Weighting climate model projections using observational constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Projected climate change integrates the net response to multiple climate feedbacks. Whereas existing long-term climate change projections are typically based on unweighted individual climate model simulations, as observed climate change intensifies it is increasingly becoming possible to constrain the net response to feedbacks and hence projected warming directly from observed climate change. One approach scales simulated future warming based on a fit to observations over the historical period, but this approach is only accurate for near-term projections and for scenarios of continuously increasing radiative forcing. For this reason, the recent Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR5) included such observationally constrained projections in its assessment of warming to 2035, but used raw model projections of longer term warming to 2100. Here a simple approach to weighting model projections based on an observational constraint is proposed which does not assume a linear relationship between past and future changes. This approach is used to weight model projections of warming in 2081-2100 relative to 1986-2005 under the Representative Concentration Pathway 4.5 forcing scenario, based on an observationally constrained estimate of the Transient Climate Response derived from a detection and attribution analysis. The resulting observationally constrained 5-95% warming range of 0.8-2.5 K is somewhat lower than the unweighted range of 1.1-2.6 K reported in the IPCC AR5.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".