MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4220835675 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu22-13395

Impact of volcanic eruptions in CMIP6 decadal prediction systems: a multi-model analysis

2022· preprint· en· W4220835675 on OpenAlexaff
Roberto Bilbao, Panos Athanasiadis, Leon Hermanson, Emmanuel Mignot, Reinel Sospedra‐Alfonso, Didier Swingedouw, Xian Wu, Pablo Ortega

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolcanoClimatologyOcean gyreForcing (mathematics)Atmospheric sciencesEnvironmental scienceGeologyClimate modelClimate changeOceanographySubtropicsSeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent decades three major volcanic eruptions of different intensity have occurred: Mount Agung (1963), El Chichón (1982) and Mount Pinatubo (1991), with reported climate impacts on seasonal-to-decadal timescales and providing a high prediction potential. The Decadal Climate Prediction Project component C (DCPP-C) includes a protocol to investigate the impact of such volcanic eruptions on decadal prediction, which consists in performing initialised sets of predictions just before the three historical volcanic eruptions, but in which the volcanic aerosol forcing is excluded. The impact of the volcanic eruptions is therefore determined by comparing these new forecasts with those included in the corresponding retrospective prediction experiment DCPP-A, which include historical volcanic aerosol forcing. Here we present the results from six CMIP6 decadal prediction systems (CanESM5, CESM1, EC-Earth3, HadGEM3, IPSL-CM6A and CMCC-CM2-SR5). The global mean temperature cooling is comparable among models and consistent with previous studies. The surface temperature response pattern in the first years is similar across all the models and for the individual volcanic eruptions. At later forecast times (years 6-9), differences among the models and eruptions emerge. Preliminary results show that the volcanic eruptions impact the atmospheric and oceanic dynamics, as shown in previous studies, although some differences across models emerge, specifically on the ocean overturning and gyre circulation changes.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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 topicClimate variability and models→French-language works237,207→