MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416948346 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-2025-5650

Unexpected land-surface warming following a low-to-moderate forcing hypothetical nuclear war

2025· article· W4416948346 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Anson Cheung, Paul J. Kushner, Francesco S. R. Pausata, Zhihong Zhuo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNuclear Issues and Defense
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversity of Toronto
FundersAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaFuture of Life Institute
KeywordsForcing (mathematics)DownwellingLongwaveClimate modelShortwaveGlobal warmingRadiative forcingClimate change

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Nuclear conflicts could ignite intense urban fires that inject considerable amounts of black carbon (BC) into the upper atmosphere, with the potential to disrupt global climate. While uncertainties in the total BC injection remain large, relatively few modeling studies and limited model diversity have explored the climatic response to low-to-moderate BC injections, leaving key aspects of their climate impact poorly understood. Here, we investigate the climate response to a set of low-to-moderate forcing scenarios (12 to 24 Tg BC) – roughly one-tenth to one-fifth the strength of the standard high-end cases – using the Canadian Earth System Model version 5. Consistent with previous work, we find prolonged global reductions in surface temperature and precipitation, driven by decreased downwelling shortwave radiation at the surface and increased atmospheric stability. Unexpectedly, however, a transient surface warming develops in the first boreal summer following a boreal-winter injection, linked to reduced net longwave and turbulent fluxes. Precipitation remains suppressed because of enhanced stability. The transient warming is most pronounced for the lowest forcing cases, indicating a nonlinear response across the forcing range. These results underscore the need for broader multi-model assessments and systematic exploration across a wider range of scenarios, given their potential for complex, societally relevant outcomes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.587
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.290
Teacher spread0.276 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear Issues and DefenseFrench-language works237,207