MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210342269 · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-28283-y

Robust but weak winter atmospheric circulation response to future Arctic sea ice loss

2022· article· en· W4210342269 on OpenAlexaff
Doug Smith, Rosie Eade, Martin B. Andrews, Holly Ayres, Adam J. Clark, Svenya Chripko, Clara Deser, Nick Dunstone, Javier García‐Serrano, Guillaume Gastineau, Lise Seland Graff, Steven C. Hardiman, Bian He, Leon Hermanson, Thomas Jung, Jeff Knight, Xavier J. Levine, Guðrún Magnúsdóttir, Elisa Manzini, Daniela Matei, Masato Mori, Rym Msadek, Pablo Ortega, Yannick Peings, Adam A. Scaife, James A. Screen, Melissa Seabrook, Tido Semmler, Michael Sigmond, Jan Streffing, Lantao Sun, Amber Walsh

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilGrand Équipement National De Calcul IntensifHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeNorges ForskningsrådChinese Academy of SciencesBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungSight Research UKDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftU.S. Department of EnergyEuropean CommissionMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK GovernmentMet OfficeDeutsches KlimarechenzentrumNewton FundNational Center for Atmospheric ResearchNational Science Foundation
KeywordsWesterliesClimatologySea iceArcticArctic oscillationArctic sea ice declineArctic ice packArctic geoengineeringEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesAtmospheric circulationGeologyAntarctic sea iceOceanographyNorthern Hemisphere

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The possibility that Arctic sea ice loss weakens mid-latitude westerlies, promoting more severe cold winters, has sparked more than a decade of scientific debate, with apparent support from observations but inconclusive modelling evidence. Here we show that sixteen models contributing to the Polar Amplification Model Intercomparison Project simulate a weakening of mid-latitude westerlies in response to projected Arctic sea ice loss. We develop an emergent constraint based on eddy feedback, which is 1.2 to 3 times too weak in the models, suggesting that the real-world weakening lies towards the higher end of the model simulations. Still, the modelled response to Arctic sea ice loss is weak: the North Atlantic Oscillation response is similar in magnitude and offsets the projected response to increased greenhouse gases, but would only account for around 10% of variations in individual years. We further find that relationships between Arctic sea ice and atmospheric circulation have weakened recently in observations and are no longer inconsistent with those in models.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations221
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207