Why Does the Ensemble Mean of CMIP6 Models Simulate Arctic Temperature More Accurately Than Global Temperature?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An accurate simulation and projection of future warming are needed for a proper policy response to expected climate change. We examine the simulations of the mean global and Arctic surface air temperatures by the CMIP6 (Climate Models Intercomparison Project phase 6) climate models. Most models overestimate the observed mean global warming. Only seven out of 19 models considered simulate global warming that is within ±15% of the observed warming between the average of the 2014–2023 and 1961–1990 reference period. Ten models overestimate global warming by more than 15% and only one of the models underestimates it by more than 15%. Arctic warming is simulated by the CMIP6 climate models much better than the mean global warming. The reason is an equal spread of over and underestimates of Arctic warming by the models, while most of the models overestimate the mean global warming. Eight models are within ±15% of the observed Arctic warming. Only three models are accurate within ±15% for both mean global and Arctic temperature simulations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".