5 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
- ItemEvaluation of biospheric components in earth system models using modern and palaeo-observations: The state-of-the-art(München : European Geopyhsical Union, 2013) Foley, A.M.; Dalmonech, D.; Friend, A.D.; Aires, F.; Archibald, A.T.; Bartlein, P.; Bopp, L.; Chappellaz, J.; Cox, P.; Edwards, N.R.; Feulner, G.; Friedlingstein, P.; Harrison, S.P.; Hopcroft, P.O.; Jones, C.D.; Kolassa, J.; Levine, J.G.; Prentice, I.C.; Pyle, J.; Vázquez Riveiros, N.; Wolff, E.W.; Zaehle, S.Earth system models (ESMs) are increasing in complexity by incorporating more processes than their predecessors, making them potentially important tools for studying the evolution of climate and associated biogeochemical cycles. However, their coupled behaviour has only recently been examined in any detail, and has yielded a very wide range of outcomes. For example, coupled climate–carbon cycle models that represent land-use change simulate total land carbon stores at 2100 that vary by as much as 600 Pg C, given the same emissions scenario. This large uncertainty is associated with differences in how key processes are simulated in different models, and illustrates the necessity of determining which models are most realistic using rigorous methods of model evaluation. Here we assess the state-of-the-art in evaluation of ESMs, with a particular emphasis on the simulation of the carbon cycle and associated biospheric processes. We examine some of the new advances and remaining uncertainties relating to (i) modern and palaeodata and (ii) metrics for evaluation. We note that the practice of averaging results from many models is unreliable and no substitute for proper evaluation of individual models. We discuss a range of strategies, such as the inclusion of pre-calibration, combined process- and system-level evaluation, and the use of emergent constraints, that can contribute to the development of more robust evaluation schemes. An increasingly data-rich environment offers more opportunities for model evaluation, but also presents a challenge. Improved knowledge of data uncertainties is still necessary to move the field of ESM evaluation away from a "beauty contest" towards the development of useful constraints on model outcomes.
- ItemSimulating the Earth system response to negative emissions(Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2016) Jones, C.D.; Ciais, P.; Davis, S.J.; Friedlingstein, P.; Gasser, T.; Peters, G.P.; Rogelj, J.; van Vuuren, D.P.; Canadell, J.G.; Cowie, A.; Jackson, R.B.; Jonas, M.; Kriegler, E.; Littleton, E.; Lowe, J.A.; Milne, J.; Shrestha, G.; Smith, P.; Torvanger, A.; Wiltshire, A.Natural carbon sinks currently absorb approximately half of the anthropogenic CO2 emitted by fossil fuel burning, cement production and land-use change. However, this airborne fraction may change in the future depending on the emissions scenario. An important issue in developing carbon budgets to achieve climate stabilisation targets is the behaviour of natural carbon sinks, particularly under low emissions mitigation scenarios as required to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. A key requirement for low carbon pathways is to quantify the effectiveness of negative emissions technologies which will be strongly affected by carbon cycle feedbacks. Here we find that Earth system models suggest significant weakening, even potential reversal, of the ocean and land sinks under future low emission scenarios. For the RCP2.6 concentration pathway, models project land and ocean sinks to weaken to 0.8 ± 0.9 and 1.1 ± 0.3 GtC yr−1 respectively for the second half of the 21st century and to −0.4 ± 0.4 and 0.1 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1 respectively for the second half of the 23rd century. Weakening of natural carbon sinks will hinder the effectiveness of negative emissions technologies and therefore increase their required deployment to achieve a given climate stabilisation target. We introduce a new metric, the perturbation airborne fraction, to measure and assess the effectiveness of negative emissions.
