Trends, variability and predictive skill of the ocean heat content in North Atlantic: An analysis with the EC-Earth3 model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the global climate is warming, with important regional differences, there is a growing need to (i) better understand whether and how internal variability controls the regional warming trends, and (ii) to identify the regions in which both the trends and the superimposed interannual variability are predictable. In this study we investigate trends, variability and predictive skill of the upper ocean heat content in the North Atlantic basin. This region is a source of decadal variability, in which internal ocean processes can locally modulate the global warming trends and add additional prediction skill. The analysis is focused on the period 1970-2014, and combines the study of an ensemble of ocean reanalyses, with two sets of CMIP6 experiments performed with the Earth system model EC-Earth3: (i) a 10-member historical ensemble; and (ii) an initialized 10-member retrospective decadal prediction system. External forcings are found to be important for the development of the regional trends, but on their own are unable to reproduce the exact geographical pattern. Our results also show that not all regions in the North Atlantic are equally predictable, which is explained by different contributions of the forcings and internal climate variability. While high levels of predictive skill in regions like the Eastern Subpolar North Atlantic, or the Irminger and Iceland Seas are clearly enabled by initialization, with a negligible influence of the external forcings, skill in others areas like the Subtropical North Atlantic, or the Gulf Stream extension mostly comes from the externally forced trends. The Labrador Sea is a particular case where predictive skill has both an external and internal origin. Large observational and modeling uncertainties affect the Central Subpolar North Atlantic, the only region exhibiting a cooling during the study period, uncertainties that might explain its very poor predictive skill. We would like to acknowledge the financial support from FCT through projects FCT-UIDB/50019/2020 and PD/BD/142785/2018.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".