Sensitivity of Surface Temperature to Oceanic Forcing via <i>q</i>-Flux Green’s Function Experiments. Part II: Feedback Decomposition and Polar Amplification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A large set of Green’s function-type experiments is performed with q-flux forcings mimicking the effects of the ocean heat uptake (OHU) to examine the global surface air temperature (SAT) sensitivities to the location of the forcing. The result of the experiments confirms the earlier notion derived from experiments with different model complexities that the global mean SAT is far more sensitive to the oceanic forcing from high latitudes than the tropics. Remarkably, no matter in which latitude the q-flux forcings are placed, the SAT response is always characterized by a feature of polar amplification, implicating that it is intrinsic to our climate system. Considerable zonal asymmetry is also present in the efficacy of the tropical OHU, with the tropical eastern Pacific being much more efficient than the Indian Ocean and tropical Atlantic in driving global SAT warming by exciting the leading neutral mode of the SAT that projects strongly onto global mean warming. Using a radiative kernel, feedback analysis is also conducted to unravel the underlying processes responsible for the spatial heterogeneity in the global OHU efficacy, the polar amplification structures, and the tropical altruism of sharing the warmth with remote latitudes. Warming “altruism” for a q flux at a given latitude is also investigated in terms of the ratio of the induced remote latitudes versus the directly forced local warming. It is found that the tropics are much more altruistic than higher latitudes because of the high-energy transport efficiency of the Hadley circulation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".