MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The cause of negative CO2 forcing at the top-of-atmosphere: the role of stratospheric vs. tropospheric temperature inversions

2023· preprint· en· W4387128593 on OpenAlexafffund
Yan‐Ting Chen, Timothy M. Merlis, Yi Huang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsForcing (mathematics)Atmospheric sciencesClimatologyCloud forcingEnvironmental scienceStratosphereRadiative forcingAtmosphere (unit)The arcticClimate changeMeteorologyGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere usually reduces Earth’s outgoing longwave radiation (OLR). The unusual case of Antarctica, where CO2 enhances OLR and implies a negative forcing, has previously been explained by the strong near-surface inversion or extremely low surface temperature. However, negative forcing can occasionally be found in the Arctic and tropics where neither of these explanations applies. Here, we examine the changes in infrared opacity from CO2 doubling in these low or negative forcing climate states, which shows the predominant role of the stratospheric contribution to the broadband forcing. Negative forcing in today’s climate demands a combination of strong negative forcing caused by a steep stratospheric temperature inversion and a weaker positive forcing in the atmospheric window, which can be caused by a low surface temperature or a strong high cloud masking effect. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the near-surface inversion has little impact on the 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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