MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026176817 · doi:10.1002/qj.303

The Monte Carlo Independent Column Approximation: an assessment using several global atmospheric models

2008· article· en· W2026176817 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Howard W. Barker, Jason N. S. Cole, Jean‐Jacques Morcrette, Robert Pincus, Petri Räisänen, Knut von Salzen, Paul Vaillancourt

Bibliographic record

VenueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
FundersCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric SciencesEnergy FoundationU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceNoise (video)Monte Carlo methodPrecipitationMeteorologyClimatologyAtmospheric sciencesMathematicsStatisticsStatistical physicsPhysicsComputer scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Monte Carlo Independent Column Approximation (McICA) computes domain‐average, broadband radiative flux profiles within conventional global climate models (GCMs). While McICA is unbiased with respect to the full ICA, it generates, as a by‐product, random noise. If this by‐product leads to statistically significant impacts on GCM simulations, it could limit the usefulness of McICA. This paper assesses the impact of McICA's random noise on six GCMs. To this end, the GCMs performed ensembles of 14‐day long simulations for various renditions of McICA, each with differing amounts of random noise. As seen in the past, low‐cloud fraction and surface temperature were affected most by noise. However, all GCM simulations using operationally viable renditions of McICA showed no statistically significant impacts, even for precipitation ‐ a highly intermittent variable that one might expect to be sensitive to random fluctuations. Two GCMs showed statistically significant responses using an academic version of McICA that generates overly large sampling noise. Time series analyses of high‐resolution (i.e. typically 2‐hourly) data revealed that fluctuations associated with most variables and GCMs are immune to McICA noise. Moreover, the nature of these fluctuations can vary substantially among GCMs and most often they overwhelm any noise impacts. Overall, the results presented here corroborate a range of previous studies done on one GCM at a time: random noise produced by recommended versions of McICA has statistically insignificant effects on GCM simulations. Copyright © 2008 Royal Meteorological Society and Her Majesty in Right of Canada.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.833

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.243 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations96
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological SocietySame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207