MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011243969 · doi:10.1002/2013gl058456

Radiative forcing at high concentrations of well‐mixed greenhouse gases

2013· article· en· W2011243969 on OpenAlexafffund
Brendan Byrne, Colin Goldblatt

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaWestern Canada Research GridCompute CanadaUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsRadiative forcingGreenhouse gasForcing (mathematics)TropopauseAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental scienceClimatologyClimate sensitivityRadiative transferClimate changeClimate modelRange (aeronautics)Cloud forcingTropospherePhysicsMaterials scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present new calculations of radiative forcing at very high concentrations of CO 2 , CH 4 , and N 2 O, relevant to extreme anthropogenic climate change and paleoclimate studies. CO 2 forcing is calculated over the range 100 ppmv to 50,000 ppmv, and the maximum forcing is 38.1 W m −2 . CH 4 and N 2 O forcings are calculated over the range 100 ppbv to 100 ppmv and give maximum forcings of 6.66 W m −2 and 22.3 W m −2 . The sensitivity of our calculations to spatial averaging and tropopause definition is examined. We compare our results with the “simplified expressions” reported by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and find significant differences at high greenhouse gas concentrations. We provide new simplified expressions which agree much better with the calculated forcings and suggest that these expressions be used in place of the IPCC expressions. Additionally, we provide meridionally resolved forcings which may be used to force simple and intermediate complexity climate models.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.234 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations95
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207