Are Climate Model Projections Reliable Enough for Climate Policy?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ongoing debate on the global warming and climate change highlights the possibility of increased incidences of extreme weather events world-wide, as the earth’s mean temperature is expected to rise steadily in the next 100 years according to most climate model projections. The recent IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) document (IPCC, 2001) categorically states: The globally average surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4C to 5.8C over the period 1990 to 2100. The projected warming is much larger than the observed changes during the twentieth century and is very likely to be without precedent during at least the last 10,000 years. The Climate Change document also summarizes various extreme weather events and their observed and projected changes based on model simulations. Among the extreme weather events summarized by IPCC are: Higher maximum temperature and more hot days over nearly all land areas; increase of heat index over land areas; more intense precipitation events and increased summer continental drying and associated risk of drought. Besides these weather events, the Climate change document also makes projections of major climatic events and states: El Nino events may show small increase in amplitude but its impact in terms of droughts and floods will increase. The warming associated with increasing greenhouse gas concentration will cause an increase of Asian summer monsoon variability. A number of recent papers appearing in peer-reviewed literature have questioned many of the IPCC projections on future warming of the earth’s surface and associated increase in extreme weather events. It is important to briefly review these recent studies and make an assessment of present status of the global warming science. Such an assessment is essential for developing a Climate Policy consistent with the emerging view of the state of science. In this viewpoint, some of the climate model projections are briefly assessed in the light of recent studies.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 it