Comparison of Early-Twentieth-Century Arctic Warming and Contemporary Arctic Warming in the Light of Daily and Subdaily Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A review of many studies published since the late 1920s reveals that the main driving mechanisms responsible for the early-twentieth-century Arctic warming (ETCAW) are not fully recognized. The main obstacle seems to be our limited knowledge about the climate of this period and some forcings. A deeper knowledge based on greater spatial and temporal resolution data is needed. The article provides new (or improved) knowledge about surface air temperature (SAT) conditions (including their extreme states) in the Arctic during the ETCAW. Daily and subdaily data have been used (mean daily air temperature, maximum and minimum daily temperature, and diurnal temperature range). These were taken from 10 individual years (selected from the period 1934–50) for six meteorological stations representing parts of five Arctic climatic regions. Standard SAT characteristics were analyzed (monthly, seasonal, and yearly means), as were rarely investigated aspects of SAT characteristics (e.g., number of characteristic days, day-to-day temperature variability, and the onset, end, and duration of thermal seasons). The results were compared with analogical calculations done for data taken from the contemporary Arctic warming (CAW) period (2007–16). The Arctic experienced warming between the ETCAW and the CAW. The magnitude of warming was greatest in the Pacific (2.7°C) and Canadian Arctic (1.9°C) regions. A shortening of winter and lengthening of summer were noted. Furthermore, the climate was also a little more continental (except the Russian Arctic) and less stable (greater day-to-day variability and diurnal temperature range) during the ETCAW than during the CAW. Significance Statement It is well established that human activity (particularly increased greenhouse gas emissions) is the primary driving mechanism of the recent dramatic warming in the Arctic. However, the causes of a similar warming here in the first half of the twentieth century remain uncertain. The limited knowledge about the climate of that period—which mainly results from the low resolution of data—is a significant obstacle to a definitive determination of the forcing mechanisms. Therefore, the main aim of our paper is to improve our understanding of specific aspects of weather and climate (including extremes) using long-term series of daily and subdaily data that have rarely been applied for this purpose. This new, more comprehensive knowledge about the historical Arctic climate should allow the scientific community (particularly climate modelers) to better validate both climate models and reanalysis products and, consequently, to more precisely identify the causes of the early-twentieth-century Arctic warming.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".