| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Kause, Astrid, et al.
(författare)
-
Confidence levels and likelihood terms in IPCC reports : a survey of experts from different scientific disciplines
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Climatic Change. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0165-0009 .- 1573-1480. ; 173
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Scientific assessments, such as those by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), inform policymakers and the public about the state of scientific evidence and related uncertainties. We studied how experts from different scientific disciplines who were authors of IPCC reports, interpret the uncertainty language recommended in the Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties. This IPCC guidance note discusses how to use confidence levels to describe the quality of evidence and scientific agreement, as well likelihood terms to describe the probability intervals associated with climate variables. We find that (1) physical science experts were more familiar with the IPCC guidance note than other experts, and they followed it more often; (2) experts’ confidence levels increased more with perceptions of evidence than with agreement; (3) experts’ estimated probability intervals for climate variables were wider when likelihood terms were presented with “medium confidence” rather than with “high confidence” and when seen in context of IPCC sentences rather than out of context, and were only partly in agreement with the IPCC guidance note. Our findings inform recommendations for communications about scientific evidence, assessments, and related uncertainties.
|
|
| 3. |
- Olsson, Lennart, et al.
(författare)
-
A Social Science Perspective on Resilience
- 2016
-
Ingår i: The Routledge Handbook of International Resilience. - 9781138784321 - 9781315765006 ; , s. 49-62
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 4. |
- Olsson, Lennart, et al.
(författare)
-
Ethics of Probabilistic Extreme Event Attribution in Climate Change Science : A Critique
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Earth's Future. - 2328-4277. ; 10:3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The question whether a single extreme climate event, such as a hurricane or heatwave, can be attributed to human induced climate change has become a vibrant field of research and discussion in recent years. Proponents of the most common approach (probabilistic event attribution) argue for using single event attribution for advancing climate policy, not least in the context of loss and damages, while critics are raising concerns about inductive risks which may result in misguided policies. Here, we present six ethical predicaments, rooted in epistemic choices of single event attribution for policy making, with a focus on problems related to loss and damage. Our results show that probabilistic event attribution is particularly sensitive to these predicaments, rendering the choice of method value laden and hence political. Our review shows how the putatively apolitical approach becomes political and deeply problematic from a climate justice perspective. We also suggest that extreme event attribution (EEA) is becoming more and more irrelevant for projecting loss and damages as socio-ecological systems are increasingly destabilized by climate change. We conclude by suggesting a more causality driven approach for understanding loss and damage, that is, less prone to the ethical predicaments of EEA.
|
|
| 5. |
- Olsson, Lennart, et al.
(författare)
-
Sverige kan leda en revolution i jordbruket
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Svenska Dagbladet, SvD Opinion. - 1101-2412.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Sverige kan bli ledande i en radikal omställning av framtidens matproduktion. Genom forskning och utveckling av perenna livsmedelsgrödor kan vi aktivt främja en perenn revolution i jordbruket. Perenna grödor återkommer år efter år utan att behöva sås på nytt, skriver en rad forskare.
|
|
| 6. |
- Olsson, Lennart, et al.
(författare)
-
Why resilience is unappealing to social science : Theoretical and empirical investigations of the scientific use of resilience
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Science Advances. - : American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). - 2375-2548. ; 1:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Resilience is often promoted as a boundary concept to integrate the social and natural dimensions of sustainability. However, it is a troubled dialogue from which social scientists may feel detached. To explain this, we first scrutinize the meanings, attributes, and uses of resilience in ecology and elsewhere to construct a typology of definitions. Second, we analyze core concepts and principles in resilience theory that cause disciplinary tensions between the social and natural sciences (system ontology, system boundary, equilibria and thresholds, feedback mechanisms, self-organization, and function). Third, we provide empirical evidence of the asymmetry in the use of resilience theory in ecology and environmental sciences compared to five relevant social science disciplines. Fourth, we contrast the unification ambition in resilience theory with methodological pluralism. Throughout, we develop the argument that incommensurability and unification constrain the interdisciplinary dialogue, whereas pluralism drawing on core social scientific concepts would better facilitate integrated sustainability research.
|
|
| 7. |
- Persson, Johannes, et al.
(författare)
-
The interdisciplinary decision problem : Popperian optimism and Kuhnian pessimism in forestry
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Ecology and Society. - 1708-3087. ; 23:3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Interdisciplinary research in the fields of forestry and sustainability studies often encounters seemingly incompatible ontological assumptions deriving from natural and social sciences. The perceived incompatibilities might emerge from the epistemological and ontological claims of the theories or models directly employed in the interdisciplinary collaboration, or they might be created by other epistemological and ontological assumptions that these interdisciplinary researchers find no reason to question. In this paper we discuss the benefits and risks of two possible approaches, Popperian optimism and Kuhnian pessimism, to interdisciplinary knowledge integration where epistemological and ontological differences between the sciences involved can be expected.
|
|
| 8. |
- Persson, Johannes, et al.
(författare)
-
Toward an alternative dialogue between the social and natural sciences
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Ecology and Society. - 1708-3087. ; 23:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Interdisciplinary research within the field of sustainability studies often faces incompatible ontological assumptions deriving from natural and social sciences. The importance of this fact is often underrated and sometimes leads to the wrong strategies. We distinguish between two broad approaches in interdisciplinarity: unificationism and pluralism. Unificationism seeks unification and perceives disciplinary boundaries as conventional, representing no long-term obstacle to progress, whereas pluralism emphasizes more ephemeral and transient interdisciplinary connections and underscores the autonomy of the disciplines with respect to one another. Both approaches have their merits and pitfalls. Unification runs the risk of scientific imperialism, while pluralism can result in insurmountable barriers between disciplines. We made a comparison of eight distinct interdisciplinary attempts at integration of knowledge across social and natural sciences. The comparison was carried out as four pairwise comparisons: environmental economics versus ecological economics, environmental history versus historical ecology, resilience theory versus political ecology, and socio-biology versus actor-network theory. We conclude by showing that none of these prominent eight interdisciplinary fields in and of itself manages to provide, in a satisfactory way, such an integrated understanding of sustainability. We argue for pluralism and advocate complex ways of articulating divergent ontological assumptions. This is not equivalent to pursuing knowledge unification either through scientific imperialism or by catering to the requirements of narrow practical utility. It means prioritizing interdisciplinary integration by simultaneously acknowledging the role of societal and natural factors in accounting for sustainability issues.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Thorén, Henrik, et al.
(författare)
-
A pluralist approach to epistemic dilemmas in event attribution science
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Climatic Change. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0165-0009 .- 1573-1480. ; 169:1-2
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In recent years, a dispute has arisen within detection and attribution science concerning the appropriate methodology for associating individual weather events with anthropogenic climate change. In recent contributions, it has been highlighted that this conflict is seemingly misconstrued even by those participating in it and actually concerns a mixture of first and second order so-called inductive risk considerations—in short, it is about values and the role values should have in science. In this paper, we analyze this methodological conflict and examine the inductive risk considerations and argue that there is also another dimension to consider with respect to values that have to do with what detection and attribution science is for. We suggest a framework for understanding this as a kind of problem-feeding situation and thus an issue of problem–solution coordination between different contexts, where the problem is solved versus where the solution is put to use. This has important implications, not least for whether we should understand this conflict as a genuine methodological one or not.
|
|
