MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288050313 · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abo2405

Enhanced simulated early 21st century Arctic sea ice loss due to CMIP6 biomass burning emissions

2022· article· en· W4288050313 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Patricia DeRepentigny, Alexandra Jahn, Marika M. Holland, Jennifer E. Kay, John Fasullo, Jean‐François Lamarque, Simone Tilmes, Cécile Hannay, Michael Mills, David A. Bailey, A. P. Barrett

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Advances · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNuclear Safety and Security CommissionNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationU.S. Department of EnergyNational Center for Atmospheric ResearchNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCoupled model intercomparison projectEnvironmental scienceClimatologySea iceArcticArctic geoengineeringForcing (mathematics)Arctic ice packArctic sea ice declineClimate sensitivityBiomass burningAtmospheric sciencesClimate changeClimate modelOceanographyAerosolMeteorologySea ice thicknessGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mechanisms underlying decadal variability in Arctic sea ice remain actively debated. Here, we show that variability in boreal biomass burning (BB) emissions strongly influences simulated Arctic sea ice on multidecadal time scales. In particular, we find that a strong acceleration in sea ice decline in the early 21st century in the Community Earth System Model version 2 (CESM2) is related to increased variability in prescribed BB emissions in the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) through summertime aerosol-cloud interactions. Furthermore, we find that more than half of the reported improvement in sea ice sensitivity to CO 2 emissions and global warming from CMIP5 to CMIP6 can be attributed to the increased BB variability, at least in the CESM. These results highlight a new kind of uncertainty that needs to be considered when incorporating new observational data into model forcing while also raising questions about the role of BB emissions on the observed Arctic 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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations52
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience AdvancesSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207