Arctic Amplification in the Community Earth System Models (CESM1 and CESM2)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compare the Arctic amplification (AA) produced by the two Community Earth System Models CESM1 and CESM2, members of the CEMIP5 (Coupled Models Intercomparison Project phase 5) and CEMIP6 collections, respectively. We find that the CESM1 model reproduces the recent high values of the AA deduced from the observed temperature much better than the CESM2. The correlation coefficient within the 1970–2012 time period between CESM1-simulated AA and the observed one is 0.47, while the CESM2 simulation leads to an anticorrelation of r = −0.53. Even the more successful model (CESM1) is not able to reproduce recent high AA values of 4–5. The main cause of this failure is the model’s overestimate of the rate of increase in the mean global temperature in years post 1990. When the CESM1 model’s simulated trend of the mean global temperature is replaced in the expression for the AA by the observed temperature trend, the correlation coefficient increases from 0.47 to 0.75. The CESM1 model is among the best north American models in AA simulation while the CESM2 model is among the least successful.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".