MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4238194565 · doi:10.5194/acp-2020-1296

Present and future aerosol impacts on Arctic climate change in the GISS-E2.1 Earth system model

2021· preprint· en· W4238194565 on OpenAlexafffund
Ulaş İm, Kostas Tsigaridis, G. Faluvegi, Peter L. Langen, Joshua P. French, Rashed Mahmood, Thomas Manu, Knut von Salzen, Daniel C. Thomas, Cynthia Whaley, Zbigniew Klimont, Henrik Skov, Jørgen Brandt

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersNational Park ServiceUniversity of California, DavisGoddard Space Flight CenterNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationAarhus UniversitetDesert Research InstituteEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversità degli Studi di FirenzeMet OfficeNordisk MinisterrådNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationMiljø- og FødevareministerietU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyMiljøstyrelsenNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAerosolEnvironmental scienceClimatologyAtmospheric sciencesRadiative forcingAtmosphere (unit)ArcticClimate modelCoupled model intercomparison projectClimate changeGreenhouse gasSulfate aerosolMeteorologyGeographyOceanographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The Arctic is warming two to three times faster than the global average, partly due to changes in short-lived climate forcers (SLCFs) including aerosols. In order to study the effects of atmospheric aerosols in this warming, recent past (1990–2014) and future (2015–2050) simulations have been carried out using the GISS-E2.1 Earth system model to study the aerosol burdens and their radiative and climate impacts over the Arctic (>60° N), using anthropogenic emissions from the Eclipse V6b and the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) databases. Surface aerosol levels, in particular black carbon (BC) and sulfate (SO42−), have been significantly underestimated by more than 50 %, with the smallest biases calculated for the nudged atmosphere-only simulations. CMIP6 simulations performed slightly better in simulating both surface concentrations of aerosols and climate parameters, compared to the Eclipse simulations. In addition, fully-coupled simulations had slightly smaller biases in aerosol levels compared to atmosphere only simulations without nudging. Arctic BC, organic carbon (OC) and SO42− burdens decrease significantly in all simulations following the emission projections, with the CMIP6 ensemble showing larger reductions in Arctic aerosol burdens compared to the Eclipse ensemble. For the 2030–2050 period, both the Eclipse Current Legislation (CLE) and the Maximum Feasible Reduction (MFR) ensembles simulated an aerosol top of the atmosphere (TOA) forcing of −0.39±0.01 W m−2, of which −0.24±0.01 W m−2 were attributed to the anthropogenic aerosols. The CMIP6 SSP3-7.0 scenario simulated a TOA aerosol forcing of −0.35 W m−2 for the same period, while SSP1-2.6 and SSP2-4.5 scenarios simulated a slightly more negative TOA forcing (−0.40 W m−2), of which the anthropogenic aerosols accounted for −0.26 W m−2. Finally, all simulations showed an increase in the Arctic surface air temperatures both throughout the simulation period. In 2050, surface air temperatures are projected to increase by 2.4 °C to 2.6 °C in the Eclipse ensemble and 1.9 °C to 2.6 °C in the CMIP6 ensemble, compared to the 1990–2010 mean. Overall, results show that even the scenarios with largest emission reductions lead to similar impact on the future Arctic surface air temperatures compared to scenarios with smaller emission reductions, while scenarios no or little mitigation leads to much larger sea-ice loss, implying that even though the magnitude of aerosol reductions lead to similar responses in surface air temperatures, high mitigation of aerosols are still necessary to limit sea-ice loss.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
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)0.0030.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics→French-language works237,207→