MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111800415 · doi:10.1007/s00382-020-05521-x

An observation-based scaling model for climate sensitivity estimates and global projections to 2100

2020· article· en· W3111800415 on OpenAlexafffund
Raphaël Hébert, S. Lovejoy, Bruno Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueClimate Dynamics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOffice of Polar ProgramsAlfred-Wegener-Institut, Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar- und Meeresforschung
KeywordsScalingClimatologyFunction (biology)Sensitivity (control systems)ExponentStatistical physicsClimate modelExploitGeneral Circulation ModelSymmetry (geometry)Climate changeMathematicsComputer sciencePhysicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We directly exploit the stochasticity of the internal variability, and the linearity of the forced response to make global temperature projections based on historical data and a Green’s function, or Climate Response Function (CRF). To make the problem tractable, we take advantage of the temporal scaling symmetry to define a scaling CRF characterized by the scaling exponent H , which controls the long-range memory of the climate, i.e. how fast the system tends toward a steady-state, and an inner scale $$\tau \approx 2$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>τ</mml:mi> <mml:mo>≈</mml:mo> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> years below which the higher-frequency response is smoothed out. An aerosol scaling factor and a non-linear volcanic damping exponent were introduced to account for the large uncertainty in these forcings. We estimate the model and forcing parameters by Bayesian inference which allows us to analytically calculate the transient climate response and the equilibrium climate sensitivity as: $$1.7^{+0.3} _{-0.2}$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> <mml:mo>.</mml:mo> <mml:msubsup> <mml:mn>7</mml:mn> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>-</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0.2</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0.3</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msubsup> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> K and $$2.4^{+1.3} _{-0.6}$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> <mml:mo>.</mml:mo> <mml:msubsup> <mml:mn>4</mml:mn> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>-</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0.6</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1.3</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msubsup> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> K respectively (likely range). Projections to 2100 according to the RCP 2.6, 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios yield warmings with respect to 1880–1910 of: $$1.5^{+0.4}_{-0.2}K$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> <mml:mo>.</mml:mo> <mml:msubsup> <mml:mn>5</mml:mn> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>-</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0.2</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0.4</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msubsup> <mml:mi>K</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> , $$2.3^{+0.7}_{-0.5}$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> <mml:mo>.</mml:mo> <mml:msubsup> <mml:mn>3</mml:mn> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>-</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0.5</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0.7</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msubsup> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> K and $$4.2^{+1.3}_{-0.9}$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>4</mml:mn> <mml:mo>.</mml:mo> <mml:msubsup> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>-</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0.9</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1.3</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msubsup> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> K. These projection estimates are lower than the ones based on a Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 multi-model ensemble; more importantly, their uncertainties are smaller and only depend on historical temperature and forcing series. The key uncertainty is due to aerosol forcings; we find a modern (2005) forcing value of $$[-1.0, -0.3]\, \,\,\mathrm{Wm} ^{-2}$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>[</mml:mo> <mml:mo>-</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1.0</mml:mn> <mml:mo>,</mml:mo> <mml:mo>-</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0.3</mml:mn> <mml:mo>]</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> <mml:mspace/> <mml:mspace/> <mml:mspace/> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>Wm</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>-</mml:mo> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> (90 % confidence interval) with median at $$-0.7 \,\,\mathrm{Wm} ^{-2}$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>-</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0.7</mml:mn> <mml:mspace/> <mml:mspace/> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>Wm</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>-</mml:mo> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> . Projecting to 2100, we find that to keep the warming below 1.5 K, future emissions must undergo cuts similar to RCP 2.6 for which the probability to remain under 1.5 K is 48 %. RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5-like futures overshoot with very high probability.

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 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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.201
Threshold uncertainty score0.893

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations32
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClimate DynamicsSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207