MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398131248 · doi:10.5194/essd-2024-149-cc4

Comment on essd-2024-149

2024· peer-review· en· W4398131248 on OpenAlexaff
Piers Forster, Chris Smith, Tristram Walsh, William F. Lamb, Robin Lamboll, B. D. Hall, Mathias Hauser, Debbie Rosen, Nathan P. Gillett, Matthew D. Palmer, Joeri Rogelj, Karina von Schuckmann, Blair Trewin, Myles Allen, Robbie M. Andrew, Richard Betts, Tim Boyer, Carlo Buontempo, Samantha Burgess, Chiara Cagnazzo, Lijing Cheng, Pierre Friedlingstein, Andrew Gettelman, Masayoshi Ishii, Stuart Jenkins, Xin Lan, Colin Morice, Christopher Kadow, John Kennedy, Rachel Killick, Paul B. Krummel, Jan C. Minx, Gunnar Myhre, Vaishali Naïk, Glen P. Peters, Anna Pirani, Julia Pongratz, Carl‐Friedrich Schleussner, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Sophie Szopa, Peter Thorne, Mahesh Kovilakam, Elisa Majamäki, Jukka-Pekka Jalkanen, Margreet van Marle, Rachel Hoesly, Robert Rohde, Dominik L. Schumacher, Guido R. van der Werf, Russell S. Vose, Kirsten Zickfeld, Xuebin Zhang, Panmao Zhai

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCOVID-19 impact on air quality
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<strong class="journal-contentHeaderColor">Abstract.</strong> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments are the trusted source of scientific evidence for climate negotiations taking place under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Evidence-based decision-making needs to be informed by up-to-date and timely information on key indicators of the state of the climate system and of the human influence on the global climate system. However, successive IPCC reports are published at intervals of 5&ndash;10 years, creating potential for an information gap between report cycles. We follow methods as close as possible to those used in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) Working Group One (WGI) report. We compile monitoring datasets to produce estimates for key climate indicators related to forcing of the climate system: emissions of greenhouse gases and short-lived climate forcers, greenhouse gas concentrations, radiative forcing, the Earth's energy imbalance, surface temperature changes, warming attributed to human activities, the remaining carbon budget, and estimates of global temperature extremes. The purpose of this effort, grounded in an open data, open science approach, is to make annually updated reliable global climate indicators available in the public domain (<a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11064126" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11064126</a>, Smith et al., 2024a). As they are traceable to IPCC report methods, they can be trusted by all parties involved in UNFCCC negotiations and help convey wider understanding of the latest knowledge of the climate system and its direction of travel. The indicators show that, for the 2014&ndash;2023 decade average, observed warming was 1.19 [1.06 to 1.30] &deg;C, of which 1.19 [1.0 to 1.4] &deg;C was human-induced. For the single year average, human-induced warming reached 1.31 [1.1 to 1.7] &deg;C in 2023 relative to 1850&ndash;1900. This is below the 2023 observed record of 1.43 [1.32 to 1.53] &deg;C, indicating a substantial contribution of internal variability in the 2023 record. Human-induced warming has been increasing at rate that is unprecedented in the instrumental record, reaching 0.26 [0.2&ndash;0.4] &deg;C per decade over 2014&ndash;2023. This high rate of warming is caused by a combination of greenhouse gas emissions being at an all-time high of 54 &plusmn; 5.4 GtCO2e per year over the last decade, as well as reductions in the strength of aerosol cooling. Despite this, there is evidence that the rate of increase in CO<sub>2</sub> emissions over the last decade has slowed compared to the 2000s, and depending on societal choices, a continued series of these annual updates over the critical 2020s decade could track a change of direction for some of the indicators presented here.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2040.057

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.317 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCOVID-19 impact on air qualityFrench-language works237,207