Quantifying Differences between 2-m Temperature Observations and Reanalysis Pressure-Level Temperatures in Northwestern North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In northwestern North America, which is a large area with complex physiography, Climatic Research Unit (CRU) Time Series, version 2.1, (TS 2.1) gridded monthly mean 2-m temperatures are systematically lower than interpolated monthly averaged North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR) pressure-level temperatures––in particular, in the winter. Quantification of these differences based on CRU gridded observations can be used to estimate pressure-level temperatures from CRU 2-m temperatures (1901–2002) that predate the NARR period (since 1979). Such twentieth-century pressure-level temperature fields can be used in glacier mass-balance modeling and as an alternative to calibrating general circulation model control runs, avoiding the need for accurate boundary layer parameterization. In this paper, an approach is presented that is transferable to moisture, wind, and other 3D fields with potential applications in wind power generation, ecology, and air quality. At each CRU grid point, the difference between CRU and NARR is regressed against seven predictors in CRU (mean temperature, daily temperature range, precipitation, vapor pressure, cloud cover, and number of wet and frost days) for the period of overlap between CRU and NARR (1979–2002). Bayesian model averaging (BMA) is used to avoid overfitting the CRU–NARR differences and underestimating uncertainties. In cross validations, BMA provides reliable posterior predictions of the CRU–NARR differences and outperforms predictions from three alternative models: the constant model (24-yr mean), the regression model of highest Bayesian model probability, and the full model retaining all seven predictors in CRU.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".