MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043159951 · doi:10.1002/jqs.1307

Some Holocene palaeoclimatic and palaeoenvironmental perspectives on Arctic/Subarctic climate warming and the IPCC 4th Assessment Report

2009· article· en· W2043159951 on OpenAlex
Glen M. MacDonald

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Quaternary Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTree-ring climate responses
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSubarctic climateTundraHoloceneArcticWoodlandTaigaBorealClimatologyClimate changeGlobal warmingPhysical geographyHolocene climatic optimumGeologyArctic ecologyEnvironmental scienceOceanographyGeographyEcologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The IPCC 4th Assessment Report (FAR) is considered in light of Holocene palaeo‐records of Arctic and Subarctic land temperatures and the response of the boreal forest–tundra boundary to past and present warming. The palaeo‐records appear to support and amplify some of the conclusions in FAR and raise questions about others. Comparison of the FAR estimates for late 21st‐century warming with Arctic and Subarctic palaeoclimatic records suggests that anticipated future warming will be unprecedented compared to earlier Holocene warming including the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM) and subsequent Medieval Warm Period (MWP). Annual warming and winter warming will likely be greater than during earlier periods in the Holocene, but summer temperatures projected by FAR may approximate or not far exceed the summer warming of the HTM. The geographically synchronous pattern of 21st‐century warming projected by FAR will differ from the observed geographic variability in the timing of the HTM, particularly in the western Arctic. Further palaeo‐record syntheses are required to fully delineate the similarities and differences between the HTM and the projected conditions of the 21st century. In addition, palaeo‐records suggest that the Arctic and Subarctic climate may be sensitive to relatively small changes in solar irradiance and understanding the potential effects of natural variations in irradiance on the future climate of the Arctic and Subarctic remains a question deserving further research. FAR mapped estimates of a significant northward displacement of boreal forest and woodland due to warming imply that boreal forest or woodland will displace tundra as far north as the Arctic coastline by AD 2100. In Eurasia the estimated AD 2100 location of the tree line appears to approximate the HTM location. In North America an advance of forest to the coastline on the north slope of Alaska, central Canada and northern Quebec would far outdistance the relatively limited northward advances of boreal forest during the HTM. However, rates of tree species advance and subsequent forest development based on palaeo‐records and currently observed tree line advances raise questions about the likelihood that northward migration and subsequent increases in the population sizes of boreal tree species could occur rapidly enough to establish continuous forest and woodland as far north as the Arctic coastlines of Eurasia and North America by AD 2100. Determining potential rates of northward advance of the northern forests requires further ecological and palaeoecological investigations. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.252 · 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