MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404195203 · doi:10.5194/gmd-17-7963-2024

A protocol for model intercomparison of impacts of marine cloud brightening climate intervention

2024· article· en· W4404195203 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoscientific model development · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate Change and Geoengineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersPacific Northwest National LaboratoryBiological and Environmental ResearchNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationUniversity of WashingtonBattelleAmazon Web ServicesNational Science FoundationMet OfficeU.S. Department of EnergyOffice of ScienceCooperative Institute for Climate, Ocean, and Ecosystem Studies, University of Washington
KeywordsForcing (mathematics)Climate modelEnvironmental scienceClimatologyCloud computingSoftware deploymentPrecipitationMeteorologyCloud forcingProtocol (science)Climate changeRadiative forcingAerosolAtmospheric sciencesComputer scienceGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. A modeling protocol (defined by a series of climate model simulations with specified model output) is introduced. Studies using these simulations are designed to improve the understanding of climate impacts using a strategy for climate intervention (CI) known as marine cloud brightening (MCB) in specific regions; therefore, the protocol is called MCB-REG (where REG stands for region). The model simulations are not intended to assess consequences of a realistic MCB deployment intended to achieve specific climate targets but instead to expose responses to interventions in six regions with pervasive cloud systems that are often considered candidates for such a deployment. A calibration step involving simulations with fixed sea surface temperatures (SSTs) is first used to identify a common forcing, and then coupled simulations with forcing in individual regions and combinations of regions are used to examine climate impacts. Synthetic estimates constructed by superposing responses from simulations with forcing in individual regions are considered a means of approximating the climate impacts produced when MCB interventions are introduced in multiple regions. A few results comparing simulations from three modern climate models (CESM2, E3SMv2, and UKESM1) are used to illustrate the similarities and differences between model behavior and the utility of estimates of MCB climate responses that were synthesized by summing responses introduced in individual regions. Cloud responses to aerosol injections differ substantially between models (CESM2 clouds appear much more susceptible to aerosol emissions than the other models), but patterns in precipitation and surface temperature responses were similar when forcing is imposed with similar amplitudes in the same regions. A previously identified La Niña-like response to forcing introduced in the Southeast Pacific is evident in this study, but the amplitude of the response was shown to markedly differ across the three models. Other common response patterns were also found and are discussed. Forcing in the Southeast Atlantic consistently (across all three models) produces weaker global cooling than that in other regions, and the Southeast Pacific and South Pacific show the strongest cooling. This indicates that the efficiency of a given intervention depends on not only the susceptibility of the clouds to aerosol perturbations, but also the strength of the underlying radiative feedbacks and ocean responses operating within each region. These responses were generally robust across models, but more studies and an examination of responses with ensembles would be beneficial.

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.

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 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.455
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.263 · 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