Is Arctic Amplification Dominated by Regional Radiative Forcing and Feedbacks: Perspectives From the World‐Avoided Scenario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Arctic amplification (AA) is typically associated with Planck, lapse rate, and ice albedo feedbacks. However, the relative importance of poleward energy transport on AA remains uncertain. Here, we analyze integrations from a Chemistry Climate Model to investigate the impact of the Montreal Protocol on forcing, feedback, and transport contributions to AA. Two ensembles of future integrations are considered—one projecting decreasing ozone‐depleting substance concentrations and stratospheric ozone recovery and another assuming that ozone‐depleting substances are not regulated (the “World Avoided”). We find similar degrees of AA in both ensembles, despite a negative radiative forcing over the Arctic in the “World Avoided” from massive ozone loss. That negative radiative forcing is primarily balanced from positive atmospheric energy flux convergence and long‐wave cloud feedbacks. Our results highlight the impact of inhomogeneous radiative forcing on regional differences in forcing and feedback strength and the importance of radiative forcing meridional structure on poleward energy transport.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".