Quantifying stochastic uncertainty in detection time of human-caused climate signals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large initial condition ensembles of a climate model simulation provide many different realizations of internal variability noise superimposed on an externally forced signal. They have been used to estimate signal emergence time at individual grid points, but are rarely employed to identify global fingerprints of human influence. Here we analyze 50- and 40-member ensembles performed with 2 climate models; each was run with combined human and natural forcings. We apply a pattern-based method to determine signal detection time [Formula: see text] in individual ensemble members. Distributions of [Formula: see text] are characterized by the median [Formula: see text] and range [Formula: see text], computed for tropospheric and stratospheric temperatures over 1979 to 2018. Lower stratospheric cooling-primarily caused by ozone depletion-yields [Formula: see text] values between 1994 and 1996, depending on model ensemble, domain (global or hemispheric), and type of noise data. For greenhouse-gas-driven tropospheric warming, larger noise and slower recovery from the 1991 Pinatubo eruption lead to later signal detection (between 1997 and 2003). The stochastic uncertainty [Formula: see text] is greater for tropospheric warming (8 to 15 y) than for stratospheric cooling (1 to 3 y). In the ensemble generated by a high climate sensitivity model with low anthropogenic aerosol forcing, simulated tropospheric warming is larger than observed; detection times for tropospheric warming signals in satellite data are within [Formula: see text] ranges in 60% of all cases. The corresponding number is 88% for the second ensemble, which was produced by a model with even higher climate sensitivity but with large aerosol-induced cooling. Whether the latter result is physically plausible will require concerted efforts to reduce significant uncertainties in aerosol forcing.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".