MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967101763 · doi:10.1142/s0217979214820037

Comment on "Cosmic-ray-driven reaction and greenhouse effect of halogenated molecules: Culprits for atmospheric ozone depletion and global climate change"

2014· article· en· W1967101763 on OpenAlexaff
Dana Nuccitelli, Kevin Cowtan, Peter Jacobs, Mark Richardson, Robert G. Way, Anne-Marie Blackburn, Martin B. Stolpe, John Cook

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Modern Physics B · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenhouse gasLinear regressionOzone depletionEnvironmental scienceGlobal temperatureMetric (unit)Atmospheric sciencesGlobal warmingClimate changeCOSMIC cancer databaseCosmic rayRegressionOzoneMeteorologyPhysicsStatisticsMathematicsAstrophysicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lu (2013) (L13) argued that solar effects and anthropogenic halogenated gases can explain most of the observed warming of global mean surface air temperatures since 1850, with virtually no contribution from atmospheric carbon dioxide ( CO 2 ) concentrations. Here we show that this conclusion is based on assumptions about the saturation of the CO 2 -induced greenhouse effect that have been experimentally falsified. L13 also confuses equilibrium and transient response, and relies on data sources that have been superseeded due to known inaccuracies. Furthermore, the statistical approach of sequential linear regression artificially shifts variance onto the first predictor. L13's artificial choice of regression order and neglect of other relevant data is the fundamental cause of the incorrect main conclusion. Consideration of more modern data and a more parsimonious multiple regression model leads to contradiction with L13's statistical results. Finally, the correlation arguments in L13 are falsified by considering either the more appropriate metric of global heat accumulation, or data on longer timescales.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.225 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Modern Physics BSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207