MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220848501 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu22-10282

Using CMIP6 simulations to assess significance of an AMOC trend seen by the RAPID array

2022· preprint· en· W4220848501 on OpenAlexaff
David Straub, Richard Kelson, Carolina O. Dufour

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStandard deviationVariance (accounting)Spectral densityTerm (time)EconometricsEnvironmental scienceBinClimatologyStatisticsMathematicsPhysicsEconomicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Observations between 2004 and 2020 at the RAPID array suggest a weakening trend in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). To assess the significance of this trend, trends that one might expect from natural variabilty in a time series of this length are assessed using CMIP6 pre-industrial simulations. The observed trend is not found to be statistically significant relative to this benchmark. Both the observed trend and the standard deviation of short-term model trends are found to decrease in magnitude with time. The rate of decrease, however, is faster for the observed trend, further calling into question its significance. To clarify how variability in short-term model trends is related to power spectra of modelled AMOC strength, a conceptual model is developed. Essentially, trend variance is represented by a random walk in which there is one step for each frequency bin of the power spectrum (with step size determined by the frequency and variance of the bin in question). Most models are found underestimate interannual variability in AMOC strength; however, it is the variability at somewhat longer time scales that most influences model trends. This variability is represented quite differently between the various CMIP6 models. The conceptual model is also used to illustrate how the detectability threshold for trend detection (i.e., the 2 sigma level in a PDF of short-term model trends) is altered by the addition of noise added to make AMOC variance more in line with observations.

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)0.002
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 score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207