On the Relative Robustness of the Climate Response to High‐Latitude and Low‐Latitude Warming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Two coupled climate models, CESM1 and CanESM2, are used to isolate the climate response to Arctic sea ice loss (high‐latitude warming). The sea ice loss and radiative forcing protocols differ between the sets of experiments. This response is compared to the remaining climate change signal, which is dominated by low‐latitude warming. Some aspects of the wintertime circulation response to sea ice loss are remarkably robust: warming over much of the high latitude and midlatitude; weak cooling over eastern Eurasia, strengthening of the Aleutian Low and Siberian High, equatorward intensification of the lower tropospheric winds, and increased precipitation over high latitudes. Pattern scaling separates the parts of the response that scale with low‐latitude warming and with sea ice loss. The thermal response patterns, for both sea ice loss and low‐latitude warming, are similar between the models. However, the circulation response patterns that scale with low‐latitude warming differ between the models. Preliminary evidence shows that these conclusions apply to other models driven by distinctive sea ice loss protocols.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".