Specification of Wintertime North American Surface Temperature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The extent to which wintertime North American surface temperature can be specified based on simultaneous sea surface temperature (SST) is quantified for the period 1982–98. The term specification indicates that the predictor and predictands are not lagged in time, as would be the case for true prediction. Four state-of-the-art general circulation models (GCMs) and linear empirical models with predictors derived from observations and dynamical models are considered. Predictors are derived from model hindcasts using principal component analysis (PCA), canonical correlation analysis (CCA), and discriminant analysis. The last technique has appeared in the climate literature, but its use in the present context appears new. A distinguishing feature of this paper is that several methods and models are compared in a common framework. The specification skill of GCMs for the period 1982–98 is statistically significant in the northwestern region near Washington State, British Columbia, and central Canada, with some local correlations exceeding 0.6. The specification skill of GCMs is comparable to, or better than, the skill of the best empirical model for the particular 17-yr period examined. No single specification strategy was found to improve the model hindcast skill in all cases. Predictors derived from discriminant analysis generally lead to larger skill than predictors based on PCA or CCA. The signal-to-noise ratio varies greatly among models and appears to be, if anything, inversely related to the specification skill when discriminants are used as predictors. Predictors based on 500-hPa geopotential height can lead to specification skill at least as good as predictors based on land surface temperature. Evidence is presented for the existence of at least two distinct dynamically predictable components of land surface temperature arising from two distinct “flavors” of SST anomalies associated with El Niño and La Niña.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".