Evaluation of the Quasi‐Biennial Oscillation in global climate models for the SPARC QBO‐initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Quasi‐biennial oscillations (QBOs) in thirteen atmospheric general circulation models forced with both observed and annually repeating sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are evaluated. In most models the QBO period is close to, but shorter than, the observed period of 28 months. Amplitudes are within ±20% of the observed QBO amplitude at 10 hPa, but typically about half of that observed at lower altitudes (50 and 70 hPa). For almost all models, the oscillation's amplitude profile shows an overall upward shift compared to reanalysis and its meridional extent is too narrow. Asymmetry in the duration of eastward and westward phases is reasonably well captured, though not all models replicate the observed slowing of the descending westward shear. Westward phases are generally too weak, and most models have an eastward time mean wind bias throughout the depth of the QBO. The intercycle period variability is realistic and in some models is enhanced in the experiment with observed SSTs compared to the experiment with repeated annual cycle SSTs. Mean periods are also sensitive to this difference between SSTs, but only when parametrized non‐orographic gravity wave (NOGW) sources are coupled to tropospheric parameters and not prescribed with a fixed value. Overall, however, modelled QBOs are very similar whether or not the prescribed SSTs vary interannually. A portrait of the overall ensemble performance is provided by a normalized grading of QBO metrics. To simulate a QBO, all but one model used parametrized NOGWs, which provided the majority of the total wave forcing at altitudes above 70 hPa in most models. Hence the representation of NOGWs either explicitly or through parametrization is still a major uncertainty underlying QBO simulation in these present‐day experiments.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".