MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Anthropogenic heat emissions affect significantly global warming

2023· preprint· en· W4378226123 on OpenAlexaff
Dimitre Karamanev

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobal warmingEarth system scienceGreenhouse gasCorrectnessScale (ratio)Climate changeEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyComputer scienceGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Correspondence to: Dimitre Karamanev (dkaraman@uwo.ca) Recently, an Editorial titled Global warming is due to an enhanced greenhouse effect, and anthropogenic heat emissions currently play a negligible role at the global scale (Kleidon et al., 2023) was published in the journal Earth System Dynamics. In it the Chief Editors state: "From time to time, we receive submissions at Earth System Dynamics claiming that global warming, or at least a significant part of it, is caused by factors other than the direct and indirect effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. A number of these submissions claim that the increase in observed temperatures is due to the emission of heat from human activities… Such submissions would not have passed peer review in Earth System Dynamics as they ignore basic textbook knowledge and would indeed typically be rejected prior to entering the open-discussion peer review phase." It should be emphasized that discoveries "ignoring basic textbook knowledge" are among the strongest drivers of science (Newton, 1687; Einstein, 1905; Galilei, 1590) and should not be ignored unless they are deemed incorrect. And the determination of their correctness is performed in a peer-review process. On a smaller scale, it was recently found that the assumption that the motion of free rising and free falling rigid bodies are governed by the same physical principles (Newton, 1687; Galilei, 1590) was incorrect (Karamanev and Nikolov, 1992). While this discovery was "ignoring basic textbook knowledge" at the time, the peer-review process confirmed that Galileo and later Newton were wrong in that regard (mainly because the phenomena of turbulence was unknown at their respective times), and the new discovery is now part of the mainstream knowledge base (Green, 2008; Chhabra and Basavaraj, 2019). Further, the Editorial states: "A quick look at the global surface energy balance illustrates this clear picture: human primary energy consumption amounted to 595 EJ in 2021 (BP, 2022), which translates into an average heat release of 18.9 TW. When averaged over land, this yields 18.9 TW / (29% x 510x10 12 m 2) = 0.13 W m −2 (as in Jin et al., 2019), while globally, this yields 0.04 W m −2 when evenly distributed over the Earth's surface. This heat release is minute compared to the downwelling flux of longwave radiation of 346 W m −2 (Stephens et al., 2012) and the observed radiative forcing change at the top of the atmosphere of 2.7 W m−2 that can clearly be attributed to the increase in greenhouse gases (Forster et al., 2021). The greenhouse gas forcing

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.005

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics→French-language works237,207→