Future ocean acidification in the Canada Basin and surrounding Arctic Ocean from CMIP5 earth system models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Six Earth system models that include an interactive carbon cycle and have contributed results to the 5th Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) are evaluated with respect to Arctic Ocean acidification. Projections under Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) 8.5 and 4.5 consistently show reductions in the bidecadal mean surface pH from about 8.1 in 1986–2005 to 7.7/7.9 by 2066–2085 in the Canada Basin, closely linked to reductions in the calcium carbonate saturation state Ω A , C from about 1.4 (2.0) to 0.7 (1.0) for aragonite (calcite) for RCP8.5. The large but opposite effects of dilution and biological drawdown of DIC and dilution of alkalinity lead to a small seasonal amplitude change in Ω, as well as intermodel differences in the timing and sign of the summer minimum. The Canada Basin shows a characteristic layering in Ω: affected by ice melt and inflowing Pacific water, shallow undersaturated layers form at the surface and subsurface, creating a shallow saturation horizon which expands from the surface downward. This is in addition to the globally observed deep saturation horizon which is continuously expanding upward with increasing CO 2 uptake. The Eurasian Basin becomes undersaturated much later than the rest of the Arctic. These CMIP5 model results strengthen earlier findings, although large intermodel differences remain: Below 200 m Ω A varies by up to 1.0 in the Canada Basin and the deep saturation horizon varies from 2000 to 4000 m among the models. Differences of projected acidification changes are primarily related to sea ice retreat and responses of wind mixing and stratification.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".