Carbon-concentration and carbon-climate feedbacks in CMIP6 models, and their comparison to CMIP5 models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Results from the fully-, biogeochemically-, and radiatively-coupled simulations in which CO2 increases at a rate of 1 % per year (1pctCO2) from its pre-industrial value are analyzed to quantify the magnitude of two feedback parameters which characterize the coupled carbon-climate system. These feedback parameters quantify the response of ocean and terrestrial carbon pools to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the resulting change in global climate. The results are based on eight comprehensive Earth system models from the fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) and eleven models from the sixth CMIP (CMIP6). The comparison of model results from two CMIP phases shows that, for both land and ocean, the model mean values of the feedback parameters and their multi-model spread has not changed significantly across the two CMIP phases. The absolute values of feedback parameters are lower for land with models that include a representation of nitrogen cycle. The sensitivity of feedback parameters to the three different ways in which they may be calculated is shown and, consistent with existing studies, the most relevant definition is that calculated using results from the fully- and biogeochemically-coupled configurations. Based on these two simulations simplified expressions for the feedback parameters are obtained when the small temperature change in the biogeochemically-coupled simulation is ignored. Decomposition of the terms of these simplified expressions for the feedback parameters allows identification of the reasons for differing responses among ocean and land carbon cycle models.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".