Thunderstorm activity at high latitudes observed at manned<scp>WMO</scp>weather stations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ongoing global warming particularly affects the coldest regions of our planet, where thunderstorm activity is considered to be the lowest. Scientific studies usually predict that lightning will become more frequent in polar areas in a warmer world. The aim of this study is to test this hypothesis and present the current knowledge on thunderstorm occurrence at high latitudes (>60°) based on SYNOP data from manned WMO stations operating from 2000 to 2019. According to this source, most thunderstorm events at high latitudes occur in summer (85%), when the air temperature ranges from 15 to 25°C (70%), during the days with positive temperature anomalies (75%) and negative sea‐level pressure anomalies (65%). The highest thunderstorm activity is observed over inland areas, especially in the European part of Russia. The changes in thunderstorm frequency are only visible at certain WMO manned stations and mostly during the summer months. The regional Kendall test revealed a statistically significant increase in the number of thunderstorm days north of 60°N in Interior Alaska, northwestern Canada, much of Siberia and European Russia. A decrease in thunderstorm frequency over a larger area was detected only on the shores of the southern Norwegian Sea, and seasonally in spring in the northern Urals. The observed trends were strongest in the Central Siberia and Interior Alaska regions, where the increase in the number of thunderstorm days exceeded 5 per decade. For the entire high‐latitude area, the change in the number of days with thunderstorms was statistically insignificant, but for stations located 250–1,000 km from the coastline, the averaged increase amounted 1 day per decade.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".