专门委员会（IPCC）的主要任务是对气候科学进行全面评估。然而，有人指责 IPCC 在有限的经验证据基础上偏向某些研究领域。通过分析第三工作组（WG3）报告的证据基础，我们发现综合评估建模（IAM）研究在所有六项评估中都具有影响力，并且在《决策者摘要》（SPM）中所占比例过高。此外，我们还表明，少数在西欧和美国工作的男性主导了综合评估模型研究。因此，全球气候谈判和科学可能在历史上优先考虑了由不具代表性的科学样本提出的减缓方案，而忽略了从女性和非西方文化等其他角度提出的方案。不过，我们也表明，在第六次评估报告中，IAM 研究的影响力有所下降，这意味着研究领域之间的竞争环境趋于公平。但要确保进行全面评估，还需要付出更多努力。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Past peak prominence: The changing role of integrated assessment modeling in the IPCC.

The main task of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to provide comprehensive assessments of climate science. However, there are accusations of bias toward certain research fields based on limited empirical evidence. By analyzing the evidence base of Working Group 3 (WG3) reports, we show that integrated assessment modeling (IAM) research was influential in all six assessments, and overrepresented in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). Further, we show that a small number of men working in Western Europe and the USA dominate IAM research. Thus, global climate negotiations and science may have historically prioritized mitigation solutions suggested by an unrepresentative scientific sample and missed solutions from other perspectives like those of females and non-Western cultures. However, we also show that IAM research influence decreased in AR6, implying a leveling playing field between research fields. But more effort is needed to ensure a comprehensive assessment.

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

iScience Multidisciplinary-Multidisciplinary

CiteScore

7.20

自引率

1.70%

发文量

1972

审稿时长

6 weeks

期刊介绍： Science has many big remaining questions. To address them, we will need to work collaboratively and across disciplines. The goal of iScience is to help fuel that type of interdisciplinary thinking. iScience is a new open-access journal from Cell Press that provides a platform for original research in the life, physical, and earth sciences. The primary criterion for publication in iScience is a significant contribution to a relevant field combined with robust results and underlying methodology. The advances appearing in iScience include both fundamental and applied investigations across this interdisciplinary range of topic areas. To support transparency in scientific investigation, we are happy to consider replication studies and papers that describe negative results. We know you want your work to be published quickly and to be widely visible within your community and beyond. With the strong international reputation of Cell Press behind it, publication in iScience will help your work garner the attention and recognition it merits. Like all Cell Press journals, iScience prioritizes rapid publication. Our editorial team pays special attention to high-quality author service and to efficient, clear-cut decisions based on the information available within the manuscript. iScience taps into the expertise across Cell Press journals and selected partners to inform our editorial decisions and help publish your science in a timely and seamless way.