Response of the Quasi‐Biennial Oscillation to a warming climate in global climate models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We compare the response of the Quasi‐Biennial Oscillation (QBO) to a warming climate in eleven atmosphere general circulation models that performed time‐slice simulations for present‐day, doubled, and quadrupled CO2 climates. No consistency was found among the models for the QBO period response, with the period decreasing by 8 months in some models and lengthening by up to 13 months in others in the doubled CO2 simulations. In the quadrupled CO2 simulations, a reduction in QBO period of 14 months was found in some models, whereas in several others the tropical oscillation no longer resembled the present‐day QBO, although it could still be identified in the deseasonalized zonal mean zonal wind timeseries. In contrast, all the models projected a decrease in the QBO amplitude in a warmer climate with the largest relative decrease near 60 hPa. In simulations with doubled and quadrupled CO2, the multi‐model mean QBO amplitudes decreased by 36 and 51%, respectively. Across the models the differences in the QBO period response were most strongly related to how the gravity wave momentum flux entering the stratosphere and tropical vertical residual velocity responded to the increases in CO2 amounts. Likewise it was found that the robust decrease in QBO amplitudes was correlated across the models to changes in vertical residual velocity, parametrized gravity wave momentum fluxes, and to some degree the resolved upward wave flux. We argue that uncertainty in the representation of the parameterized gravity waves is the most likely cause of the spread among the eleven models in the QBO's response to climate change.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".