Hosed vs. unhosed: global response to interruptions of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning, with and without freshwater forcing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. It is well known that glacial periods were punctuated by abrupt climate changes, with large impacts on air temperature, precipitation, and ocean circulation across the globe. However, the long-held idea that freshwater forcing, caused by massive iceberg discharges, was the driving force behind these changes has been questioned in recent years. This throws into doubt the abundant literature on modelling abrupt climate change through "hosing" experiments, whereby the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is interrupted by an injection of freshwater to the North Atlantic: if some, or all, abrupt climate change was not driven by freshwater input, could its character have been very different than the typical hosed experiments? Here, we take advantage of a global coupled ocean–atmosphere model that exhibits spontaneous, unhosed oscillations in AMOC strength, in order to examine how the global imprint of AMOC variations depends on whether or not it is the result of external freshwater input. The results imply that, to first order, the ocean–ice–atmosphere dynamics associated with an AMOC weakening dominate the global response, regardless of whether or not freshwater input is the cause. The exception lies in the impact freshwater inputs can have on the strength of other polar haloclines, particularly the Southern Ocean, to which freshwater can be transported relatively quickly after injection in the North Atlantic.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".