How Asymmetries Between Arctic and Antarctic Climate Sensitivity Are Modified by the Ocean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We investigate how the ocean response to CO2 forcing affects hemispheric asymmetries in polar climate sensitivity. Intermodel comparison of Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project CO2 quadrupling experiments shows that even in models where hemispheric ocean heat uptake differences are small, Arctic warming still exceeds Antarctic warming. The polar climate impact of this evolving ocean response to CO2 forcing is then isolated using slab ocean experiments in a state‐of‐the‐art climate model. Overall, feedbacks over the Southern Hemisphere more effectively dissipate top‐of‐atmosphere anomalies than those over the Northern Hemisphere. Furthermore, a poleward shift in ocean heat convergence in both hemispheres amplifies destabilizing ice albedo and lapse rate feedbacks over the Arctic much more so than over the Antarctic. These results suggest that the Arctic is intrinsically more sensitive to both CO2 and oceanic forcings than the Antarctic and that ocean‐driven climate sensitivity asymmetry arises from feedback destabilization over the Arctic rather than feedback stabilization over the Antarctic.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".