Revisiting the Relationship between Observed Warming and Surface Pressure in the Tibetan Plateau
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Tibetan Plateau (TP) has an average elevation of over 4000 m and with its surrounding mountains is regarded as Earth’s “third pole.” As a result of its size and height, climate change in the TP has its own unique characteristics that include a proposed positive correlation between the surface temperature and pressure. This study examines the trends and relationships between the surface pressure and temperature in the TP through the examination of monthly mean data from 71 stations during 1961–2013. On annual, seasonal, and monthly time scales, the TP exhibits a statistically significant warming trend that attains a rate of 0.30°C decade−1 for annual means over the period 1961–2013. The most pronounced warming occurs in winter, in agreement with previous studies, with evidence of acceleration in the rate after the mid-1980s and the global warming slowdown period. For the entire period of 1961–2013, the surface pressure in the TP has a positive trend of 0.08 hPa decade−1 on an annual basis, again with the largest trends occurring in winter. However, unlike what occurred with the surface temperature, the trend in surface pressure, in most cases, reversed sign after the mid-1980s. The trend in the geopotential height at 500 hPa from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction–National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCEP–NCAR) reanalysis is consistent with the observed surface pressure trends. Over the period 1961–2013, there is a seasonal shift in the nature of the relationship between the surface temperature and pressure with a negative correlation during summer and autumn, and a positive correlation during winter. This suggests that the nature of the relationship between these two climate elements reflects the changing nature of the seasonal snow cover (land surface property) and cloud in the region.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".