MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2187637860 · doi:10.1002/2015gl066858

Revisiting trends in wetness and dryness in the presence of internal climate variability and water limitations over land

2015· article· en· W2187637860 on OpenAlexafffund
Sanjiv Kumar, Richard P. Allan, Francis W. Zwiers, David M. Lawrence, Paul A. Dirmeyer

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsPacific Institute for Climate SolutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UKNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDrynessEnvironmental sciencePrecipitationPotential evaporationWater cycleEvaporationClimate changeClimatologyDry seasonAtmospheric sciencesMoistureWater contentMeteorologyEcologyGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A theoretically expected consequence of the intensification of the hydrological cycle under global warming is that on average, wet regions get wetter and dry regions get drier (WWDD). Recent studies, however, have found significant discrepancies between the expected pattern of change and observed changes over land. We assess the WWDD theory in four climate models. We find that the reported discrepancy can be traced to two main issues: (1) unforced internal climate variability strongly affects local wetness and dryness trends and can obscure underlying agreement with WWDD, and (2) dry land regions are not constrained to become drier by enhanced moisture divergence since evaporation cannot exceed precipitation over multiannual time scales. Over land, where the available water does not limit evaporation, a “wet gets wetter” signal predominates. On seasonal time scales, where evaporation can exceed precipitation, trends in wet season becoming wetter and dry season becoming drier are also found.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.350

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations99
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207