What determines the warming commitment after cessation of CO <sub>2</sub> emissions?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have shown that global mean surface air temperature remains elevated after cessation of CO 2 emissions. However, studies differ in whether the temperature continues to increase, slowly decreases, or remains constant after cessation of emissions. An understanding of this committed warming is of importance because it has implication for the estimation of carbon budgets compatible with temperature targets. Here, we investigate the effect of the state of thermal and bio-geochemical equilibration at the time emissions are set to zero on the committed warming as the latter is determined by the balance of these two equilibration processes. We find that the effect of thermal equilibration, expressed as fraction of realized warming, dominates over the bio-geochemical equilibration, expressed as ratio of the airborne fraction to the equilibrium airborne fraction. This leads to a positive warming commitment, and a commitment that declines the later emissions are zeroed along a trajectory of constant atmospheric CO 2 concentration. We furthermore show that the scenario prior to zeroed emissions has the strongest effect on the warming commitment, compared to the time of zeroed emissions and the time horizon over which the commitment is calculated.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".