MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384383089 · doi:10.5194/essd-15-3001-2023

Radiative sensitivity quantified by a new set of radiation flux kernels based on the ECMWF Reanalysis v5 (ERA5)

2023· article· en· W4384383089 on OpenAlexafffund
Han Huang, Yi Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth system science data · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsRadiative transferRadiative forcingRadiative fluxEnvironmental scienceSensitivity (control systems)Climate modelClimate sensitivityFlux (metallurgy)Standard deviationEarth's energy budgetAtmospheric sciencesClimatologyRadiationClimate changePhysicsMeteorologyMathematicsStatisticsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Radiative sensitivity, i.e., the response of the radiative flux to climate perturbations, is essential to understanding climate change and variability. The sensitivity kernels computed by radiative transfer models have been broadly used for assessing the climate forcing and feedbacks for global warming. As these assessments are largely focused on the top of atmosphere (TOA) radiation budget, less attention has been paid to the surface radiation budget or the associated surface radiative sensitivity kernels. Based on the fifth generation European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts atmospheric reanalysis (ERA5), we produce a new set of radiative kernels for both the TOA and surface radiative fluxes, which is made available at https://doi.org/10.17632/vmg3s67568 (Huang and Huang, 2023). By comparing these with other published radiative kernels, we find that the TOA kernels are generally in agreement in terms of global mean radiative sensitivity and analyzed overall feedback strength. The unexplained residual in the radiation closure tests is found to be generally within 10 % of the total feedback, no matter which kernel dataset is used. The uncertainty in the TOA feedbacks caused by inter-kernel differences, as measured by the standard deviation of the global mean feedback parameter value, is much smaller than the inter-climate model spread of the feedback values. However, we find relatively larger discrepancies in the surface kernels. The newly generated ERA5 kernel outperforms many other datasets in closing the surface energy budget, achieving a radiation closure comparable to the TOA feedback decomposition, which confirms the validity of the kernel method for the surface radiation budget analysis. In addition, by investigating the ERA5 kernel values computed from the atmospheric states of different years, we notice some apparent interannual differences, which demonstrates the dependence of radiative sensitivities on the mean climate state and partly explains the inter-dataset kernel value differences. In this paper, we provide a detailed description of how ERA5 kernels are generated and considerations to ensure proper use of them in feedback quantifications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations35
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth system science dataSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207