MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100810285 · doi:10.1260/0958-305x.25.8.1439

Calculation of Atmospheric Radiative Forcing (Warming Effect) of Carbon Dioxide at Any Concentration

2014· article· en· W2100810285 on OpenAlexaff
H. Douglas Lightfoot, Orval Mamer

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Environment · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiative forcingWater vaporAtmospheric sciencesCarbon dioxideGreenhouse gasRelative humidityEnvironmental scienceAtmosphere (unit)HumidityRadiative transferForcing (mathematics)Absorption (acoustics)Global warmingMeteorologyChemistryClimate changePhysicsAerosolOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Beer-Lambert law does not apply strictly to the relationship between radiative forcing (RF) of CO 2 and concentration in the atmosphere, i.e., ΔRF = 5.35ln(C/C o ). It is an approximation because water vapour competes unevenly with CO 2 over the IR absorption wavelength range. We propose a quadratic model as an improved approximation. It links concentration to RF thereby allowing RF calculation at any concentration, not just ΔRF. For example, at 378 ppmv of CO 2 , the level in 2005, it calculates RF = 8.67 W m −2 , or approximately 2.7% of the total RF of all the greenhouse gases. A second and independent method based on worldwide hourly measurements of atmospheric temperature and relative humidity confirms this percentage. Each method shows that, on average, water vapour contributes approximately 96% of current greenhouse gas warming. Thus, the factors controlling the amount of water vapour in the air also control the earth's temperature.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.168 · 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

Citations14
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy & EnvironmentSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207