Or not. Humans have gone from 320 to 420 ppm carbon dioxide in from 1960 to 2020. This useless model pulls out all the stops to justify its existence, including a 1500+ ppm increase in C02. Lmao! Clowns.

"Under this worst-case scenario, atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase to 1962 ppm by the year 2250"

Or how about their definition of "historical record"?

“This model simulates a carbon cycle in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, along with the increasing oceanic carbon uptake in agreement with historical trends (Figure 1b)."

What might this figure 1b show?

That the historical trends they talk about go from 1850 to 2020, but really from 1960-2020 if you look at it. In other words, not historical.

But it gets worse. If you look at figure 1b, you can see that actual observations only cover the period from 1980-2020, and the fit line is clearly tortured. Sure, they modeled 170 years and claim it fits the historical record. But they only used 40 years of "historical record", and even that to a layman is highly suspect.

In 1980, there is far more uptake of C02 than the model suggests, and by 2020, there is less C02 uptake than the model suggests.

So yeah, garbage study using 40 years of data that clearly doesn't fit the model and using a ppm of almost 5x what we have now.

Also, ocean accounts for 30% of C02 uptake, and this says it may decrease 1/3rd under the worst circumstances. This means the earth could lose 10% overall (not really!) of its carbon uptake ability.

But that 10% could be offset by a 14% increase in land biomass C02 uptake.

Pop quiz: how much more carbon does earth's land sequester if the C02 in the atmosphere increases 450%??