Improving GCM-based decadal ocean carbon flux predictions using observationally-constrained statistical models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Initialized climate model simulations have proven skillful for near-term predictability of the key physical climate variables. By comparison, predictions of biogeochemical fields like ocean carbon flux, are still emerging. Initial studies indicate skillful predictions are possible for lead-times up to six years at global scale for some CMIP6 models. However, unlike core physical variables, biogeochemical variables are not directly initialized in existing decadal preciction systems, and extensive empirical parametrization of ocean-biogeochemistry in Earth System Models introduces a significant source of uncertainty. Here, we propose a new approach for improving the skill of decadal ocean carbon flux predictions using observationally-constrained statistical models, as alternatives to the ocean-biogeochemistry models. We use observations to train multi-linear and neural-network models to predict the ocean carbon flux. To account for observational uncertainties, we train using six different observational estimates of the flux. We then apply these trained statistical models using input predictors from the Canadian Earth System Model (CanESM5) decadal prediction system to produce new decadal predictions. Our hybrid GCM-statistical approach significantly improves prediction skill, relative to the raw CanESM5 hindcast predictions over 1990-2019. Our hybrid-model skill is also larger than that obtained by any available CMIP6 model. Using bias-corrected CanESM5 predictors, we make forecasts for ocean carbon flux over 2020-2029. Both statistical models predict increases in the ocean carbon flux larger than the changes predicted from CanESM5 forecasts. Our work highlights the ability to improve decadal ocean carbon flux predictions by using observationally-trained statistical models together with robust input predictors from GCM-based decadal predictions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".