Future Projections of the Large‐Scale Meteorology Associated with California Heat Waves in CMIP5 Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Previous work showed that climate models capture historical large‐scale meteorological patterns (LSMPs) associated with California Central Valley heat waves including both ways these heat waves form. This work examines what models predict under the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios. Model performance varies, so a multimodel average weights each model based on its historical performance in four parameters. An LSMP index (LSMPi) defined using upper atmosphere variables captures dates of past extreme surface temperature maxima. LSMPi correlates well with all values of California Central Valley‐average surface maximum temperature. LSMPi distributions in future simulations shift ~0.6 standard deviations higher between 1961–2000 and 2061–2100 for RCP8.5 data. Based on the historical climatology, future scenarios show a large increase in the frequency and duration of heat waves in every model. Four times as many heat waves occur and their median duration doubles, using historical thresholds. Of the two ways heat waves form, Type 1 has similar frequency in the future. But, Type 2 becomes much more common because Type 2 has a preexisting hot anomaly in Southwestern Canada, much like the historical to future climatological change in that region (a “global warming” signal). The 20‐year return value anomaly increases by 30–40%. The average of the 50 hottest temperatures increases 3.5–6 K depending on the scenario. When extreme values are defined using the future climatology, the models and their average have no consistent increase or decrease of distribution properties such as shape, scale, and return values of the extremes compared to historical values.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".