MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124731444 · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-12-00558.1

Climate Change from 1850 to 2005 Simulated in CESM1(WACCM)

2013· article· en· W2124731444 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D. R. Marsh, Michael Mills, Douglas E. Kinnison, Jean‐François Lamarque, Natalia Calvo, Lorenzo M. Polvani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Climate · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of EnergyOffice of ScienceNational Center for Atmospheric ResearchNational Science Foundation
KeywordsStratosphereTroposphereClimatologyEnvironmental scienceClimate modelAtmospheric sciencesCoupled model intercomparison projectAtmosphere (unit)Ozone layerClimate changePrecipitationMontreal ProtocolSudden stratospheric warmingAtmospheric modelMeteorologyPolar vortexGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The NCAR Community Earth System Model (CESM) now includes an atmospheric component that extends in altitude to the lower thermosphere. This atmospheric model, known as the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model (WACCM), includes fully interactive chemistry, allowing, for example, a self-consistent representation of the development and recovery of the stratospheric ozone hole and its effect on the troposphere. This paper focuses on analysis of an ensemble of transient simulations using CESM1(WACCM), covering the period from the preindustrial era to present day, conducted as part of phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. Variability in the stratosphere, such as that associated with stratospheric sudden warmings and the development of the ozone hole, is in good agreement with observations. The signals of these phenomena propagate into the troposphere, influencing near-surface winds, precipitation rates, and the extent of sea ice. In comparison of tropospheric climate change predictions with those from a version of CESM that does not fully resolve the stratosphere, the global-mean temperature trends are indistinguishable. However, systematic differences do exist in other climate variables, particularly in the extratropics. The magnitude of the difference can be as large as the climate change response itself. This indicates that the representation of stratosphere–troposphere coupling could be a major source of uncertainty in climate change projections in CESM.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations1,189
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ClimateSame topicAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateFrench-language works237,207