MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142103147 · doi:10.1038/srep06403

Origin of cold bias over the Arabian Sea in Climate Models

2014· article· en· W2142103147 on OpenAlexfundno aff
S. Sandeep, R. S. Ajayamohan

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork UniversityNew York University Abu Dhabi
KeywordsClimatologyCoupled model intercomparison projectSubtropicsSea surface temperatureGeologyMonsoonPrecipitationZonal and meridionalBorealTemperate climateOceanographyTroposphereAtmospheric sciencesSubsidenceClimate modelEnvironmental scienceClimate changeStructural basinGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Almost all climate models in Coupled Model Inter-comparison Project phase five (CMIP5) were found to have a cold bias in Sea Surface Temperature (SST) over the northern Arabian Sea, which is linked to the biases in the Indian Summer Monsoon (ISM). This cold SST bias was attributed to the anomalous cold winds from the north-western part of south Asian landmass during boreal winter. However, the origin of the anomalously strong cold winds over the Arabian Sea and its association with the large-scale circulation is obscure. Here we show that an equatorward bias in subtropical Jetstream during boreal spring season anomalously cools down the northern Arabian Sea and adjoining land regions in CMIP5 models. The models with stronger equatorward bias in subtropical jet are also the ones with stronger cold SST bias over the Arabian Sea. The equatorward shift coupled with enhanced strength of the subtropical jet produce a stronger upper tropospheric convergence, leading to a subsidence and divergence at lower levels over the Arabian deserts. The low entropy air flowing from the Arabian land mass cools the northern Arabian Sea. The weaker meridional temperature gradients in the colder models substantially weaken ISM precipitation.

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)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations57
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207