Understanding AMOC stability: the North Atlantic Hosing Model Intercomparison Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) is an important part of our climate system. The AMOC is predicted to weaken under climate change; however, theories suggest that it may have a tipping point beyond which recovery is difficult, hence showing quasi-irreversibility (hysteresis). Although hysteresis has been seen in simple models, it has been difficult to demonstrate in comprehensive global climate models. Here, we outline a set of experiments designed to explore AMOC hysteresis and sensitivity to additional freshwater input as part of the North Atlantic Hosing Model Intercomparison Project (NAHosMIP). These experiments include adding additional freshwater (hosing) for a fixed length of time to examine the rate and mechanisms of AMOC weakening and whether the AMOC subsequently recovers once hosing stops. Initial results are shown from eight climate models participating in the Sixth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). The AMOC weakens in all models as a result of the freshening, but once the freshening ceases, the AMOC recovers in half of the models, and in the other half it stays in a weakened state. The difference in model behaviour cannot be explained by the ocean model resolution or type nor by details of subgrid-scale parameterisations. Likewise, it cannot be explained by previously proposed properties of the mean climate state such as the strength of the salinity advection feedback. Instead, the AMOC recovery is determined by the climate state reached when hosing stops, with those experiments where the AMOC is weakest not experiencing a recovery.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".