Indices for monitoring changes in extremes based on daily temperature and precipitation data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Indices for climate variability and extremes have been used for a long time, often by assessing days with temperature or precipitation observations above or below specific physically‐based thresholds. While these indices provided insight into local conditions, few physically based thresholds have relevance in all parts of the world. Therefore, indices of extremes evolved over time and now often focus on relative thresholds that describe features in the tails of the distributions of meteorological variables. In order to help understand how extremes are changing globally, a subset of the wide range of possible indices is now being coordinated internationally which allows the results of studies from different parts of the world to fit together seamlessly. This paper reviews these as well as other indices of extremes and documents the obstacles to robustly calculating and analyzing indices and the methods developed to overcome these obstacles. Gridding indices are necessary in order to compare observations with climate model output. However, gridding indices from daily data are not always straightforward because averaging daily information from many stations tends to dampen gridded extremes. The paper describes recent progress in attribution of the changes in gridded indices of extremes that demonstrates human influence on the probability of extremes. The paper also describes model projections of the future and wraps up with a discussion of ongoing efforts to refine indices of extremes as they are being readied to contribute to the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report. WIREs Clim Change 2011, 2:851–870. doi: 10.1002/wcc.147 This article is categorized under: Paleoclimates and Current Trends > Modern Climate Change
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".