MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Substantial cold bias during wintertime cold extremes in the southern Cascadia region in historical CMIP6 simulations

2022· preprint· en· W4312039563 on OpenAlexaffabout
Matthew H. Rogers, Guillaume Mauger, Nicoleta Cristea

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimatologyTerrainEnvironmental scienceGeologyAdvectionGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Global climate models often simulate atmospheric conditions incorrectly due to their coarse grid resolution, flaws in their dynamics, and biases resulting from parameterization schemes. Here we document the magnitude and extent of minimum temperature biases in the CMIP6 model ensemble, relative to ERA5. Bias in the southern Cascadia region (i.e. Pacific Northwestern United States and southwestern British Columbia, Canada, spanning from the coast to the Rocky Mountains) stands out relative to the rest of North America, with some models showing a bias in excess of -10°C in the 1st percentile of daily winter minimum temperature. During the coldest minimum temperature days, the CMIP6 models show an anomalous high in mean sea level pressure in the Northeast Pacific – an atmospheric blocking pattern that is also present in ERA5. While this atmospheric blocking pattern is typically concurrent with cold temperatures across much of North America, terrain barriers such as the Rockies and Cascades prevent the cold air from reaching the Pacific Northwest in observation and reanalysis. Our results suggest that the bias in CMIP6 minimum temperatures is a result of unresolved topography in the Rockies and Cascade mountain ranges, such that the terrain does not adequately block cold air advection from the interior of the continent.

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)0.003
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 score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClimate variability and models→French-language works237,207→