Climate change attribution with large ensembles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The large sample sizes from single-model large ensembles are beneficial for a robust attribution of climate changes to anthropogenic forcing. This presentation will review examples using large ensembles in two types of attribution: standard detection and attribution of spatio-temporal changes and extreme event attribution. First, increases in extreme precipitation have been attributed to anthropogenic forcing at large scales (global and hemispheric). We present results from a study that used three large ensembles, including two Earth System Models and one Regional Climate Model, to find a robust detection of a combined anthropogenic and natural forcing signal in the intensification of extreme precipitation at the continental scale and some regional scales in North America. Second, we use six large ensembles to assess the robustness of the attribution of extreme temperature and precipitation events. An event attribution framework is used and each large ensemble is treated as a perfect model. Robustness of the attribution is defined based on consistent agreement between the different models on a significant change in the probability of an event with the inclusion of anthropogenic forcing. We demonstrate that the attribution of extreme temperature events is robust. Meanwhile, the attribution of extreme precipitation events becomes robust in many regions under additional warming, but uncertainties pertaining to changes in atmospheric dynamics hinder attribution confidence in other regions. We also demonstrate that smaller ensembles bring larger uncertainty to event attribution.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".