Human Influences on Changes in the Temperature Seasonality in Mid- to High-Latitude Land Areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The annual cycle is the largest variability for many climate variables outside the tropics. Whether human activities have affected the annual cycle at the regional scale is unclear. In this study, long-term changes in the amplitude of surface air temperature annual cycle in the observations are compared with those simulated by the climate models participating in phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). Different spatial domains ranging from hemispheric to subcontinental scales in mid- to high-latitude land areas for the period 1950–2005 are considered. Both the optimal fingerprinting and a nonoptimal detection and attribution technique are used. The results show that the space–time pattern of model-simulated responses to the combined effect of anthropogenic and natural forcings is consistent with the observed changes. In particular, models capture not only the decrease in the temperature seasonality in the northern high latitudes and East Asia, but also the increase in the Mediterranean region. A human influence on the weakening in the temperature seasonality in the Northern Hemisphere is detected, particularly in the high latitudes (50°–70°N) where the influence of the anthropogenic forcing can be separated from that of the natural forcing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".