Attributing northern high-latitude precipitation change over the period 1966–2005 to human influence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using an optimal fingerprinting method and improved observations, we compare observed and CMIP5 model simulated annual, cold season and warm season (semi-annual) precipitation over northern high-latitude (north of 50°N) land over 1966–2005. We find that the multi-model simulated responses to the effect of anthropogenic forcing or the effect of anthropogenic and natural forcing combined are consistent with observed changes. We also find that the influence of anthropogenic forcing may be separately detected from that of natural forcings, though the effect of natural forcing cannot be robustly detected. This study confirms our early finding that anthropogenic influence in high-latitude precipitation is detectable. However, in contrast with the previous study, the evidence now indicates that the models do not underestimated observed changes. The difference in the latter aspect is most likely due to improvement in the spatial–temporal coverage of the data used in this study, as well as the details of data processing procedures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".