MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Non-CO2 forcing changes will likely decrease the remaining carbon budget for 1.5°C

2020· article· en· W3042253053 on OpenAlexaff
Nadine Mengis, H. Damon Matthews

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryForcing (mathematics)Adenylate kinaseInternal medicineBiochemistryPhysicsReceptorAtmospheric sciencesMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimates of the 1.5°C carbon budget vary widely among recent studies. One key contribution to this range is the non-CO2 climate forcing scenario uncertainty. Based on a partitioning of historical non-CO2 forcing, we show that there is currently a net negative non-CO2 forcing from fossil fuel combustion (FFC) mainly due to the co-emission of aerosols, and a net positive non-CO2 climate forcing from land-use change (LUC) and agricultural activities. We then perform a set of future simulations in which we prescribed a 1.5°C temperature stabilization trajectory, and diagnosed the resulting 1.5°C carbon budgets. Using the results of our historical partitioning, we prescribed changing non-CO2 forcing scenarios that are consistent with our model’s simulated decrease in FFC CO2 emissions. We compared the diagnosed carbon budgets from these idealized scenarios to those resulting from the default RCP scenario non-CO2 forcing, as well as from a scenario in which we assumed proportionality between future CO2 and non-CO2 forcing. We find a large range of carbon budget estimates across scenarios, with the largest budget emerging from the scenario with assumed proportionality of CO2 and non-CO2 forcing. Furthermore, our adjusted-RCP scenarios, in which the non-CO2 forcing is consistent with model-diagnosed FFC CO2 emissions, produced carbon budgets that are smaller than the corresponding default RCP scenarios. Our results suggest that ambitious mitigation scenarios will likely be characterized by an increasing contribution of non-CO2 forcing, and that an assumption of continued proportionality between CO2 and non-CO2 forcing would lead to an overestimate of the remaining carbon budget required to avoid low-temperature targets. Maintaining such proportionality under ambitious fossil fuel mitigation would require mitigation of non-CO2 emissions from agriculture and other non-FFC sources at a rate that is substantially faster than is found in the standard RCP scenarios.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics→French-language works237,207→