A Bayesian Attribution Analysis of Extreme Temperature Changes at Global and Regional Scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent studies showed that anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) increase is a major driver of the observed increases in extreme temperatures at global and regional scales using an optimal fingerprint (OF) method, which is a frequentist approach based on linear regression. Here, a Bayesian decision method is employed, which finds the most probable cause of the observed changes by comparing likelihoods of different forcings in view of observations. To quantify individual forcing contributions, a new modified attribution procedure based on Bayesian decision is proposed, i.e., computing the likelihood ratio [Bayes factor (BF)] between different forcings. First, the contribution of anthropogenic forcing (ANT) is measured by BF between anthropogenic-plus-natural forcing (ALL) and natural forcing (NAT) using a threshold for “substantial” evidence (lnBF ≥ 1). Similarly, the NAT contribution is assessed by BF between ALL and ANT. Further, the GHG contribution to the detected ANT is quantified by BF between ANT and anthropogenic aerosols (AA), and the AA contribution is evaluated by BF between ANT and GHG. The devised Bayesian approach is applied to HadEX3 observations and CMIP6 multimodel simulations for extreme temperature intensities (warmest day/night and coldest day/night) for global, continental, and regional domains following previous studies. Bayesian attribution results indicate that the ANT signal is detected in many continental and subregions for all extremes indices. This is generally consistent with OF-based results but with less frequent detection, indicating that the Bayesian method is slightly stricter than the OF method. However, GHG contributions to the detected ANT are identified over more subregions in the Bayesian attribution, suggesting its potential advantage over conventional methods in case of low signal-to-noise ratio and high collinearity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".