Climate-carbon cycle feedbacks under stabilization: uncertainty and observational constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Avoiding ‘dangerous climate change’ by stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations at a desired level requires reducing the rate of anthropogenic carbon emissions so that they are balanced by uptake of carbon by the natural terrestrial and oceanic carbon cycles. Previous calculations of profiles of emissions which lead to stabilized CO2 levels have assumed no impact of climate change on this natural carbon uptake. However, future climate change effects on the land carbon cycle are predicted to reduce its ability to act as a sink for anthropogenic carbon emissions and so quantification of this feedback is required to determine future permissible emissions. Here, we assess the impact of the climate-carbon cycle feedback and attempt to quantify its uncertainty due to both within-model parameter uncertainty and between-model structural uncertainty. We assess the use of observational constraints to reduce uncertainty in the future permissible emissions for climate stabilization and find that all realistic carbon cycle feedbacks consistent with the observational record give permissible emissions significantly less than previously assumed. However, the observational record proves to be insufficient to tightly constrain carbon cycle processes or future feedback strength with implications for climate-carbon cycle model evaluation.
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 | 0.006 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".