Terrestrial Carbon Cycle Dynamics under Recent and Future Climate Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The behavior of the terrestrial carbon cycle under historical and future climate change is examined using the University of Victoria Earth System Climate Model, now coupled to a dynamic terrestrial vegetation and global carbon cycle model. When forced by historical emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels and land-use change, the coupled climate–carbon cycle model accurately reproduces historical atmospheric CO2 trends, as well as terrestrial and oceanic uptake for the past two decades. Under six twenty-first-century CO2 emissions scenarios, both terrestrial and oceanic carbon sinks continue to increase, though terrestrial uptake slows in the latter half of the century. Climate–carbon cycle feedbacks are isolated by comparing a coupled model run with a run where climate and the carbon cycle are uncoupled. The modeled positive feedback between the carbon cycle and climate is found to be relatively small, resulting in an increase in simulated CO2 of 60 ppmv at the year 2100. Including non-CO2 greenhouse gas forcing and increasing the model’s climate sensitivity increase the effect of this feedback to 140 ppmv. The UVic model does not, however, simulate a switch from a terrestrial carbon sink to a source during the twenty-first century, as earlier studies have suggested. This can be explained by a lack of substantial reductions in simulated vegetation productivity due to climate changes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".