Should we think of observationally constrained multidecade climate projections as predictions?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Empirical evidence indicates that the range of model-projected future warming can be successfully narrowed by conditioning the projected warming on past observed warming. We demonstrate that warming projections conditioned on the entire instrumental annual surface temperature record are of sufficiently high quality and should be considered as long-term predictions rather than merely as projections. We support this view by considering the skill of predicted 20- and 50-year lead temperature changes under the Shared Economic Pathway (SSP)1-2.6 and SSP5-8.5 emission scenarios in climates of different sensitivities. Using climate model simulations, we show that adjusting raw multimodel projections of future warming with the Kriging for Climate Change (KCC) method eliminates most biases and reduces the uncertainty of warming projections irrespective of the sensitivity of the climate being considered. Simpler methods, or using only the more recent part of the temperature record, provide less effective constraints. The high-skill future warming predictions obtained via KCC have a serious place in informing global climate policies.
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 | 0.012 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".