Changes in thunderstorm activity at high latitudes observed at WMO weather stations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge about the occurrence of thunderstorms in polar regions is still limited. Lightning detection systems have varying detection efficiency over time and space, which makes climatological analysis difficult. This is especially problematic in areas where lightning strikes are relatively rare. Traditional observations carried out at weather stations are therefore still a very important source of information about the occurrence of thunderstorms in the polar and circumpolar regions. Scientific studies usually predict that these phenomena will be more frequent in high latitudes in a warmer world. To check whether the number of thunderstorms changes as projected, we summarize SYNOP data from manned World Meteorological Organization (WMO) stations operating in the years 2000-2019 located at latitudes above 60° of both hemispheres. According to this source, the changes in thunderstorm frequency are only visible in certain areas and mostly during the summer months. The regional Kendall test revealed a statistically significant increase in the number of thunderstorm days north of 60°N in Interior Alaska, northwestern Canada, much of Siberia and European Russia. However, a decrease in thunderstorm frequency has also been detected in some regions. This was the case on the shores of the southern Norwegian Sea and seasonally in spring in the northern Urals. The largest increase in thunderstorm days exceeded 5 per decade in the highly continental regions of central Siberia and interior Alaska. For the entire high-latitude area, the change in the number of days with thunderstorms was statistically insignificant. However, the statistically relevant increase in the number of thunderstorm days is visible for inland weather stations located 250 – 1,000 km from the coastline, where it was on average 1 day per decade.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".