High resolution interpolation of climate scenarios for the conterminous USA and Alaska derived from general circulation model simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Projections of future climate were selected for four well-established general circulation models (GCM) forced by each of three greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions scenarios, namely A2, A1B, and B1 from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES). Monthly data for the period 1961-2100 were downloaded mainly from the web portal of Third Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (Phase 3) of the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI) and subsets of data covering North America were extracted. Climate variables included monthly mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures, precipitation, incident surface solar radiation, wind speed, and specific humidity. All variables were expressed as changes relative to the simulated monthly means for 1961-1990, which corrected for GCM bias in reproducing past climate and allowed future projected trends to be compared directly. The downscaling procedure used the ANUSPLIN software package to fit a two-dimensional spline function to each month's change data for each climate variable at a spatial resolution of 5 arcminutes (0.0833º) longitude and latitude. The A2 emission scenario invariably generated the greatest warming by 2100 and the B1 the least. Alaska is projected to undergo the greatest regional increases in temperature and precipitation. Differences across the projections were generally greater from the different GHG forcings than those resulting from the different GCMs, although the consistency varied spatially. Gridded datasets are publicly available. The downscaled change factors from this study are being used with historical climatology developed from the PRISM climate data set to develop the climate projections for the RPA scenarios in the USDA FS RPA assessment. A companion report and data set will be issued by Natural Resources Canada (Canadian Forest Service) for Canada.Data for this publication: Conterminous US (http://dx.doi.org/10.2737/RDS-2011-0023) and Alaska (http://dx.doi.org/10.2737/RDS-2011-0022)
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".