Evaluation of CMIP5 upper troposphere and lower stratosphere geopotential height with GPS radio occultation observations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present a detailed comparison of geopotential height fields between the Coupled Model Inter‐Comparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) models and satellite observations from GPS radio occultation (RO). Our comparison focuses on the annual mean, seasonal cycle, and interannual variability of 200 hPa geopotential height in the years 2002–2008. Using a wide sample of atmosphere‐only model runs (AMIP) from the CMIP5 archive, we find that most models agree well with the observations and weather reanalyses in the tropics in both the annual means and interannual variabilities. However, the agreement is poor over the extratropics with the largest model spreads in the high latitudes and the largest bias in the southern middle to high latitudes that persist all seasons. The models also show excessive seasonal variability over the Northern midlatitude land areas as well as the Southern Ocean but insufficient variability over the tropics and Antarctica. While the underlying causes for the model discrepancies require further analyses, this study demonstrates that global observations from GPS RO provide accurate benchmark‐quality measurements in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere through which biases in climate models as well as weather reanalyses can be identified.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".