Possible Impacts of Climate Change on Wind Gusts under Downscaled Future Climate Conditions over Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hourly/daily wind gust simulation models and regression-based downscaling methods were developed to assess possible impacts of climate change on future hourly/daily wind gust events over the province of Ontario, Canada. Since the climate/weather validation process is critical, a formal model result verification process has been built into the analysis to ascertain whether the methods are suitable for future projections. The percentage of excellent and good simulations among all studied seven wind gust categories ranges from 94% to 100% and from 69% to 95%, respectively, for hourly and daily wind gusts, for both model development and validation. The modeled results indicate that frequencies of future hourly/daily wind gust events are projected to increase late this century over the study area under a changing climate. For example, across the study area, the annual mean frequency of future hourly wind gust events ≥28, ≥40, and ≥70 km h−1 for the period 2081–2100 derived from the ensemble of downscaled eight-GCM A2 simulations is projected to be about 10%–15%, 10%–20%, and 20%–40% greater than the observed average during the period 1994–2007, respectively. The corresponding percentage increase for future daily wind gust events is projected to be <10%, ~10%, and 15%–25%. Inter-GCM-model and interscenario uncertainties of future wind gust projections were quantitatively assessed. On average, projected percentage increases in frequencies of future hourly/daily wind gust events ≥28 and ≥40 km h−1 are about 90%–100% and 60%–80% greater than inter-GCM-model–interscenario uncertainties, respectively. For wind gust events ≥70 km h−1, the corresponding projected percentage increases are about 25%–35% greater than the interscenario uncertainties and are generally similar to inter-GCM-model uncertainties.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".