The Program for climate Model diagnosis and Intercomparison: 20-th anniversary Symposium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twenty years ago, W. Lawrence (Larry) Gates approached the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Energy Research (now the Office of Science) with a plan to coordinate the comparison and documentation of climate model differences. This effort would help improve our understanding of climate change through a systematic approach to model intercomparison. Early attempts at comparing results showed a surprisingly large range in control climate from such parameters as cloud cover, precipitation, and even atmospheric temperature. The DOE agreed to fund the effort at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), in part because of the existing computing environment and because of a preexisting atmospheric science group that contained a wide variety of expertise. The project was named the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI), and it has changed the international landscape of climate modeling over the past 20 years. In spring 2009 the DOE hosted a 1-day symposium to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of PCMDI and to honor its founder, Larry Gates. Through their personal experiences, the morning presenters painted an image of climate science in the 1970s and 1980s, that generated early support from the international community for model intercomparison, thereby bringing PCMDI into existence. Four talks covered Gates's early contributions to climate research at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), the RAND Corporation, and Oregon State University through the founding of PCMDI to coordinate the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP). The speakers were, in order of presentation, Warren Washington [National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)], Kelly Redmond (Western Regional Climate Center), George Boer (Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis), and Lennart Bengtsson [University of Reading, former director of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF)]. The afternoon session emphasized the scientific ideas that are the basis of PCMDI's success, summarizing their evolution and impact. Four speakers followed the various PCMDI-supported climate model intercomparison projects, beginning with early work on cloud representations in models, presented by Robert D. Cess (Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Stony Brook University), and then the latest Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Projects (CFMIPs) led by Sandrine Bony (Laboratoire de M'©t'©orologie Dynamique). Benjamin Santer (LLNL) presented a review of the climate change detection and attribution (D & A) work pioneered at PCMDI, and Gerald A. Meehl (NCAR) ended the day with a look toward the future of climate change research.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.019 |
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".