Limited Mitigation Potential of Forestation Under a High Emissions Scenario: Results From Multi‐Model and Single Model Ensembles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Forestation is a major component of future long‐term emissions reduction and CO2 removal strategies, but the viability of carbon stored in vegetation under future climates is highly uncertain. We analyze the results from seven CMIP6 models for a combined scenario with high fossil fuel emissions (from SSP5‐8.5) and forest expansion (from SSP1‐2.6) which has ∼4.8% increase in global total forest cover relative to 2015. This scenario aims to demonstrate the ability of forestation strategies to mitigate climate change under continued increasing CO2 emissions and includes the potential impacts of increased CO2 concentration and a warming climate on vegetation growth. The model intercomparison shows that forestation as a CO2 removal strategy has limited impact on global climate under a high global warming scenario, despite generating a substantial cumulative carbon sink of 10–60 Pg C over the period 2015–2100. Using a single model ensemble, we show that there are local increases in warm extremes in response to forestation associated with decreases in the number of cool days. Furthermore, we find evidence of a shift in the global carbon balance, whereby increased carbon storage on land of ∼25 Pg C by 2100 associated with forestation has a concomitant decrease in the carbon uptake by the ocean due to reduced atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".