MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158591872 · doi:10.82308/13520

Polar amplification: what does the temperature feedback have to do with it?

2020· article· en· W3158591872 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Matthew Henry

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Subatomic Physics Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesCompute CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsPolarComputer scienceEnvironmental sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polar amplification is a robust feature of both climate models and observations, yet its causes are still under debate. A surface temperature change attribution method based on top-of-atmosphere energy budget changes shows that the temperature feedback is about as important as the surface albedo feedback in promoting polar amplification. This thesis further examines the role of the temperature feedback --- which can be decomposed into the Planck and lapse rate feedbacks --- in polar amplification using idealized climate models.The Planck feedback is less stabilizing at high latitudes because the temperature dependence of blackbody radiation, given by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, is nonlinear. Hence a cold body needs a larger increase in temperature to reach a given increase in radiation than a warm body. In Chapter 2, I test the role of the Planck feedback by linearizing the Stefan-Boltzmann law in a grey radiation model which makes the Planck feedback latitudinally constant. I find that it does not change the pattern of surface temperature change as the lapse rate feedback, the structure of the forcing, and the convergence of atmospheric energy transport also change. I do, however, show that the nonlinearity of the Stefan-Boltzmann law affects the vertical structure of temperature change through the cold-altitudes-warm-more mechanism.In Chapter 3, I decompose the drivers of polar amplification in an idealized climate model using a single column model and reach a better understanding of what causes the lapse rate change in high latitudes. My surface temperature change attribution method based on a single column model attributes most of the polar surface warming to an increase in longwave absorbers (CO2 and water vapor) in the absence of a polar surface forcing, whereas the atmospheric energy transport convergence preferentially warms the mid-troposphere. The addition of a polar surface forcing increases the total polar warming and reduces the dry component of atmospheric energy transport convergence.In Chapter 4, I investigate the role of the forcing dependence of the high latitude lapse rate feedback on the residual polar warming in solar radiation management scenarios. The high latitude surface temperature change is large given the relatively small input of energy from the CO2 forcing, solar forcing reduction, and reduction in atmospheric energy transport convergence. This is explained by a large lapse rate change: the warming from CO2 is very bottom-heavy, whereas the cooling from insolation and atmospheric energy transport convergence reduction is more vertically uniform.It was previously accepted that the Planck and lapse rate feedback are major contributors to polar amplification. In this thesis, I use a mechanism denial experiment to find that a latitudinally constant Planck feedback does not affect the amount of polar amplification. And, I use a single column model to better understand what shapes the vertical structure of temperature change at high latitudes

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicAtomic and Subatomic Physics ResearchFrench-language works237,207