Temporary nature-based carbon removal can lower peak warming in a well-below 2°C scenario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing recognition that meeting the climate objectives of the Paris Agreement will require the world to achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions around or before mid-century. Nature-based climate solutions (NbCS), which aim to preserve and enhance carbon storage in terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems, are increasingly being evoked as a potential contributor to net-zero emissions targets. However, there is a risk that any carbon that we succeed in storing in land-based systems could be subsequently lost back to the atmosphere as a result of either climate-related or human-caused disturbances such as wildfire or deforestation. Here we quantify the climate effect of NbCS in a scenario where land-based carbon storage is enhanced over the next several decades, and this stored carbon is then returned to the atmosphere during the second half of this century. We show that temporary carbon sequestration has the potential to decrease the peak temperature increase, but only if implemented alongside an ambitious mitigation scenario where fossil fuel CO2 emissions were decreased to net-zero during the time that NbCS-sequestered carbon remained stored. We also demonstrate the importance of non-CO2 climate effects of NbCS implementation; decreases in surface albedo that result from temporary reforestation, for example, have the potential to counter almost half of the climate effect of carbon sequestration. Our results suggest that there is some climate benefit associated with NbCS, even if the carbon storage is temporary, but only if implemented as a complement (and not an alternative) to ambitious fossil fuel CO2 emissions reductions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".