The effect of nonlinearity in CO<sub>2</sub> heating rates on the attribution of stratospheric ozone and temperature changes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An analysis of the attribution of past and future changes in stratospheric ozone and temperature to anthropogenic forcings is presented. The analysis is an extension of the study of Shepherd and Jonsson (2008) who analyzed chemistry-climate simulations from the Canadian Middle Atmosphere Model (CMAM) and attributed both past and future changes to changes in the external forcings, i.e. the abundances of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) and well-mixed greenhouse gases. The current study is based on a new CMAM dataset and includes two important changes. First, we account for the nonlinear radiative response to changes in CO2. It is shown that over centennial time scales the radiative response in the upper stratosphere to CO2 changes is significantly nonlinear and that failure to account for this effect leads to a significant error in the attribution. To our knowledge this nonlinearity has not been considered before in attribution analysis, including multiple linear regression studies. For the regression analysis presented here the nonlinearity was taken into account by using CO2 heating rate, rather than CO2 abundance, as the explanatory variable. This approach yields considerable corrections to the results of the previous study and can be recommended to other researchers. Second, an error in the way the CO2 forcing changes are implemented in the CMAM was corrected, which significantly affects the results for the recent past. As the radiation scheme, based on Fomichev et al. (1998), is used in several other models we provide some description of the problem and how it was fixed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".