Simulated Historical (1901–2010) Changes in the Permafrost Extent and Active Layer Thickness in the Northern Hemisphere
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A growing body of simulation research has considered the dynamics of permafrost, which has an important role in the climate system of a warming world. Previous studies have concentrated on the future degradation of permafrost based on global climate models (GCMs) or data from GCMs. An accurate estimation of historical changes in permafrost is required to understand the relations between changes in permafrost and the Earth's climate and to validate the results from GCMs. Using the Community Land Model 4.5 driven by the Climate Research Unit ‐National Centers for Environmental Prediction (CRUNCEP) atmospheric data set and observations of changes in soil temperature and active layer thickness and present‐day areal extent of permafrost, this study investigated the changes in permafrost in the Northern Hemisphere from 1901 to 2010. The results showed that the model can reproduce the interannual variations in the observed soil temperature and active layer thickness. The simulated area of present‐day permafrost fits well with observations, with a bias of 2.02 × 106 km2. The area of permafrost decreased by 0.06 (0.62) × 106 km2 decade−1 from 1901 to 2009 (1979 to 2009). A clear decrease in the area of permafrost was found in response to increases in air temperatures during the period from about the 1930s to the 1940s, indicating that permafrost is sensitive to even a temporary increase in temperature. From a regional perspective, high‐elevation permafrost decreases at a faster rate than high‐latitude permafrost; permafrost in China shows the fastest rate of decrease, followed by Alaska, Russia, and Canada. Discrepancies in the rate of decrease in the extent of permafrost among different regions were mostly linked to the sensitivity of permafrost in the regions to increases in air temperatures rather than to the amplitude of the increase in air temperatures. An increase in the active layer thickness of 0.009 (0.071) m decade−1 was shown during the period of 1901–2009 (1979–2009). These results are useful in understanding the response of permafrost to a historical warming climate and for validating the results from GCMs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".