MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3095542350 · doi:10.5194/esd-2020-48

The Fractional Energy Balance Equation for Climate projections through 2100

2020· article· en· W3095542350 on OpenAlexaff
Roman Procyk, S. Lovejoy, Raphaël Hébert

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsForcing (mathematics)IntermittencyRadiative forcingAerosolMathematicsEnvironmental scienceStatisticsPhysicsClimatologyMeteorologyAtmospheric sciencesGeologyTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. We produce climate projections through the 21st century using the fractional energy balance equation (FEBE) which is a generalization of the standard EBE. The FEBE can be derived either from Budyko–Sellers models or phenomenologically by applying the scaling symmetry to energy storage processes. It is easily implemented by changing the integer order of the storage (derivative) term in the EBE to a fractional value near 1/2. The FEBE has two shape parameters: a scaling exponent H and relaxation time τ; its amplitude parameter is the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). Two additional parameters were needed for the forcing: an aerosol re-calibration factor α to account for the large aerosol uncertainty, and a volcanic intermittency correction exponent ν. A Bayesian framework based on historical temperatures and natural and anthropogenic forcing series was used for parameter estimation. Significantly, the error model was not ad hoc, but was predicted by the model itself: the internal variability response to white noise internal forcing. The 90 % Confidence Interval (CI) of the shape parameters were H = [0.33, 0.44] (median = 0.38), τ = [2.4, 7.0] (median = 4.7) years compared to the usual EBE H = 1, and literature values τ typically in the range 2–8 years. We found that aerosols were too strong by an average factor α = [0.2, 1.0] (median = 0.6) and the volcanic intermittency correction exponent was ν = [0.15, 0.41] (median = 0.28) compared to standard values α = ν = 1. The overpowered aerosols support a revision of the global modern (2005) aerosol forcing 90 % CI to a narrower range [−1.0, −0.2] W m−2 compared with the IPCC AR5 range [1.5, 4.5] K (median = 3.2 K). Similarly, we found the transient climate sensitivity (TCR) = [1.2, 1.8] K (median = 1.5 K) compared to the AR5 range TCR = [1.0, 2.5] K (median = 1.8 K). As commonly seen in other observational-based studies, the FEBE values are therefore somewhat lower but still consistent with those in IPCC AR5. Using these parameters we made projections to 2100 using both the Representative Carbon Pathways (RCP) and Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP) scenarios and shown alongside the CMIP5/6 MME. The FEBE hindprojections (1880–2019) closely follow observations (notably during the hiatus, 1998–2015). Overall the FEBE were 10–15 % lower but due to their smaller uncertainties, their 90 % CIs lie completely within the GCM 90 % CIs. The FEBE thus complements and supports the GCMs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClimate variability and models→French-language works237,207→