MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2341511228 · doi:10.1002/2016gl067931

Large‐scale ocean circulation‐cloud interactions reduce the pace of transient climate change

2016· article· en· W2341511228 on OpenAlexafffund
David S. Trossman, Jaime B. Palter, Timothy M. Merlis, Yi Huang, Yan Xia

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsCloud feedbackEnvironmental scienceClimatologyRadiative transferRadiative forcingRadiative fluxClimate changeAtmospheric sciencesGlobal warmingCloud forcingClimate modelRadiative coolingOcean currentClimate sensitivityMeteorologyGeologyOceanographyGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Changes to the large‐scale oceanic circulation are thought to slow the pace of transient climate change due, in part, to their influence on radiative feedbacks. Here we evaluate the interactions between CO 2 ‐forced perturbations to the large‐scale ocean circulation and the radiative cloud feedback in a climate model. Both the change of the ocean circulation and the radiative cloud feedback strongly influence the magnitude and spatial pattern of surface and ocean warming. Changes in the ocean circulation reduce the amount of transient global warming caused by the radiative cloud feedback by helping to maintain low cloud coverage in the face of global warming. The radiative cloud feedback is key in affecting atmospheric meridional heat transport changes and is the dominant radiative feedback mechanism that responds to ocean circulation change. Uncertainty in the simulated ocean circulation changes due to CO 2 forcing may contribute a large share of the spread in the radiative cloud feedback among climate models.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.724

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations64
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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