Bibliographic record
Abstract
<strong class="journal-contentHeaderColor">Abstract.</strong> A growing body of evidence suggests that to achieve the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) will likely be required in addition to massive carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) emissions reductions. Nature-based CDR, which includes a range of strategies to sequester carbon in natural reservoirs, could play an important role in efforts to limit climate warming to well below 2 °C above preindustrial levels. Agricultural CDR could enhance soil carbon sequestration, though the climate efficacy of such methods remains uncertain. Here, we use an intermediate complexity climate model to perform simulations of agricultural CDR in the form of soil carbon sequestration at a range of possible rates for different costs under three future emissions scenarios. We found that plausible levels of agricultural CDR were able to reduce CO<sub>2</sub> concentration by 5–19 ppm and global surface air temperature by 0.02–0.10 °C by the end of century. This temperature decrease was non-linear with respect to cumulative removals, as any carbon removed remained part of the active carbon cycle, lessening the climate benefit compared to if the removed carbon was permanently stored in geological reservoirs. CDR was found to be more effective at reducing surface air temperature in low emissions scenarios, but less effective at reducing atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>, compared to high emissions scenarios. This was because the weaker CO<sub>2</sub> sinks in a high CO<sub>2</sub> world had a more muted response to removal, so a substantially higher proportion of carbon was removed from the atmosphere for a given amount of CDR in a higher emissions scenario. The enhanced temperature response to CDR in lower emissions scenarios was due to the logarithmic response of radiative effects to changes in CO<sub>2</sub>, where at low atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentrations, small changes in CO<sub>2</sub> are more effective at changing the global radiative balance than at higher CO<sub>2</sub> concentrations. CDR was substantially more effective when implemented at a higher rate, as CDR makes a proportionally larger difference in a climate with lower cumulative air fraction of CO<sub>2</sub>. Land and soil carbon responses were driven by the scenario-dependent balances between the impacts of CDR on primary productivity from CO<sub>2</sub> fertilization, and the impacts on soil respiration from increased soil carbon availability and global temperatures.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.072 | 0.028 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".