Robustness of CMIP6 Historical Global Mean Temperature Simulations: Trends, Long‐Term Persistence, Autocorrelation, and Distributional Shape
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Multi‐model climate experiments carried out as part of different phases of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) are crucial to evaluate past and future climate change. The reliability of models' simulations is often gauged by their ability to reproduce the historical climate across many time scales. This study compares the global mean surface air temperature from 29 CMIP6 models with observations from three datasets. We examine (1) warming and cooling rates in five subperiods from 1880 to 2014, (2) autocorrelation and long‐term persistence, (3) models' performance based on probabilistic and entropy metrics, and (4) the distributional shape of temperature. All models simulate the observed long‐term warming trend from 1880 to 2014. The late twentieth century warming (1975–2014) and the hiatus (1942–1975) are replicated by most models. The post‐1998 warming is overestimated in 90% of the simulations. Only six out of 29 models reproduce the observed long‐term persistence. All models show differences in distributional shape when compared with observations. Varying performance across metrics reveals the challenge to determine the “best” model. Thus, we argue that models should be selected, based on case‐specific metrics, depending on the intended use. Metrics proposed here facilitate a comprehensive assessment for various applications.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it