- ItemThe Carbon Dioxide Removal Model Intercomparison Project (CDRMIP): Rationale and experimental protocol for CMIP6(Göttingen : Copernicus GmbH, 2018) Keller, D.P.; Lenton, A.; Scott, V.; Vaughan, N.E.; Bauer, N.; Ji, D.; Jones, C.D.; Kravitz, B.; Muri, H.; Zickfeld, K.The recent IPCC reports state that continued anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are changing the climate, threatening severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts. Slow progress in emissions reduction to mitigate climate change is resulting in increased attention to what is called geoengineering, climate engineering, or climate intervention - deliberate interventions to counter climate change that seek to either modify the Earth's radiation budget or remove greenhouse gases such as CO2 from the atmosphere. When focused on CO2, the latter of these categories is called carbon dioxide removal (CDR). Future emission scenarios that stay well below 2gC, and all emission scenarios that do not exceed 1.5gC warming by the year 2100, require some form of CDR. At present, there is little consensus on the climate impacts and atmospheric CO2 reduction efficacy of the different types of proposed CDR. To address this need, the Carbon Dioxide Removal Model Intercomparison Project (or CDRMIP) was initiated. This project brings together models of the Earth system in a common framework to explore the potential, impacts, and challenges of CDR. Here, we describe the first set of CDRMIP experiments, which are formally part of the 6th Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). These experiments are designed to address questions concerning CDR-induced climate reversibility, the response of the Earth system to direct atmospheric CO2 removal (direct air capture and storage), and the CDR potential and impacts of afforestation and reforestation, as well as ocean alkalinization.
- ItemThe HadGEM2-ES implementation of CMIP5 centennial simulations(Göttingen : Copernicus, 2011) Jones, C.D.; Hughes, J.K.; Bellouin, N.; Hardiman, S.C.; Jones, G.S.; Knight, J.; Liddicoat, S.; O'Connor, F.M.; Andres, R.J.; Bell, C.; Boo, K.-O.; Bozzo, A.; Butchart, N.; Cadule, P.; Corbin, K.D.; Doutriaux-Boucher, M.; Friedlingstein, P.; Gornall, J.; Gray, L.; Halloran, P.R.; Hurtt, G.; Ingram, W.J.; Lamarque, J.-F.; Law, R.M.; Meinshausen, M.; Osprey, S.; Palin, E.J.; Parsons, Chini, L.; Raddatz, T.; Sanderson, M.G.; Sellar, A.A.; Schurer, A.; Valdes, P.; Wood, N.; Woodward, S.; Yoshioka, M.; Zerroukat, M.The scientific understanding of the Earth's climate system, including thecentral question of how the climate system is likely to respond tohuman-induced perturbations, is comprehensively captured in GCMs and EarthSystem Models (ESM). Diagnosing the simulated climate response, andcomparing responses across different models, is crucially dependent ontransparent assumptions of how the GCM/ESM has been driven - especiallybecause the implementation can involve subjective decisions and may differbetween modelling groups performing the same experiment. This paper outlinesthe climate forcings and setup of the Met Office Hadley Centre ESM, HadGEM2-ES for the CMIP5 set of centennial experiments. We document theprescribed greenhouse gas concentrations, aerosol precursors, stratosphericand tropospheric ozone assumptions, as well as implementation of land-usechange and natural forcings for the HadGEM2-ES historical and futureexperiments following the Representative Concentration Pathways. Inaddition, we provide details of how HadGEM2-ES ensemble members wereinitialised from the control run and how the palaeoclimate and AMIPexperiments, as well as the "emission-driven" RCP experiments wereperformed.
- ItemGlobal patterns of crop yield stability under additional nutrient and water inputs(San Francisco, CA : Public Library of Science (PLoS), 2018) Müller, C.; Elliott, J.; Pugh, T.A.M.; Ruane, A.C.; Ciais, P.; Balkovic, J.; Deryng, D.; Folberth, C.; Cesar Izaurralde, R.; Jones, C.D.; Khabarov, N.; Lawrence, P.; Liu, W.; Reddy, A.D.; Schmid, E.; Wang, X.[No abstract available]