MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416985731 · doi:10.1038/s41612-025-01262-y

Jet stream response to future Arctic sea ice loss not underestimated by climate models

2025· article· en· W4416985731 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Sigmond, Lantao Sun

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Climate and Atmospheric Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsJet streamClimate modelSea iceClimate changeArctic ice packArcticRobustness (evolution)Constraint (computer-aided design)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Previous studies using an emergent constraint have suggested that climate models underestimate the winter jet stream response to sea ice loss, casting doubt on the quality of mid-latitude climate projections. However, the robustness of this emergent constraint has been questioned. Here, we propose a more robust emergent constraint based on lower stratospheric winds. Using coordinated sea ice loss experiments with bespoke versions of two state-of-the-art climate models along with a multi-model archive, we identify a strong relationship between these winds and the jet stream response. The new emergent constraint reduces the uncertainty in the response by 62% and indicates that the real-world response closely matches the multi-model mean—suggesting no systematic underestimation, in contrast to earlier studies. Our results underscore the importance of reducing lower stratospheric wind biases and increase confidence in climate model projections of a future poleward shift of the jet stream in response to global warming.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj Climate and Atmospheric ScienceSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207