MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2471668951 · doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2016.06.010

Inter-comparison of extra-tropical cyclone activity in nine reanalysis datasets

2016· article· en· W2471668951 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueAtmospheric Research · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueClimate variability and models
Établissements canadiensEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Organismes subventionnairesNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationU.S. Department of Energy
Mots-clésClimate Forecast SystemClimatologyTropical cycloneCyclone (programming language)Environmental scienceExtratropical cycloneGeostrophic windCyclogenesisMeteorologyAtmospheric sciencesGeologyGeographyPrecipitation

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This study inter-compares extratropical cyclone activity in the following nine reanalysis datasets: the ERA-20C Reanalysis (ERA20C), the Twentieth Century Reanalysis, version 2c (20CR), the Japanese 55-year Reanalysis (JRA55), the Modern Era Retrospective-analysis for Research and Applications (MERRA), the NCEP Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR), the ERA-Interim Reanalysis (ERAint), the ERA40 Reanalysis, the NCEP–NCAR Reanalysis (NCEP1), and the NCEP-DOE Reanalysis (NCEP2). The inter-comparison is based on cyclones identified using an objective cyclone tracking algorithm. In general, reanalyses of higher horizontal resolutions show higher cyclone counts, with MERRA and 20CR showing the highest and lowest mean counts of all-cyclones, respectively. However, MERRA shows the highest mean intensity (i.e., geostrophic winds) of all-cyclones, and CFSR the lowest, although MERRA and CFSR share a similar horizontal resolution. MERRA is most different from the other datasets, showing many more cyclones of shallow-medium core pressures and much higher counts of cyclones of strong intensity than the others, while CFSR shows many more cyclones of moderate intensity than the others. MERRA cyclones tend to have weaker surface winds but stronger geostrophic winds than the corresponding CFSR cyclones. The track-to-track agreement between the datasets is better for moderate-deep cyclones than for shallow ones, better in the NH than in the SH, and better in winter than in summer in both hemispheres. There is more similarity in temporal trends and variability than in specific cyclone counts and intensity, and more similarity in deep-cyclone (core pressure ≤ 980 hPa) statistics than in all-cyclone statistics. In particular, all the four datasets that cover the period from 1958 to 2010 agree well in terms of trend direction and interannual variability in hemispheric counts of deep-cyclones, showing a general increase in both hemispheres over the past half century, although the magnitude of increase varies notably from dataset to dataset. The agreement in trends of deep-cyclone counts is generally better in winter than in summer, and better in the NH than in the SH, with nearly perfect agreement for the counts of NH winter deep-cyclones. However, the nine datasets do not agree well in terms of trend and interannual variability in the mean intensity of deep cyclones, especially in summer and in SH winter. The temporal homogeneity of cyclone statistics in each dataset was also analyzed. The results show that ERAint, NCEP2, MERRA, ERA40, and CFSR are homogeneous for the NH, and that ERAint and NCEP2 are also homogeneous for the SH. However, large inhomogeneities were found in the other datasets, especially in the earlier period. Most of the identified inhomogeneities coincide with changes in the quantity and/or types of assimilated observations. These inhomogeneities contribute notably to the differences between the datasets, which are larger in the earlier period than in the recent decades. Better trend agreements between these datasets are seen after the inhomogeneities are accounted for. It is critically important to identify and account for temporal inhomogeneities when using these datasets to analyze trends.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,075
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,995

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,079
Tête enseignante GPT0,387
Écart entre enseignants0,308 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle