Atmospheric Moisture Transport to the Arctic: Assessment of Reanalyses and Analysis of Transport Components
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The atmospheric water cycle of the Arctic is evaluated via seven global reanalyses and in radiosonde observations covering the 1979–2013 period. In the regional moisture budget, evaporation and precipitation are the least consistent terms among different datasets. Despite the assimilation of radiosoundings, the reanalyses present a tendency to overestimate the moisture transport. Aside from this overestimation, the reanalyses exhibit a remarkable agreement with the radiosondes in terms of spatial and temporal patterns. The northern North Atlantic, subpolar North Pacific, and Labrador Sea stand out as the main gateways for moisture to the Arctic in all reanalyses. Because these regions correspond to the end of the storm tracks, the link between moisture transports and extratropical cyclones is further investigated by decomposing the moisture fluxes in the mean flow and transient eddy parts. In all reanalyses, the former term tends to cancel out when averaged over a latitude circle, leaving the latter to provide the bulk of the midlatitude moisture imports (89%–94% at 70°N). Although the Arctic warms faster than the rest of the world, the impact of these changes on its water cycle remains ambiguous. In most datasets, evaporation, precipitation, and precipitable water increase in line with what is expected from a warming signal. At the same time, the moisture transports have decreased in all the reanalyses but not in the radiosonde observations, though none of these trends is statistically significant. The fluxes do not scale with the Clausius–Clapeyron relation because the increasing humidity is not correlated with the meridional wind, particularly near the surface.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".