Improving the Estimation of Human Climate Influence by Selecting Appropriate Forcing Simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The regression‐based optimal fingerprinting is a key tool for quantifying human climate influence. Most studies over the past decade used Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) simulations, limiting fingerprinting regression configuration options. The CMIP6 Detection and Attribution Model Intercomparison Project (DAMIP) provides several types of individual forcing simulations and thus greater configuration flexibility. To avoid overfitting the limited observational data, we suggest that a DAMIP‐based perfect model study is first used to best configure the fingerprinting regression prior to its application to observations. We find that a regression using all‐forcing, aerosol‐only, and natural‐only simulations is an overall best option for constraining human‐induced global terrestrial warming, which differs from choices commonly made previously. Applying this configuration to observations, we estimate that of the observed terrestrial warming of ∼1.5°C between 1850–1900 and 2011–2020, anthropogenic greenhouse gases contributed 1.4 to 2.3°C, offset by aerosol cooling of 0.2 to 1.2°C.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".