A very notable thing about this graph is that it is not a long list of developed countries. Developing countries also list high on the list, well above the EU average (and long above the US). EVs are better than ICE, people are noticing, and the transition is happening...

How's your country's passenger car transition going?

In the short term, a decrease in harvest would probably increase the sink. But the argument is that would lead to a lower sink in 50 years. There is an attempt to shift the discussion into the long-term, but the forecasts 50 years out are not that robust (exhibit 1, the figure I posted).

I think it is a little surprising there is seemingly very little interest in studying this. The forest sectors solution to all the world's woes is to increase harvest, but the decline has happened under current management by the forest sector. They would hate regulation...

I suspect the answer may not be politically palatable... The sink has (unexpectedly) collapsed in the last decade. Very few studies, but the main factors are increased disturbance (mainly drought in Norway I think), increased harvest, & slower growth (in that order I would think).

Well, given the changes, I am not sure how much we can trust it. But time will tell. Give a few years, we might see where it is heading. The last few years are most uncertain, & the historical data often has revisions. I think the main message is it is uncertain, so don't bank on it!

Successive projections of Norwegian Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF) emissions lead to smaller net uptake. In 2019, average uptake to 2100 was estimated ~20MtCO2/yr In 2026, average uptake to 2100 was estimated ~5MtCO2/yr These are big changes, with big policy implications.

It is interesting that having a monopoly and being slow on the open source meant that others prospered and took over, most notably FAIR, but also CICERO-SCM may not have been further developed and open sourced if MAGICC did not drag its feet, etc.

I presume the database has rudimentary QC/QA, and after that I think it should be open and that will lead to lots of citations. Blocking access to the data to get a Nature (or whatever) publication is a little rich, IMHO.

It is important to split the raw data, and all the add ons, like vetting, feasibility assessment, or whatever. The raw data should be open, so people can do whatever assessment they see fit. If groups want to do add ons (as most would in a paper), then that can be under embargo.

Does IIASA loose money / funding, loose credibility, get less citations, loose critical staff, etc, if the database is open? What are you worried about?

Yes, all of the above. Just make it open. It is not that hard. Don't you think it is better for science if multiple groups / individuals are developing methods, kicking the tyres, trying things out, progressing ideas, experimenting, etc? Let the best science win.

It is possible to have requirements for coauthorship, etc, as additional acknowledgment if citations are the main concern (as long as not as a veto role). There are various ways to ensure recognition, whilst still being open.

IIASA is ideally placed to do community activities. And there is probably no better institute in the world for this sort of activity. I don't see funding as a huge issue, given IIASA has sustained activities like this for like 50 years. It is just that the database should be open.

And institute like CICERO have about 5% base funding, compared to say IIASA 50%. IIASA is in a luxury situation. IIASA is also very successful with EU projects. It has a much bigger size than most institutes, so can actually sustain a workforce, even if times are tough at time.