MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220713914 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu22-8090

The Gleissberg (~85 year) and other periodicities in the flood cycles of the Brahmaputra River past present and future; implications for possible global mechanisms

2022· preprint· en· W4220713914 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Asten, K. G. McCracken

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsCargill (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythMaximaLatitudeLow latitudeEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)GeologyGeographyHistoryGeodesy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Asten and McCracken (AGU 2021, paper H45Z-12) note strong ~85 and ~50 year periodicities in flood data and lake level data in NSW, south-east Australia. We now compare data sets for the Brahmaputra River (latitude 25⁰N) 1800-2000CE with Lake George (latitude 35⁰S) levels 1820-2020CE. Both data sets show a pair of dominant spectral maxima at 80 and 50 year periods. A study by Rao et al (2020) of observed and reconstructed discharge of the Brahmaputra shows only limited correlation of discharge rates with recorded floods. We use a record of Oceanic Nino Index 1870-2021CE (McNoldy, 2021) to compare with floods and find that for time 1875-2010, 14 of 17 observed floods associate with La Nina events. However there were 27 La Nina events in this interval hence as a working hypothesis LaNina events are close to being a necessary condition (~82%) for floods but not a sole determinant. We use spectral analysis to locate multi-decadal natural cycles which also influence discharge levels and flood frequency. The Brahmaputra discharge rate data extends back to year 1309CE (Rao et al, 2020). The power spectrum shows a series of strong maxima, especially at 242, 132, 90, &75year periods similar to those in 14C and 10Be records for the Holocene. The entire record can be fitted using a model of 8 sinusoids, leaving only a 20% residual variance. The model allows extrapolation of the discharge rate into the future and predicts an above-average discharge for years 1995-2040CE, peaking ~2020. This predicted time-span of above-average discharge is based on natural frequencies embedded in the record and does not include any possible influences from 21st-century global warming. The prediction appears closer to the observed increase post-2000, than does a prediction based on CMIP5 models as provided in the Rao etal (2020) paper. A further test of the efficacy of the discharge curve fitting method is provided by limiting the observed data to years 1309-1900CE, then projecting the model to 2200. The projected curve from 1900 replicates the observed dry period 1950-1995 and validates the hypothesis that the dry period was not an unusual event but was part of the natural cycles as reconstructed since 1309. The projected curve from 1900 also closely follows the model based on all data to 2010 in predicting the above-average discharge rates 1995-2040. As noted above both data sets show a pair of dominant spectral maxima at 80 and 50year periods. The similarity between the spectra invites a hypothesis that the long-period natural cycles at both locations have a common origin, possibly solar-related rather than being of local atmospheric/oceanic origin. A key difference is that the phases of the spectral maxima are reversed for the two sites. Physical mechanisms producing these dominant periods for the 19th and 20th centuries, and the phase difference between the northern and southern hemisphere sites are not yet known. They could be related to variations in solar insolation, cosmic-ray ionization of cloud cover, or mode changes in global ocean current systems driven by unknown external forcing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207