On the pattern of CO<sub>2</sub> radiative forcing and poleward energy transport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A set of general circulation model experiments are conducted to analyze how the poleward energy transport (PET) is related to the spatial pattern of CO 2 radiative forcing. The effects of forcing pattern are affirmed by comparing the conventional doubling CO 2 experiment, in which the forcing pattern is inhomogeneous, to a set of forcing homogenization experiments, in which the top of atmosphere (TOA), surface, or atmospheric forcing distribution is homogenized respectively. In addition, we separate and compare the effects of CO 2 forcing to various feedbacks on atmospheric and oceanic PETs, by using a set of radiative kernels that we have developed for both TOA and surface radiation fluxes. The results here show that both the enhancement of atmospheric PET and weakening of oceanic PET during global warming are directly driven by the meridional gradients of the CO 2 forcing. Interestingly, the overall feedback effect is to reinforce the forcing effect, mainly through the cloud feedback in the case of atmospheric PET and the albedo feedback in the case of the oceanic PET. Contrary to previous studies, we find that the water vapor feedback only has a weak effect on atmospheric PET. The Arctic warming amplification, which strongly affects atmospheric PET, is sensitive to the CO 2 forcing pattern.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".