ArticleNature communications2023
Uncertainties in critical slowing down indicators of observation-based fingerprints of the Atlantic Overturning Circulation.
Article in Nature communications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Data gaps and outliers distort critical-slowing-down-based resilience indicators.Science advances · 2026Article
- ENSO amplifies global vegetation resilience variability in a changing climate.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Recent and early 20th century destabilization of the subpolar North Atlantic recorded in bivalves.Science advances · 2025Article
- Review
- Reconstructing historical climate fields with deep learning.Science advances · 2025Article
- Uncertainties too large to predict tipping times of major Earth system components from historical data.Science advances · 2024Article
- Hidden delta degradation due to fluvial sediment decline and intensified marine storms.Science advances · 2024Article
- Uncertainties in critical slowing down indicators of observation-based fingerprints of the Atlantic Overturning Circulation.Nature communications · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Observations are increasingly used to detect critical slowing down (CSD) to measure stability changes in key Earth system components. However, most datasets have non-stationary missing-data distributions, biases and uncertainties. Here we show that, together with the pre-processing steps used to deal with them, these can bias the CSD analysis. We present an uncertainty quantification method to address such issues. We show how to propagate uncertainties provided with the datasets to the CSD analysis and develop conservative, surrogate-based significance tests on the CSD indicators. We apply our method to three observational sea-surface temperature and salinity datasets and to fingerprints of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation derived from them. We find that the properties of these datasets and especially the specific gap filling procedures can in some cases indeed cause false indication of CSD. However, CSD indicators in the North Atlantic are still present and significant when accounting for dataset uncertainties and non-stationary observational coverage.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.