MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416593608 · doi:10.5194/bg-22-7167-2025

A normalised framework for the Zero Emissions Commitment

2025· article· en· W4416593608 on OpenAlexaff
Richard G. Williams, Philip Goodwin, Paulo Ceppi, Chris Jones, Andrew H. MacDougall

Bibliographic record

VenueBiogeosciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
FundersNatural Environment Research Council
KeywordsRadiative forcingCarbon sinkRadiative transferGreenhouse gasSink (geography)Carbon fibersClimate modelCarbon cycleForcing (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The Zero Emissions Commitment (ZEC) measures the transient climate response after carbon emissions cease, defined by whether there is a continued rise or decrease in global surface temperature. This delayed climate response affects the maximum cumulative carbon emission to avoid exceeding a warming target. In a set of 9 Earth system models following an idealised atmospheric CO2 scenario with a cumulative emission of 1000 Pg C, the ZEC after 50 years ranges from −0.3 to 0.28 °C with a model mean of −0.11 °C and standard deviation of 0.19 °C. In order to understand these different climate responses, a normalised framework is introduced that quantifies the relative importance of carbon, radiative and thermal drivers of the ZEC. Inter-model differences in the ZEC are primarily due to differences in the radiative response, planetary heat uptake and the land carbon sink, with more minor contributions from differences in the ocean carbon sink and climate feedback. The ZEC response is controlled by opposing-signed contributions: (i) cooling from a decrease in radiative forcing from a carbon contribution due to increasing land and ocean carbon uptake, versus (ii) surface warming from a thermal contribution involving a decline in the fraction of radiative forcing used for planetary heat uptake plus possible amplification by climate feedback. The carbon contribution to the ZEC depends on the increase in the ocean carbon sink and whether the land carbon sink either increases or saturates in time. The thermal contribution to the ZEC depends upon how radiative forcing is partitioned between planetary heat uptake and radiative response with the radiative response either declining in time or remaining constant. These inferences as to the controls of the ZEC broadly carry over for diagnostics for a large ensemble, observationally-constrained, efficient Earth system model using two different emission scenarios to reach net zero. The large set of ensembles reveal a partial compensation between the changes in landborne and oceanborne fractions, as well as including ensembles with a greater range in amplification of warming by climate feedbacks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score0.598

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiogeosciencesSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207