Climate Model Assessment of Changes in Winter–Spring Streamflow Timing over North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Over regions where snowmelt runoff substantially contributes to winter–spring streamflows, warming can accelerate snowmelt and reduce dry-season streamflows. However, conclusive detection of changes and attribution to anthropogenic forcing is hindered by the brevity of observational records, model uncertainty, and uncertainty concerning internal variability. In this study, the detection/attribution of changes in midlatitude North American winter–spring streamflow timing is examined using nine global climate models under multiple forcing scenarios. Robustness across models, start/end dates for trends, and assumptions about internal variability are evaluated. Marginal evidence for an emerging detectable anthropogenic influence (according to four or five of nine models) is found in the north-central United States, where winter–spring streamflows have been starting earlier. Weaker indications of detectable anthropogenic influence (three of nine models) are found in the mountainous western United States/southwestern Canada and in the extreme northeastern United States/Canadian Maritimes. In the former region, a recent shift toward later streamflows has rendered the full-record trend toward earlier streamflows only marginally significant, with possible implications for previously published climate change detection findings for streamflow timing in this region. In the latter region, no forced model shows as large a shift toward earlier streamflow timing as the detectable observed shift. In other (including warm, snow free) regions, observed trends are typically not detectable, although in the U.S. central plains we find detectable delays in streamflow, which are inconsistent with forced model experiments.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".