Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An EOF analysis is used to intercompare the response of ENSO-like variability to CO2 doubling in results from 15 coupled climate models assembled for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. Under preindustrial conditions, 12 of the 15 models exhibit ENSO amplitudes comparable to or exceeding that observed in the second half of the twentieth century. Under CO2 doubling, three of the models exhibit statistically significant (p < 0.1) increases in ENSO amplitude, and five exhibit significant decreases. The overall amplitude changes are not strongly related to the magnitude or pattern of surface warming. It is, however, found that ENSO amplitude decreases (increases) in models having a narrow (wide) ENSO zonal wind stress response and ENSO amplitude comparable to or greater than observed. The models exhibit a mean fractional decrease in ENSO period of about 5%. Although many factors can influence the ENSO period, it is suggested that this may be related to a comparable increase in equatorial wave speed through an associated speedup of delayed-oscillator feedback. Changes in leading EOF, characterized in many of the models by a relative increase in the amplitude of SST variations in the central Pacific, are in most cases consistent with effects of anomalous zonal and vertical advection resulting from warming-induced changes in SST.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".