Separating the influence of projected changes in air temperature and wind on patterns of sea level change and ocean heat content
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present ocean model sensitivity experiments aimed at separating the influence of the projected changes in the “thermal” (near‐surface air temperature) and “wind” (near‐surface winds) forcing on the patterns of sea level and ocean heat content. In the North Atlantic, the distribution of sea level change is more due to the “thermal” forcing, whereas it is more due to the “wind” forcing in the North Pacific; in the Southern Ocean, the “thermal” and “wind” forcing have a comparable influence. In the ocean adjacent to Antarctica the “thermal” forcing leads to an inflow of warmer waters on the continental shelves, which is somewhat attenuated by the “wind” forcing. The structure of the vertically integrated heat uptake is set by different processes at low and high latitudes: at low latitudes it is dominated by the heat transport convergence, whereas at high latitudes it represents a small residual of changes in the surface flux and advection of heat. The structure of the horizontally integrated heat content tendency is set by the increase of downward heat flux by the mean circulation and comparable decrease of upward heat flux by the subgrid‐scale processes; the upward eddy heat flux decreases and increases by almost the same magnitude in response to, respectively, the “thermal” and “wind” forcing. Regionally, the surface heat loss and deep convection weaken in the Labrador Sea, but intensify in the Greenland Sea in the region of sea ice retreat. The enhanced heat flux anomaly in the subpolar Atlantic is mainly caused by the “thermal” forcing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".