Cyclone Activity in the Arctic From an Ensemble of Regional Climate Models (Arctic CORDEX)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The ability of state‐of‐the‐art regional climate models to simulate cyclone activity in the Arctic is assessed based on an ensemble of 13 simulations from 11 models from the Arctic‐CORDEX initiative. Some models employ large‐scale spectral nudging techniques. Cyclone characteristics simulated by the ensemble are compared with the results forced by four reanalyses (ERA‐Interim, National Centers for Environmental Prediction‐Climate Forecast System Reanalysis, National Aeronautics and Space Administration‐Modern‐Era Retrospective analysis for Research and Applications Version 2, and Japan Meteorological Agency‐Japanese 55‐year reanalysis) in winter and summer for 1981–2010 period. In addition, we compare cyclone statistics between ERA‐Interim and the Arctic System Reanalysis reanalyses for 2000–2010. Biases in cyclone frequency, intensity, and size over the Arctic are also quantified. Variations in cyclone frequency across the models are partly attributed to the differences in cyclone frequency over land. The variations across the models are largest for small and shallow cyclones for both seasons. A connection between biases in the zonal wind at 200 hPa and cyclone characteristics is found for both seasons. Most models underestimate zonal wind speed in both seasons, which likely leads to underestimation of cyclone mean depth and deep cyclone frequency in the Arctic. In general, the regional climate models are able to represent the spatial distribution of cyclone characteristics in the Arctic but models that employ large‐scale spectral nudging show a better agreement with ERA‐Interim reanalysis than the rest of the models. Trends also exhibit the benefits of nudging. Models with spectral nudging are able to reproduce the cyclone trends, whereas most of the nonnudged models fail to do so. However, the cyclone characteristics and trends are sensitive to the choice of nudged variables.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".