The Relative Importance of Antarctic Sea Ice Loss within the Response to Greenhouse Warming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The response to Antarctic sea ice loss within a coupled modeling framework is examined in comparison to the response to Arctic sea ice loss and within the context of general greenhouse warming. Sea ice loss responses are found to be linear (particularly in response to Antarctic or global sea ice loss) with respect to the degree of imposed perturbation and additive when perturbations are applied in hemispheres separately and concurrently. Globally, and in the tropical Pacific in particular, Antarctic sea ice loss plays a relatively larger role than Arctic sea ice loss in both the atmosphere and the ocean, within the parameters of our experiments. The pattern of response to Antarctic sea ice loss is also found to more closely resemble that of greenhouse warming, again particularly in the tropics. An extension to multiparameter pattern scaling is developed to include a scaling factor for Antarctic change in addition to those for tropical warming and Arctic sea ice loss. The decomposition is applied to the modeled response to Antarctic sea ice loss to break it down into component partial responses that scale with Antarctic, tropical, and Arctic changes. This reveals the aspects of the response that are directly related to Antarctic change, such as an equatorward intensification of tropical precipitation in the Northern Hemisphere, and those that are modified via the induced changes in the tropics and Arctic, such as Northern Hemisphere temperature change. With this, we hope to gain a deeper understanding of the role of each of these changes for the development of physical mechanisms of the response.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".