A method for investigating the relative importance of three components in overall uncertainty of climate projections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate model response (M) and greenhouse gas emissions (S) uncertainties are consistently estimated as spreads of multi‐model and multi‐scenario climate change projections. There has been less agreement in estimating internal climate variability (V). In recent years, an initial condition ensemble (ICE) of a climate model has been developed to study V. ICE is simulated by running a climate model using an identical climate forcing but different initial conditions. Inter‐member differences of an ICE manifestly represent V. However, ICE has been barely used to investigate relative importance of climate change uncertainties. Accordingly, this study proposes a method of using ICEs, without assuming V as constant, for investigating the relative importance of climate change uncertainties and its temporal–spatial variation. Prior to investigating temporal–spatial variation in China, V estimated using ICE was compared to that using multi‐model individual time series at national scale. Results show that V using ICE is qualitatively similar to that using multi‐model individual time series for temperature. However, V is not constant for average and extreme precipitations. V and M dominate before 2050s especially for precipitation. S is dominant in the late 21st century especially for temperature. Mean temperature change is projected to be 30–70% greater than its uncertainty until 2050s, while uncertainty becomes 10–40% greater than the change in the late 21st century. Precipitation change uncertainty overwhelms its change by 70–150% throughout 21st century. Cold regions (e.g., northern China and Qinghai‐Tibetan Plateau) tend to have greater temperature change uncertainties. In dry regions (e.g., northwest China), all three uncertainties tend to be great for changes in average and extreme precipitations. This study emphasizes the importance of considering climate change uncertainty in impact studies, especially taking into account that V is irreducible in the future. Using ICEs without assuming V as constant is an appropriate approach to study climate change uncertainty.
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 | 0.010 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".