MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088431958 · doi:10.5194/bg-11-6107-2014

Wind-driven changes in the ocean carbon sink

2014· article· en· W2088431958 on OpenAlexafffund
Neil C. Swart, John C. Fyfe, Oleg A. Saenko, Michael Eby

Bibliographic record

VenueBiogeosciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersWestern Canada Research GridCompute Canada
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceSink (geography)ClimatologyGlobal wind patternsAtmospheric sciencesMesoscale meteorologyWind speedOcean currentMeteorologyGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. We estimate changes in the historical ocean carbon sink and their uncertainty using an ocean biogeochemical model driven with wind forcing from six different reanalyses and using two different eddy parameterization schemes. First, we quantify wind-induced changes over the extended period from 1871 to 2010 using the 20th Century Reanalysis winds. Consistent with previous shorter-term studies, we find that the wind changes act to reduce the ocean carbon sink, but the wind-induced trends are subject to large uncertainties. One major source of uncertainty is the parameterization of mesoscale eddies in our coarse resolution simulations. Trends in the Southern Ocean residual meridional overturning circulation and the globally integrated surface carbon flux over 1950 to 2010 are about 2.5 times smaller when using a variable eddy transfer coefficient than when using a constant coefficient in this parameterization. A second major source of uncertainty arises from disagreement on historical wind trends. By comparing six reanalyses over 1980 to 2010, we show that there are statistically significant differences in estimated historical wind trends, which vary in both sign and magnitude amongst the products. Through simulations forced with these reanalysis winds, we show that the influence of historical wind changes on ocean carbon uptake is highly uncertain, and the resulting trends depend on the choice of surface wind product.

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)0.001
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 score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.529

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations27
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiogeosciencesSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207