Carbon Dioxide Emission Pathways Avoiding Dangerous Ocean Impacts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases could lead to undesirable effects on oceans in coming centuries. Drawing on recommendations published by the German Advisory Council on Global Change, levels of unacceptable global marine change (so-called guardrails) are defined in terms of global mean temperature, sea level rise, and ocean acidification. A global-mean climate model [the Aggregated Carbon Cycle, Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Model (ACC2)] is coupled with an economic module [taken from the Dynamic Integrated Climate–Economy Model (DICE)] to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis to derive CO2 emission pathways that both minimize abatement costs and are compatible with these guardrails. Additionally, the “tolerable windows approach” is used to calculate a range of CO2 emissions paths that obey the guardrails as well as a restriction on mitigation rate. Prospects of meeting the global mean temperature change guardrail (2° and 0.2°C decade−1 relative to preindustrial) depend strongly on assumed values for climate sensitivity: at climate sensitivities >3°C the guardrail cannot be attained under any CO2 emissions reduction strategy without mitigation of non-CO2 greenhouse gases. The ocean acidification guardrail (0.2 unit pH decline relative to preindustrial) is less restrictive than the absolute temperature guardrail at climate sensitivities >2.5°C but becomes more constraining at lower climate sensitivities. The sea level rise and rate of rise guardrails (1 m and 5 cm decade−1) are substantially less stringent for ice sheet sensitivities derived in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, but they may already be committed to violation if ice sheet sensitivities consistent with semiempirical sea level rise projections are assumed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".