MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036337539 · doi:10.1029/2011jd016620

A climate sensitivity estimate using Bayesian fusion of instrumental observations and an Earth System model

2011· article· en· W2036337539 on OpenAlexaff
Roman Olson, Ryan L. Sriver, Marlos Góes, Nathan M. Urban, H. Damon Matthews, Murali Haran, Klaus Keller

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensitivity (control systems)Climate modelClimate sensitivityEnvironmental scienceProbability density functionBayesian probabilityMarkov chain Monte CarloForcing (mathematics)Monte Carlo methodMeteorologyClimatologyClimate changeMathematicsStatisticsGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current climate model projections are uncertain. This uncertainty is partly driven by the uncertainty in key model parameters such as climate sensitivity (CS), vertical ocean diffusivity (Kv), and strength of anthropogenic sulfate aerosol forcing. These parameters are commonly estimated using ensembles of model runs constrained by observations. Here we obtain a probability density function (pdf) of these parameters using the University of Victoria Earth System Climate Model (UVic ESCM) ‐ an intermediate complexity model with a dynamic three‐dimensional ocean. Specifically, we run an ensemble of UVic ESCM runs varying parameters that affectCS, ocean vertical diffusion, and the effects of anthropogenic sulfate aerosols. We use a statistical emulator that interpolates the UVic ESCM output to parameter settings where the model was not evaluated. We adopt a Bayesian approach to constrain the model output with instrumental surface temperature and ocean heat observations. Our approach accounts for the uncertainties in the properties of model‐data residuals. We use a Markov chain Monte Carlo method to obtain a posterior pdf of these parameters. The mode of the climate sensitivity estimate is 2.8°C, with the corresponding 95% credible interval ranging from 1.8 to 4.9°C. These results are generally consistent with previous studies. TheCS pdf is sensitive to the assumptions about the priors, to the effects of anthropogenic sulfate aerosols, and to the background vertical ocean diffusivity. Our method can be used with more complex 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations103
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207