scholarly journals Carbon–concentration and carbon–climate feedbacks in CMIP6 models and their comparison to CMIP5 models

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (16) ◽  
pp. 4173-4222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vivek K. Arora ◽  
Anna Katavouta ◽  
Richard G. Williams ◽  
Chris D. Jones ◽  
Victor Brovkin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Concentration ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Co2 Concentration ◽  
Climate Feedback ◽  
Cmip5 Models ◽  
Climate Feedbacks ◽  
Transient Climate Response ◽  
Order Of Magnitude ◽  
Intercomparison Project

Abstract. Results from the fully and biogeochemically coupled simulations in which CO2 increases at a rate of 1 % yr−1 (1pctCO2) from its preindustrial value are analyzed to quantify the magnitude of carbon–concentration and carbon–climate feedback parameters which measure the response of ocean and terrestrial carbon pools to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the resulting change in global climate, respectively. The results are based on 11 comprehensive Earth system models from the most recent (sixth) Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) and compared with eight models from the fifth CMIP (CMIP5). The strength of the carbon–concentration feedback is of comparable magnitudes over land (mean ± standard deviation = 0.97 ± 0.40 PgC ppm−1) and ocean (0.79 ± 0.07 PgC ppm−1), while the carbon–climate feedback over land (−45.1 ± 50.6 PgC ∘C−1) is about 3 times larger than over ocean (−17.2 ± 5.0 PgC ∘C−1). The strength of both feedbacks is an order of magnitude more uncertain over land than over ocean as has been seen in existing studies. These values and their spread from 11 CMIP6 models have not changed significantly compared to CMIP5 models. The absolute values of feedback parameters are lower for land with models that include a representation of nitrogen cycle. The transient climate response to cumulative emissions (TCRE) from the 11 CMIP6 models considered here is 1.77 ± 0.37 ∘C EgC−1 and is similar to that found in CMIP5 models (1.63 ± 0.48 ∘C EgC−1) but with somewhat reduced model spread. The expressions for feedback parameters based on the fully and biogeochemically coupled configurations of the 1pctCO2 simulation are simplified when the small temperature change in the biogeochemically coupled simulation is ignored. Decomposition of the terms of these simplified expressions for the feedback parameters is used to gain insight into the reasons for differing responses among ocean and land carbon cycle models.

scholarly journals Carbon-concentration and carbon-climate feedbacks in CMIP6 models, and their comparison to CMIP5 models

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vivek K. Arora ◽  
Anna Katavouta ◽  
Richard G. Williams ◽  
Chris D. Jones ◽  
Victor Brovkin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Global Climate ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Co2 Concentration ◽  
Cmip5 Models ◽  
Climate Feedbacks ◽  
Model Intercomparison ◽  
Small Temperature ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Intercomparison Project ◽  
Earth System Models

Abstract. Results from the fully-, biogeochemically-, and radiatively-coupled simulations in which CO2 increases at a rate of 1 % per year (1pctCO2) from its pre-industrial value are analyzed to quantify the magnitude of two feedback parameters which characterize the coupled carbon-climate system. These feedback parameters quantify the response of ocean and terrestrial carbon pools to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the resulting change in global climate. The results are based on eight comprehensive Earth system models from the fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) and eleven models from the sixth CMIP (CMIP6). The comparison of model results from two CMIP phases shows that, for both land and ocean, the model mean values of the feedback parameters and their multi-model spread has not changed significantly across the two CMIP phases. The absolute values of feedback parameters are lower for land with models that include a representation of nitrogen cycle. The sensitivity of feedback parameters to the three different ways in which they may be calculated is shown and, consistent with existing studies, the most relevant definition is that calculated using results from the fully- and biogeochemically-coupled configurations. Based on these two simulations simplified expressions for the feedback parameters are obtained when the small temperature change in the biogeochemically-coupled simulation is ignored. Decomposition of the terms of these simplified expressions for the feedback parameters allows identification of the reasons for differing responses among ocean and land carbon cycle models.

scholarly journals Carbon-concentration and carbon-climate feedbacks in CMIP6 models, and their comparison to CMIP5 models

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vivek Arora ◽  
Anna Katavouta ◽  
Richard Williams ◽  
Chris Jones ◽  
Victor Brovkin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Global Climate ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Cmip5 Models ◽  
Earth System ◽  
Climate Feedbacks ◽  
Model Intercomparison ◽  
Small Temperature ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Intercomparison Project ◽  
Earth System Models

<p>Results from the fully-, biogeochemically-, and radiatively-coupled simulations in which CO<sub>2</sub> increases at a rate of 1% per year (1pctCO2) from its pre-industrial value are analyzed to quantify the magnitude of two feedback parameters which characterize the coupled carbon-climate system. These feedback parameters quantify the response of ocean and terrestrial carbon pools to changes in atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration and the resulting change in global climate. The results are based on eight comprehensive Earth system models from the fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) and eleven models from the sixth CMIP (CMIP6). The comparison of model results from two CMIP phases shows that, for both land and ocean, the model mean values of the feedback parameters and their multi-model spread has not changed significantly across the two CMIP phases. The absolute values of feedback parameters are lower for land with models that include a representation of nitrogen cycle. The sensitivity of feedback parameters to the three different ways in which they may be calculated is shown and, consistent with existing studies, the most relevant definition is that calculated using results from the fully- and biogeochemically-coupled configurations. Based on these two simulations simplified expressions for the feedback parameters are obtained when the small temperature change in the biogeochemically-coupled simulation is ignored. Decomposition of the terms of these simplified expressions for the feedback parameters allows identification of the reasons for differing responses among ocean and land carbon cycle models.</p>

