MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220896139 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu22-5223

The Regional Fractional Energy Balance Equation: Projections to 2100

2022· preprint· en· W4220896139 on OpenAlexaff
Roman Procyk, S. Lovejoy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldChemistry
Topicthermodynamics and calorimetric analyses
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpan (engineering)MathematicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div> <p><span>We present the fractional energy balance equation (FEBE) which is a generalization of the standard EBE. The FEBE can be derived either from Budyko–Sellers models or phenomenologically by applying the scaling symmetry to energy storage processes. It is easily implemented by changing the integer order of the storage (derivative) term in the EBE to a fractional value near 1/2.</span><span> </span></p> </div><div> <p><span>The model used a Bayesian framework based on historical temperatures and natural and anthropogenic forcing series for parameter estimation. Significantly, the error model was not ad hoc, rather predicted by the model itself: the internal variability response to white noise internal forcing, a fraction Relaxation noise (fRn). Due to computational constraints, we employ a block bootstrapping method to calculate the likelihoods of our parameters in the Bayesian scheme. Notably we estimate the regional relaxation time directly from empirical data, generally it is calculated for various discrete surface types using heat capacities or globally from fitting a two-box model to GCM outputs, which to the authors knowledge has not been estimated prior to this study.</span><span> </span></p> </div><div> <p><span>The FEBE historical reconstructions (1880–2020) closely follow observations (notably during the “slowdown”, 1998–2015). We also reproduce the internal variability with the FEBE and statistically validate this against centennial scale temperature observations. We show the FEBE to plausibly reproduce the annual cycle at monthly resolution, in particular to explain the lag between the temperature maximum and the maximum in the radiative forcing.</span><span> </span></p> </div><div> <p><span>Using the calibrated FEBE we made temperature projections to 2100 using both the</span><span> </span><span>Representative Carbon Pathways (RCP) and Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP) scenarios,</span><span> </span><span>shown alongside the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase (CMIP) 5 and 6 multi-model ensemble (MME) at global and regional scales. </span><span> </span></p> </div>

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.761
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.290
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicthermodynamics and calorimetric analysesFrench-language works237,207