MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3196229039 · doi:10.1002/essoar.10507834.1

Mechanisms and impacts of climate tipping elements

2021· preprint· en· W3196229039 on OpenAlexaff
Seaver Wang, Adrianna Foster, Elizabeth A. Lenz, J. D. Kessler, Julienne Strœve, Liana O. Anderson, Merritt R. Turetsky, Richard Betts, Sijia Zou, William R. Boos, Zeke Hausfather

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersRoyal Society
KeywordsTipping point (physics)Climate changeRadiative forcingGreenhouse gasEnvironmental scienceForcing (mathematics)Global warmingClimate commitmentClimatologyNatural resource economicsEnvironmental resource managementEffects of global warmingEcologyEconomicsGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“Climate tipping elements” often refer to large-scale earth systems with the potential to respond nonlinearly to anthropogenic climate change by transitioning towards substantially different long-term states upon passing key thresholds, frequently referred to as “tipping points.” In some but not all cases, such changes could produce additional greenhouse gas emissions or radiative forcing that could compound global warming. Improving understanding of tipping elements is important for predicting future climate risks. Here we review mechanisms, predictions, impacts, and knowledge gaps associated with ten notable earth systems proposed to be climate tipping elements. We evaluate which tipping elements are more imminent and whether shifts will likely manifest rapidly or over longer timescales. Some tipping elements are significant to future global climate and will likely affect major ecosystems, climate patterns, and/or carbon cycling within the 21st century. However, assessments under different emissions scenarios indicate a strong potential to reduce or avoid impacts associated with many tipping elements through climate change mitigation. Most tipping elements do not possess the potential for abrupt future change within years, and some proposed tipping elements may not exhibit tipping behavior, rather responding more predictably and directly to the magnitude of forcing. Nevertheless, significant uncertainties remain associated with many tipping elements, highlighting an acute need for further research and modeling to better constrain risks.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.240 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClimate variability and models→French-language works237,207→