MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4236551386 · doi:10.5194/cp-2019-165

A multi-model CMIP6 study of Arctic sea ice at 127 ka: Sea ice datacompilation and model differences

2020· preprint· en· W4236551386 on OpenAlexafffund
Masa Kageyama, Louise C. Sime, Marie Sicard, Maria Vittoria Guarino, Anne de Vernal, David Schröeder, Ruediger Stein, Irene Malmierca‐Vallet, Ayako Abe‐Ouchi, Cecilia M. Bitz, Pascale Braconnot, Esther C. Brady, Matthew A. Chamberlain, Chuncheng Guo, Gerrit Lohmann, Katrin J. Meißner, Laurie Menviel, Polina Morozova, Kerim H. Nisancioglu, Bette L. Otto‐Bliesner, Ryouta O’ishi, Sam Sherriff‐Tadano, Xiaoxu Shi, Bo Sun, E. M. Volodin, Nicholas K. H. Yeung, Qiong Zhang, Zhongshi Zhang, Tilo Ziehn

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNational Supercomputer Centre, Linköpings UniversitetHorizon 2020Fonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Environment Research CouncilCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaAustralian Research CouncilNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationSight Research UKNational Science CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean Commission
KeywordsSea iceClimatologyArcticOceanographyCryosphereClimate modelArctic ice packClimate changeGeologyInterglacialEnvironmental sciencePhysical geographyGlacial periodGeographyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The Last interglacial (LIG) is a period with increased summer insolation at high northern latitudes, which results in strong changes in the terrestrial and marine cryosphere. Understanding the mechanisms for this response via climate modelling and comparing the models’ representation of climate reconstructions is one of the objectives set up by the Paleoclimate Mod-elling Intercomparison Project for its contribution to the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. Here we analyse the results from 12 climate models in terms of Arctic sea ice. The mean pre-industrial to LIG reduction in minimum sea ice area (SIA) reaches 59 % (multi-model mean LIG area is 2.21 mill. km2, compared to 5.85 mill. km2 for the PI), and the range of model results for LIG minimum sea ice area (from 0.02 to 5.65 mill. km2) is larger than for PI (from 4.10 to 8.30 mill. km2). On the other hand there is little change for the maximum sea ice area (which is 12 mill. km2 for both the PI and the LIG, with a standard deviation of 1.04 mill. km2 for PI and 1.21 mill. km2 for LIG). To evaluate the model results we synthesize LIG sea ice data from marine cores collected in the Arctic Ocean, Nordic Seas and northern North Atlantic. South of 78° N in the Atlantic and Nordic seas the LIG was seasonally ice-free. North of 78° N there are some discrepancies between sea-ice re-constructions based on dinocysts/foraminifers/ostracods and IP25: some sites have both seasonal and perennial interpretations based on the same core, but different indicators. Because of the conflicting interpretations it is not possible for any one model to match every data point in our data synthesis, or say whether the Arctic was seasonally ice-free. Drivers for the inter-model differences are: different phasing of the up and down short-wave anomalies over the Arctic ocean, associated with differences in model albedo; possible cloud property differences, in terms of optical depth; LIG ocean circulation changes which occur for some, but not all, LIG simulations. Finally we note that inter-comparisons between the LIG simulations, and simulations with moderate CO2 increase (during the transition to high CO2 levels), may yield insight into likely 21C Arctic sea ice changes using these LIG simulations.

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)0.002
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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research→French-language works237,207→