Estimating the Anthropogenic Sea Surface Temperature Response Using Pattern Scaling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study seeks to derive the sea surface temperature (SST) response to anthropogenic forcing from observations over the last century, using simple methods inspired from pattern scaling. As in pattern scaling, the spatial response is assumed to scale with global-mean and annual-mean surface temperature. The long-term aim of this work is to generate anthropogenically forced SST and sea ice patterns for the recent past and near-term future, and use them to force atmosphere–land climate models for attribution and prediction purposes. The present work compares estimation methodologies and, within a Monte Carlo framework based on large initial condition ensembles of climate model simulations, examines the robustness of the patterns obtained. The different methods explored here yield a similar SST spatial response, mostly reflecting the observed SST linear trend map. The different methods nevertheless provide distinctive temporal evolution of the global-mean and annual-mean SST response, which in turn affects the temporal evolution of the global-mean and annual-mean air surface temperature simulated in corresponding prescribed SST simulations. The estimated SST spatial response consists mostly of a warming of the midlatitude coasts near the western boundary currents, the tropical Indian Ocean, and the Arctic Ocean. This pattern generally agrees with previously published observational and modeling studies. Based on Monte Carlo analysis of the large ensembles, it is found that between 36% and 56% of its spatial variance results from anthropogenic forcing. Overall, the work herein provides constraints on the uncertainty associated with the spatial variability of an anthropogenically forced component of climate change derived from observations, which can potentially be used for climate attribution and prediction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".