Discriminating robust and non‐robust atmospheric circulation responses to global warming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The robustness of the atmospheric circulation response to global warming in a set of atmospheric general circulation models (AGCMs) is investigated. The global‐warmed climate is forced by a global pattern of warmed ocean surface temperatures that is extracted from a multi‐model ensemble of coupled ocean‐atmosphere climate model greenhouse warming simulations. The robustness of the warming response is evaluated by a hierarchical set of comparisons. The warming response is compared first between two independently developed AGCMs, then as a function of horizontal resolution in one model, and finally as a function of a single tuning parameter, related to orographic gravity wave drag. Across these levels of comparison, the tropical and subtropical response is generally robust in zonal wind and temperature, but the extratropical response is non‐robust. On regional scales, almost every aspect of the response is non‐robust, even to the variation of a single tuning parameter. Some evidence is presented that the non‐robustness of the simulated response to global warming might be predicted from the (non global‐warmed) control simulation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 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".