MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309627391 · doi:10.1029/2022gl099396

Anthropogenic Contributions to the 2021 Pacific Northwest Heatwave

2022· article· en· W4309627391 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emily Bercos‐Hickey, Travis O’Brien, Michael Wehner, Likun Zhang, Christina M. Patricola, Huanping Huang, Mark D. Risser

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBiological and Environmental ResearchEnvironmental Resilience Institute, Indiana UniversityOffice of ScienceU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsHindcastClimatologyClimate changeEnvironmental scienceGlobal warmingClimate modelCausal inferenceOceanographyGeologyEconometricsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Daily maximum temperatures during the 2021 heatwave in the Pacific Northwest United States and Canada shattered century old records. Multiple causal factors, including anthropogenic climate change, contributed to these high temperatures, challenging traditional methods of attributing human influence. We demonstrate that the observed 2021 daily maximum temperatures are far above the bounds of Generalized Extreme Value distributions fitted from historical data. Hence, confidence in Granger causal inference statements about the human influence on this heatwave is low. Alternatively, we present a more conditional hindcast attribution study using two regional models. We performed ensembles of simulations of the heatwave to investigate how the event would have changed if it had occurred without anthropogenic climate change and with future warming. We found that global warming caused a ∼0.8°C–1°C increase in heatwave temperatures. Future warming would lead to a ∼5°C increase in heatwave temperature by the end of the 21st century.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.295 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations54
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207