The Attribution of February Extremes over North America: A Forecast-Based Storyline Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The importance of extreme event attribution rises as climate change causes severe damage to populations resulting from unprecedented events. In February 2019, a planetary wave shifted along the U.S.–Canadian border, simultaneously leading to troughing with anomalous cold events and ridging over Alaska and northern Canada with abnormal warm events. Also, a dry-stabilized anticyclonic circulation over low latitudes induced warm extreme events over Mexico and Florida. Most attribution studies compare the climate model simulations under natural or actual forcing conditions and assess probabilistically from a climatological point of view. However, in this study, we use multiple ensembles from an operational forecast model, promising statistical as well as dynamically constrained attribution assessment, often referred to as the storyline approach to extreme event attribution. In the globally averaged results, increasing CO2 concentrations lead to distinct warming signals at the surface, resulting mainly from diabatic heating. Our study finds that CO2-induced warming eventually affects the possibility of extreme events in North America, quantifying the impact of anthropogenic forcing over less than a week’s forecast simulation. Our study assesses the validity of the storyline approach conditional on the forecast lead times, which is hindered by rising noise in CO2 signals and the declining performance of the forecast model. The forecast-based storyline approach is valid for at least half of the land area within a 6-day lead time before the target extreme occurrence. Our attribution results highlight the importance of achieving net-zero emissions ahead of schedule to reduce the occurrence of severe heatwaves.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".