Quantifying land carbon cycle feedbacks under negative CO <sub>2</sub> emissions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Land and ocean carbon sinks play a major role in regulating atmospheric CO2 concentration and climate. However, their future efficiency depends on feedbacks in response to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration and climate, namely the concentration–carbon and climate–carbon feedbacks. Since carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is a key mitigation measure in emission scenarios consistent with global temperature goals in the Paris Agreement, understanding carbon cycle feedbacks under negative CO2 emissions is essential. This study investigates land carbon cycle feedbacks under positive and negative CO2 emissions using an Earth system model of intermediate complexity (EMIC) driven with an idealized scenario of symmetric atmospheric CO2 concentration increase (ramp-up) and decrease (ramp-down), run in three modes. Our results show that the magnitudes of carbon cycle feedbacks are generally smaller in the atmospheric CO2 ramp-down phase than in the ramp-up phase, except for the ocean climate–carbon feedback, which is larger in the ramp-down phase. This is largely due to carbon cycle inertia: the carbon cycle response in the ramp-down phase is a combination of the committed response to the prior atmospheric CO2 increase and the response to decreasing atmospheric CO2. To isolate carbon cycle feedbacks under decreasing atmospheric CO2 and quantify these feedbacks more accurately, we propose a novel approach that uses zero emission simulations to quantify the committed carbon cycle response. We find that the magnitudes of the concentration–carbon and climate–carbon feedbacks under decreasing atmospheric CO2 are larger in our novel approach than in the standard approach. Accurately quantifying carbon cycle feedbacks in scenarios with negative emissions is essential for determining the effectiveness of carbon dioxide removal in drawing down atmospheric CO2 and mitigating warming.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".