Talk:Welcome to the Climate Change AI Wiki

From Climate Change AI Wiki
Revision as of 14:53, 26 January 2021 by 74.109.237.186 (talk)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

1. The "Climate Science" page should not be under "Adaptation", but rather above all these categories. ML applications to climate science cover a much wider spectrum of topics, from physical climate science basis (and emulating climate models), to mitigation and adaptation. (This would be similar to the IPCC reports where WG1 is physical climate analysis, WG2 is mitigation pathways, WG3 is adaptation). (contact: Kasia)

1a. (Response from Priya) I agree that we could make a super-category on Climate Science, but I would have serious concerns with moving it to the top or implying that it is a broader topic than mitigation or adaptation. In particular, considering mitigation and adaptation as "ML applications to climate science" is from my perspective incorrect -- these are ML applications to climate _change_, not climate science (and I would associate WG1 topics with climate science). For instance, mitigation measures in energy systems would not fall under climate science. Since there is unfortunately a tendency in the ML community to conflate climate science and climate change (e.g., people don't realize that these are different things), I would actually suggest the ordering of "Mitigation," "Adaptation," and "Climate Science"

2. I would suggest renaming the page "Climate Science" to "Climate change - modelling and analysis", since climate science may be understood by some only as of the physical basis, while that page is more about using ML to aid climate models, analysis of climate data, rather than the physical explanation of climate change (to which ML is not directly related to). (contact: Kasia)

2a. (Response from Priya) Renaming sounds good! However, we actually had "climate modeling" as a title before (in earlier versions of our paper), and some from the climate science community actually reached out and explicitly got annoyed, because they said that climate science/the topics addressed are much broader than that. So it could be good to iterate on a title that balances between being sufficiently broad but also specific, and is also perhaps a little bit catchy/concise.