MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1645815967 · doi:10.1029/2008gl033573

Impact of the stratosphere on tropospheric climate change

2008· article· en· W1645815967 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael Sigmond, John Scinocca, Paul J. Kushner

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaScheme for Promotion of Academic and Research CollaborationCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
KeywordsStratosphereAtmospheric sciencesOrographic liftClimatologyEnvironmental scienceTroposphereAtmospheric circulationAtmospheric modelClimate modelOrographyAtmospheric modelsMeteorologyClimate changeGeologyPhysicsAtmosphere (unit)Precipitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The atmospheric circulation response to CO 2 doubling in various versions of an atmospheric general circulation model (AGCM) without a well‐resolved stratosphere (“low‐top” model), is compared to the response in a version of the same AGCM with a well‐resolved stratosphere (“high‐top” model). The doubled CO 2 response of the “best‐tuned” (i.e. operational) low‐top model version is significantly different from that in the best‐tuned high‐top model version. Additional experiments show that this difference is not caused by the model lid height, but instead can be mainly attributed to differences in the settings of parameterized orographic gravity‐wave drag which control the strength of the zonal wind in the mid‐ to high‐latitude lower stratosphere and the mean sea‐level pressure distribution. These findings suggest a link between the strength of the winds in the mid‐ to high‐latitude lower stratosphere and tropospheric annular mode responses, and have implications for how to proceed with high‐top low‐top model intercomparisons.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.608
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations102
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207