MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006357613 · doi:10.5194/npg-27-391-2020

Anthropocene climate bifurcation

2020· article· en· W3006357613 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNonlinear processes in geophysics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPaleoclimatologyClimate changeAnthropoceneClimatologyClimate modelClimate stateGreenhouse gasEnvironmental scienceArcticBifurcationGeologyAtmospheric sciencesGlobal warmingEffects of global warmingNonlinear systemOceanographyPaleontologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. This article presents the results of a bifurcation analysis of a simple energy balance model (EBM) for the future climate of the Earth. The main focus is on the following question: can the nonlinear processes intrinsic to atmospheric physics, including natural positive feedback mechanisms, cause a mathematical bifurcation of the climate state, as a consequence of continued anthropogenic forcing by rising greenhouse gas emissions? Our analysis shows that such a bifurcation could cause an abrupt change to a drastically different climate state in the EBM, which is warmer and more equable than any climate existing on Earth since the Pliocene epoch. In previous papers, with this EBM adapted to paleoclimate conditions, it was shown to exhibit saddle-node and cusp bifurcations, as well as hysteresis. The EBM was validated by the agreement of its predicted bifurcations with the abrupt climate changes that are known to have occurred in the paleoclimate record, in the Antarctic at the Eocene–Oligocene transition (EOT) and in the Arctic at the Pliocene–Paleocene transition (PPT). In this paper, the EBM is adapted to fit Anthropocene climate conditions, with emphasis on the Arctic and Antarctic climates. The four Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) considered by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) are used to model future CO2 concentrations, corresponding to different scenarios of anthropogenic activity. In addition, the EBM investigates four naturally occurring nonlinear feedback processes which magnify the warming that would be caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions alone. These four feedback mechanisms are ice–albedo feedback, water vapour feedback, ocean heat transport feedback, and atmospheric heat transport feedback. The EBM predicts that a bifurcation resulting in a catastrophic climate change, to a pre-Pliocene-like climate state, will occur in coming centuries for an RCP with unabated anthropogenic forcing, amplified by these positive feedbacks. However, the EBM also predicts that appropriate reductions in carbon emissions may limit climate change to a more tolerable continuation of what is observed today. The globally averaged version of this EBM has an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of 4.34 K, near the high end of the likely range reported by the IPCC.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it