Revisiting projected shifts in the climate envelopes of North American trees using updated general circulation models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Global climate models are constantly being upgraded, but it is often not clear what these changes have on climate change impact projections. We used difference maps to directly compare downscaled projections of temperature and precipitation across North America for two versions (or generations) of three different Atmospheric-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCM)s. We found that AOGCM versions differed in their projections for the end of the current century by up to 4 °C for annual mean temperature and 60% for annual precipitation. To place these changes in an ecological context, we reanalyzed our work on shifts in tree climate envelopes (CEs) using the newer-generation AOGCM projections. Based on the updated AOGCMs, by the 2071–2100 period, tree CEs shifted up to 2.4 degrees further north or 2.6 degrees further south (depending on the AOGCM) and were about 10% larger in size. Despite considerable differences between versions of a given AOGCM, projections made by the newer version of each AOGCM were in general agreement, suggesting convergence across the three models studied here. Assessing the AOGCM outputs in this way provides insight into the magnitude and importance of change associated with AOGCM upgrades as they continue to evolve through time.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it