MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403456253 · doi:10.1029/2024jd041594

Diagnosing Atmospheric Heating Rate Changes Using Radiative Kernels

2024· article· en· W4403456253 on OpenAlexafffund
Han Huang, Yi Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsRadiative transferEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesRemote sensingPhysicsGeologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Atmospheric radiative heating rate, which manifests radiative energy convergence in the atmosphere, is a fundamental factor shaping the Earth's climate and driving climate change. Compared to the radiative energy budget at the top of atmosphere or surface, the atmospheric energy budget and heating rate are less studied due to a lack of observational constraints and diagnostic tools. Motivated by growing interest in atmospheric energy budget and to facilitate the heating rate analysis, we innovate a set of radiative kernels, which quantitatively measure the sensitivity of atmospheric heating rate to different geophysical variables. When multiplied with the changes in these geophysical variables, these kernels quantify their contributions to the heating rate change. A climate change experiment of Global Climate Models (GCMs) is used to test the application of heating rate kernels. The results indicate the radiative heating rate change simulated by GCMs can be well reproduced by the kernels, validating the kernel method. The decomposition of the heating rate changes reveals the contributing mechanisms. For example, in the tropical upper troposphere, the negative heating anomaly in a warmer climate is dominated by atmospheric temperature and water vapor. Increases in both variables intensify atmospheric thermal radiation to space, partially offset by a positive heating anomaly caused by the lifting high‐cloud tops. Moreover, compared to the results corrected using the kernels, the cloud effect inferred from the radiative heating difference between clear‐ and all‐skies (“cloud radiative heating”) has a non‐negligible bias, necessitating the use of kernels to quantify the cloud‐induced heating rate changes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.262 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207