Assessing carbon cycle projections from complex and simple models under SSP scenarios

IF 4.8 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Irina Melnikova, Philippe Ciais, Olivier Boucher, Katsumasa Tanaka
{"title":"Assessing carbon cycle projections from complex and simple models under SSP scenarios","authors":"Irina Melnikova, Philippe Ciais, Olivier Boucher, Katsumasa Tanaka","doi":"10.1007/s10584-023-03639-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Both full-fledged Earth system models (ESMs) and simple climate models (SCMs) have been used to investigate climate change for future representative CO<sub>2</sub> concentration pathways under the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. Here, we explore to what extent complex and simple models are consistent in their carbon cycle response in concentration-driven simulations. Although ESMs and SCMs exhibit similar compatible fossil fuel CO<sub>2</sub> emissions, ESMs systematically estimate a lower ocean carbon uptake than SCMs in the historical period and future scenarios. The ESM and SCM differences are especially large under low-concentration and overshoot scenarios. Furthermore, ESMs and SCMs deviate in their land carbon uptake estimates, but the differences are scenario-dependent. These differences are partly driven by a few model outliers (ESMs and SCMs) and the procedure of observational constraining that is present in the majority of SCMs but not applied in ESMs. The differences in land uptake arise from the difference in the way land-use change (LUC) emissions are calculated and different assumptions on how the carbon cycle feedbacks are defined, possibly reflecting the treatment of nitrogen limitation of biomass growth and historical calibration of SCMs. The differences in ocean uptake, which are especially large in overshoot scenarios, may arise from the faster mixing of carbon from the surface to the deep ocean in SCMs than in ESMs. We also discuss the inconsistencies that arise when converting CO<sub>2</sub> emissions from integrated assessment models (IAMs) to CO<sub>2</sub> concentrations inputs for ESMs, which typically rely on a single SCM. We further highlight the discrepancies in LUC emission estimates between models of different complexity, particularly ESMs and IAMs, and encourage climate modeling groups to address these potential areas for model improvement.</p>","PeriodicalId":10372,"journal":{"name":"Climatic Change","volume":"362 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Climatic Change","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-023-03639-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Both full-fledged Earth system models (ESMs) and simple climate models (SCMs) have been used to investigate climate change for future representative CO2 concentration pathways under the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. Here, we explore to what extent complex and simple models are consistent in their carbon cycle response in concentration-driven simulations. Although ESMs and SCMs exhibit similar compatible fossil fuel CO2 emissions, ESMs systematically estimate a lower ocean carbon uptake than SCMs in the historical period and future scenarios. The ESM and SCM differences are especially large under low-concentration and overshoot scenarios. Furthermore, ESMs and SCMs deviate in their land carbon uptake estimates, but the differences are scenario-dependent. These differences are partly driven by a few model outliers (ESMs and SCMs) and the procedure of observational constraining that is present in the majority of SCMs but not applied in ESMs. The differences in land uptake arise from the difference in the way land-use change (LUC) emissions are calculated and different assumptions on how the carbon cycle feedbacks are defined, possibly reflecting the treatment of nitrogen limitation of biomass growth and historical calibration of SCMs. The differences in ocean uptake, which are especially large in overshoot scenarios, may arise from the faster mixing of carbon from the surface to the deep ocean in SCMs than in ESMs. We also discuss the inconsistencies that arise when converting CO2 emissions from integrated assessment models (IAMs) to CO2 concentrations inputs for ESMs, which typically rely on a single SCM. We further highlight the discrepancies in LUC emission estimates between models of different complexity, particularly ESMs and IAMs, and encourage climate modeling groups to address these potential areas for model improvement.

Abstract Image

评估SSP情景下复杂和简单模型的碳循环预测
完整的地球系统模式(ESMs)和简单气候模式(SCMs)在耦合模式比对项目的第六阶段被用于研究未来具有代表性的CO2浓度路径的气候变化。在这里,我们探讨了在浓度驱动的模拟中,复杂模型和简单模型在碳循环响应中的一致性。尽管ESMs和scm显示出相似的兼容化石燃料CO2排放,但ESMs系统地估计了历史时期和未来情景下海洋碳吸收量低于scm。在低浓度和超调情景下,ESM和SCM的差异尤其大。此外,esm和scm的土地碳吸收估计值存在偏差,但差异取决于情景。这些差异部分是由少数模型异常值(esm和scm)和大多数scm中存在但未应用于esm的观测约束程序驱动的。土地吸收的差异源于土地利用变化(LUC)排放计算方式的差异以及对碳循环反馈定义的不同假设,可能反映了生物量增长的氮限制处理和SCMs的历史校准。海洋吸收方面的差异,在超调情景下尤其大,可能是由于中远洋比中远洋从表层到深海的碳混合速度更快。我们还讨论了将二氧化碳排放从综合评估模型(iam)转换为esm的二氧化碳浓度输入时出现的不一致性,esm通常依赖于单个SCM。我们进一步强调了不同复杂程度的模式(特别是esm和iam)在土地利用变化过程中排放估算的差异,并鼓励气候模式小组解决这些模式改进的潜在领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Climatic Change
Climatic Change 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
10.20
自引率
4.20%
发文量
180
审稿时长
7.5 months
期刊介绍: Climatic Change is dedicated to the totality of the problem of climatic variability and change - its descriptions, causes, implications and interactions among these. The purpose of the journal is to provide a means of exchange among those working in different disciplines on problems related to climatic variations. This means that authors have an opportunity to communicate the essence of their studies to people in other climate-related disciplines and to interested non-disciplinarians, as well as to report on research in which the originality is in the combinations of (not necessarily original) work from several disciplines. The journal also includes vigorous editorial and book review sections.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信