Stratosphere‐troposphere coupling and annular mode variability in chemistry‐climate models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The internal variability and coupling between the stratosphere and troposphere in CCMVal‐2 chemistry‐climate models are evaluated through analysis of the annular mode patterns of variability. Computation of the annular modes in long data sets with secular trends requires refinement of the standard definition of the annular mode, and a more robust procedure that allows for slowly varying trends is established and verified. The spatial and temporal structure of the models’ annular modes is then compared with that of reanalyses. As a whole, the models capture the key features of observed intraseasonal variability, including the sharp vertical gradients in structure between stratosphere and troposphere, the asymmetries in the seasonal cycle between the Northern and Southern hemispheres, and the coupling between the polar stratospheric vortices and tropospheric midlatitude jets. It is also found that the annular mode variability changes little in time throughout simulations of the 21st century. There are, however, both common biases and significant differences in performance in the models. In the troposphere, the annular mode in models is generally too persistent, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere summer, a bias similar to that found in CMIP3 coupled climate models. In the stratosphere, the periods of peak variance and coupling with the troposphere are delayed by about a month in both hemispheres. The relationship between increased variability of the stratosphere and increased persistence in the troposphere suggests that some tropospheric biases may be related to stratospheric biases and that a well‐simulated stratosphere can improve simulation of tropospheric intraseasonal variability.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".