Climate change signal and uncertainty in<scp>CMIP5</scp>‐based projections of global ocean surface wave heights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study uses the analysis of variance approaches to quantify the climate change signal and uncertainty in multimodel ensembles of statistical simulations of significant wave height (Hs), which are based on the CMIP5 historical, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 forcing scenario simulations of sea level pressure. Here the signal of climate change refers to the temporal variations caused by the prescribed forcing. “Significant” means “significantly different from zero at 5% level.” In a four‐model ensemble ofHssimulations, the common signal—the signal that is simulated in all the four models—is found to strengthen over time. For the historical followed by RCP8.5 scenario, the common signal in annual meanHsis found to be significant in 16.6% and 82.2% of the area by year 2005 and 2099, respectively. The global average of the variance proportion of the common signal increases from 0.75% in year 2005 to 12.0% by year 2099. The signal is strongest in the eastern tropical Pacific (ETP), featuring significant increases in both the annual mean and maximum ofHsin this region. The climate model uncertainty (i.e., intermodel variability) is significant nearly globally; its magnitude is comparable to or greater than that of the common signal in most areas, except in the ETP where the signal is much larger. In a 20‐model ensemble ofHssimulations for the period 2006–2099, the model uncertainty is found to be significant globally; it is about 10 times as large as the variability between the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".