Decomposing the Drivers of Polar Amplification with a Single-Column Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The precise mechanisms driving Arctic amplification are still under debate. Previous attribution methods compute the vertically uniform temperature change required to balance the top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance caused by each forcing and feedback, with any departures from vertically uniform warming collected into the lapse-rate feedback. We propose an alternative attribution method using a single-column model that accounts for the forcing dependence of high-latitude lapse-rate changes. We examine this method in an idealized general circulation model (GCM), finding that, even though the column-integrated carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) forcing and water vapor feedback are stronger in the tropics, they contribute to polar-amplified surface warming as they produce bottom-heavy warming in high latitudes. A separation of atmospheric temperature changes into local and remote contributors shows that, in the absence of polar surface forcing (e.g., sea ice retreat), changes in energy transport are primarily responsible for the polar-amplified pattern of warming. The addition of surface forcing substantially increases polar surface warming and reduces the contribution of atmospheric dry static energy transport to the warming. This physically based attribution method can be applied to comprehensive GCMs to provide a clearer view of the mechanisms behind Arctic amplification.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".