MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2405500967 · doi:10.1002/2016gl068964

Enhancement of non‐CO<sub>2</sub> radiative forcing via intensified carbon cycle feedbacks

2016· article· en· W2405500967 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Andrew H. MacDougall, Reto Knutti

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsRadiative forcingEnvironmental scienceGreenhouse gasCarbon cycleAtmospheric sciencesForcing (mathematics)Carbon fibersCarbon sinkGlobal warmingAtmosphere (unit)Carbon dioxideGreenhouse effectClimatologyClimate changeClimate modelChemistryMeteorologyMaterials sciencePhysicsGeologyEcosystemEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The global carbon cycle is sensitive to changes in global temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration, with increased temperature tending to reduce the efficiency of carbon sinks and increased CO2 enhancing the efficiency of carbon sinks. The emission of non‐CO2 greenhouse gases warms the Earth but does not induce the CO2 fertilization effect or increase the partial‐pressure gradient between the atmosphere and the surface ocean. Here we present idealized climate model experiments that explore the indirect interaction between non‐CO2 forcing and the carbon cycle. The experiments suggest that this interaction enhances the warming effect of the non‐CO2 forcing by up to 25% after 150 years and that much of the warming caused by these agents lingers for over 100 years after the dissipation of the non‐CO2 forcing. Overall, our results suggest that the longer emissions of non‐CO2 forcing agents persists the greater effect these agents will have on global climate.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207