MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413442251 · doi:10.29169/1927-5129.2025.21.14

The Impact of the Hunga Tonga Volcanic Eruption on Earth's Temperature

2025· article· en· W4413442251 on OpenAlexaffvenue
H. Douglas Lightfoot, Gerald Ratzer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Basic & Applied Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolcanoGeologyEarth (classical element)Vulcanian eruptionPhreatic eruptionEffusive eruptionSeismologyGeochemistryEarth scienceMagmaMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In January 2020, we published a paper [1] showing that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claimed that Earth’s temperature would reach 1.5 °C above pre-industrial days by 2030. At the same time, those who study the Sun, such as Valentina Zharkov, indicated that by 2030, the Earth's temperature would be much lower and close to pre-industrial times. The satellite temperature measurements of the Earth’s temperature are the best because they cover the whole Earth and minimize the urban heat island effect. This record shows that from January 2019 to January 2023, the temperatures dropped by approximately 0.5 °C, which indicates that the Earth is cooling. On January 15, 2022, the Hunga Tonga submarine volcano violently erupted, sending approximately 146 million tonnes of water into the stratosphere. This water reduced the heat flow to space. It increased the Earth’s temperature to a peak in April 2024 of approximately 0.45 °C above the safe upper limit of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, as promoted by the IPCC. There was no disastrous effect. We are halfway to 2030, and there are serious problems with the IPCC estimate. It is recommended that the IPCC consider revising its estimates of the impact of CO2 on warming the Earth’s atmosphere.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.381
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Basic & Applied SciencesSame topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207