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 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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".