MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129992710 · doi:10.1175/2007jcli1905.1

Long-Term Climate Commitments Projected with Climate–Carbon Cycle Models

2008· article· en· W2129992710 on OpenAlexafffund
Gian‐Kasper Plattner, Reto Knutti, Fortunat Joos, T. F. Stocker, Werner von Bloh, Victor Brovkin, David Cameron, E. Driesschaert, Stephanie Dutkiewicz, Michael Eby, Neil R. Edwards, T. Fichefet, J. C. Hargreaves, Chris Jones, Marie‐France Loutre, H. Damon Matthews, Anne Mouchet, Simon A. Müller, S. Nawrath, A. Price, Andrei Sokolov, Kuno Strassmann, Andrew J. Weaver

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Climate · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityUniversity of Victoria
FundersLawrence Livermore National LaboratoryOffice of ScienceSight Research UKCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric SciencesBundesamt für UmweltNational Science FoundationJames S. McDonnell FoundationNatural Environment Research CouncilSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsClimatologyGreenhouse gasEnvironmental scienceClimate changeRadiative forcingClimate commitmentClimate modelForcing (mathematics)Atmospheric sciencesClimate sensitivityCarbon cycleAtmosphere (unit)Transient climate simulationGlobal warmingMeteorologyEffects of global warmingGeologyGeographyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Eight earth system models of intermediate complexity (EMICs) are used to project climate change commitments for the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Simulations are run until the year 3000 a.d. and extend substantially farther into the future than conceptually similar simulations with atmosphere–ocean general circulation models (AOGCMs) coupled to carbon cycle models. In this paper the following are investigated: 1) the climate change commitment in response to stabilized greenhouse gases and stabilized total radiative forcing, 2) the climate change commitment in response to earlier CO2 emissions, and 3) emission trajectories for profiles leading to the stabilization of atmospheric CO2 and their uncertainties due to carbon cycle processes. Results over the twenty-first century compare reasonably well with results from AOGCMs, and the suite of EMICs proves well suited to complement more complex models. Substantial climate change commitments for sea level rise and global mean surface temperature increase after a stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gases and radiative forcing in the year 2100 are identified. The additional warming by the year 3000 is 0.6–1.6 K for the low-CO2 IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) B1 scenario and 1.3–2.2 K for the high-CO2 SRES A2 scenario. Correspondingly, the post-2100 thermal expansion commitment is 0.3–1.1 m for SRES B1 and 0.5–2.2 m for SRES A2. Sea level continues to rise due to thermal expansion for several centuries after CO2 stabilization. In contrast, surface temperature changes slow down after a century. The meridional overturning circulation is weakened in all EMICs, but recovers to nearly initial values in all but one of the models after centuries for the scenarios considered. Emissions during the twenty-first century continue to impact atmospheric CO2 and climate even at year 3000. All models find that most of the anthropogenic carbon emissions are eventually taken up by the ocean (49%–62%) in year 3000, and that a substantial fraction (15%–28%) is still airborne even 900 yr after carbon emissions have ceased. Future stabilization of atmospheric CO2 and climate change requires a substantial reduction of CO2 emissions below present levels in all EMICs. This reduction needs to be substantially larger if carbon cycle–climate feedbacks are accounted for or if terrestrial CO2 fertilization is not operating. Large differences among EMICs are identified in both the response to increasing atmospheric CO2 and the response to climate change. This highlights the need for improved representations of carbon cycle processes in these models apart from the sensitivity to climate change. Sensitivity simulations with one single EMIC indicate that both carbon cycle and climate sensitivity related uncertainties on projected allowable emissions are substantial.

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations271
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ClimateSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207