MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285495309 · doi:10.3389/fmars.2022.847017

Effects of Internal Climate Variability on Historical Ocean Wave Height Trend Assessment

2022· article· en· W4285495309 on OpenAlexaff
Mercè Casas‐Prat, Xiaolan L. Wang, Nobuhito Mori, Yang Feng, Rodney Chan, Tomoya Shimura

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Marine Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Waves and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersJapan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and TechnologyMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
KeywordsClimatologyEnsemble averageStatisticEnvironmental scienceClimate changeClimate modelRealization (probability)Significant wave heightMeteorologyWind waveStatisticsGeographyGeologyMathematicsOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study assesses the effects of internal climate variability on wave height trend assessment using the d4PDF-WaveHs, the first single model initial-condition large ensemble (100-member) of significant wave height ( H s ) simulations for the 1951–2010 period, which was produced using sea level pressure taken from Japan’s d4PDF ensemble of historical climate simulations. Here, the focus is on assessing trends in annual mean and maximum H s . The result is compared with other model simulations that account for other sources of uncertainty, and with modern wave reanalyses. It is shown that the trend variability arising from internal climate variability is comparable to the variability caused by other factors, such as climate model uncertainty. This study also assesses the likelihood to mis-estimate trends when using only one ensemble member and therefore one possible realization of the climate system. Using single member failed to detect the statistically significant notable positive trend shown in the ensemble in some areas of the Southern Ocean. The North Atlantic Ocean is found to have large internal climate variability, where different ensemble-members can show trends of the opposite signs for the same area. The minimum ensemble size necessary to effectively reduce the risk of mis-assessing H s trends is estimated to be 10; but this largely depends on the specific wave statistic and the region of interest, with larger ensembles being required to assess extremes. The results also show that wave reanalyses are not suitable for analyzing H s trends due to temporal inhomogeneities therein, in agreement with recent studies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.195 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Marine ScienceSame topicOcean Waves and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207