MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2741158289 · doi:10.1177/0958305x17722790

Back radiation versus CO <sub>2</sub> as the cause of climate change

2017· article· en· W2741158289 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Environment · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtmosphere (unit)Atmospheric sciencesEnvironmental scienceWater vaporClimate changeTroposphereAtmospheric temperatureLimitingClimatologyMeteorologyGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Robust scientific evidence shows the sun angle controls water vapour content of the atmosphere, the main component of back radiation, as it cycles annually. Water vapour content measured as the ratio of the number of water molecules to CO 2 molecules varies from 1:1 near the Poles to 97:1 in the Tropics. The effect of back radiation on Earth’s atmosphere is up to 200 times larger than that of CO 2 and works in the opposite direction. Thus, if CO 2 has any effect on atmospheric temperature and climate change we show it is negligible. Consequently, current government policies to control atmospheric temperature by limiting consumption of fossil fuels will have negligible effect. Measured data reported in IPCC report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis ( AR5) indicate increased water vapour content of the atmosphere is the cause of the 0.5℃ temperature increase from the mid-1970s to 2011.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.203 · 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