MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293503868 · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-22-0306.1

Climate Feedback to Stratospheric Aerosol Forcing: The Key Role of the Pattern Effect

2022· article· en· W4293503868 on OpenAlexaff
Moritz Günther, Hauke Schmidt, Claudia Timmreck, Matthew Toohey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Climate · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsRadiative forcingForcing (mathematics)AerosolClimatologyAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental scienceSulfate aerosolCoupled model intercomparison projectClimate modelStratospherePositive feedbackClimate changePhysicsMeteorologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Volcanic aerosol forcing has previously been found to cause a weak global mean temperature response, as compared with CO2 radiative forcing of equal magnitude: its efficacy is supposedly low, but for reasons that are not fully understood. To investigate this, we perform idealized, time-invariant stratospheric sulfate aerosol forcing simulations with the MPI-ESM-1.2 and compare them with 0.5 × CO2 and 2 × CO2 runs. While the early decades of the aerosol forcing simulations are characterized by strong negative feedback (i.e., low efficacy), the feedback weakens on the decadal to centennial time scale. Although this effect is qualitatively also found in CO2-warming simulations, it is more pronounced for stratospheric aerosol forcing. The strong early and weak late cooling feedbacks compensate, leading to an equilibrium efficacy of approximately 1 in all simulations. The 0.5 × CO2 cooling simulations also exhibit strong feedback changes over time, albeit less than in the idealized aerosol forcing simulations. This suggests that the underlying cause for the feedback change is not exclusively specific to aerosol forcing. One critical region for the feedback differences between simulations with negative and positive radiative forcing is the tropical Indo-Pacific warm-pool region (30°S–30°N, 50°E–160°W). In the first decades of cooling, the temperature change in this region is stronger than the global average, whereas it is stronger outside it for 2 × CO2 warming. In cooling scenarios, this leads to an enhanced activation of the warm-pool region’s strongly negative lapse-rate feedback. Significance Statement Large volcanic eruptions can enhance the scattering aerosol layer in the stratosphere, which leads to a global cooling for a few years. Surprisingly, Earth has been found to cool less from radiative flux perturbations from stratospheric aerosol forcing, in comparison with how much it warms as a result of increases in CO2 concentration. We find that specific surface temperature change patterns after volcanic eruptions cause this effect. The temperature change in the tropical Indian and western Pacific Ocean determines how much global temperature change is needed to regain radiative equilibrium. Our findings contribute to understanding the climate response to volcanic eruptions and are relevant for understanding the mechanisms of climate change due to changes in CO2 concentration.

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)0.000
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.208
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ClimateSame topicAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateFrench-language works237,207