The Double-ITCZ Bias in CMIP6 Models

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Baijun Tian
Keyword(s):  
Climate Models ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Global Climate Models ◽  
Cmip5 Models ◽  
Tropical Precipitation ◽  
Double Itcz ◽  
Intercomparison Project ◽  
Fully Coupled

<p>The double-Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) bias is one of the most outstanding problems in climate models. This study seeks to examine the double-ITCZ bias in the latest state-of-the-art fully coupled global climate models that participated in Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) Phase 6 (CMIP6) in comparison to their previous generations (CMIP3 and CMIP5 models). To that end, we have analyzed the long-term annual mean tropical precipitation distributions and several precipitation bias indices that quantify the double-ITCZ biases in 75 climate models including 24 CMIP3 models, 25 CMIP3 models, and 26 CMIP6 models. We find that the double-ITCZ bias and its big inter-model spread persist in CMIP6 models but the double-ITCZ bias is slightly reduced from CMIP3 or CMIP5 models to CMIP6 models.</p>

scholarly journals On the climate sensitivity and historical warming evolution in recent coupled model ensembles

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (13) ◽  
pp. 7829-7842 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clare Marie Flynn ◽  
Thorsten Mauritsen
Keyword(s):  
Climate Sensitivity ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Cmip5 Models ◽  
Transient Climate Response ◽  
Antarctic Sea Ice ◽  
Intercomparison Project ◽  
Future Warming ◽  
Model Treatment ◽  
Model Ensembles

Abstract. The Earth's equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, along with the transient climate response (TCR) and greenhouse gas emissions pathways, determines the amount of future warming. Coupled climate models have in the past been important tools to estimate and understand ECS. ECS estimated from Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) models lies between 2.0 and 4.7 K (mean of 3.2 K), whereas in the latest CMIP6 the spread has increased to 1.8–5.5 K (mean of 3.7 K), with 5 out of 25 models exceeding 5 K. It is thus pertinent to understand the causes underlying this shift. Here we compare the CMIP5 and CMIP6 model ensembles and find a systematic shift between CMIP eras to be unexplained as a process of random sampling from modeled forcing and feedback distributions. Instead, shortwave feedbacks shift towards more positive values, in particular over the Southern Ocean, driving the shift towards larger ECS values in many of the models. These results suggest that changes in model treatment of mixed-phase cloud processes and changes to Antarctic sea ice representation are likely causes of the shift towards larger ECS. Somewhat surprisingly, CMIP6 models exhibit less historical warming than CMIP5 models, despite an increase in TCR between CMIP eras (mean TCR increased from 1.7 to 1.9 K). The evolution of the warming suggests, however, that several of the CMIP6 models apply too strong aerosol cooling, resulting in too weak mid-20th century warming compared to the instrumental record.

scholarly journals Carbon–Concentration and Carbon–Climate Feedbacks in CMIP5 Earth System Models

2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (15) ◽  
pp. 5289-5314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vivek K. Arora ◽  
George J. Boer ◽  
Pierre Friedlingstein ◽  
Michael Eby ◽  
Chris D. Jones ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Concentration ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Co2 Flux ◽  
Co2 Concentration ◽  
Climate System ◽  
Climate Feedback ◽  
Earth System ◽  
System Models ◽  
Common Framework ◽  
Earth System Models

Abstract The magnitude and evolution of parameters that characterize feedbacks in the coupled carbon–climate system are compared across nine Earth system models (ESMs). The analysis is based on results from biogeochemically, radiatively, and fully coupled simulations in which CO2 increases at a rate of 1% yr−1. These simulations are part of phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). The CO2 fluxes between the atmosphere and underlying land and ocean respond to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration and to changes in temperature and other climate variables. The carbon–concentration and carbon–climate feedback parameters characterize the response of the CO2 flux between the atmosphere and the underlying surface to these changes. Feedback parameters are calculated using two different approaches. The two approaches are equivalent and either may be used to calculate the contribution of the feedback terms to diagnosed cumulative emissions. The contribution of carbon–concentration feedback to diagnosed cumulative emissions that are consistent with the 1% increasing CO2 concentration scenario is about 4.5 times larger than the carbon–climate feedback. Differences in the modeled responses of the carbon budget to changes in CO2 and temperature are seen to be 3–4 times larger for the land components compared to the ocean components of participating models. The feedback parameters depend on the state of the system as well the forcing scenario but nevertheless provide insight into the behavior of the coupled carbon–climate system and a useful common framework for comparing models.

scholarly journals Context for interpreting equilibrium climate sensitivity and transient climate response from the CMIP6 Earth system models

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (26) ◽  
pp. eaba1981 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerald A. Meehl ◽  
Catherine A. Senior ◽  
Veronika Eyring ◽  
Gregory Flato ◽  
Jean-Francois Lamarque ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Sensitivity ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Cmip5 Models ◽  
Climate Response ◽  
Earth System ◽  
Transient Climate Response ◽  
Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity ◽  
System Models ◽  
Intercomparison Project ◽  
Earth System Models

For the current generation of earth system models participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6), the range of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS, a hypothetical value of global warming at equilibrium for a doubling of CO2) is 1.8°C to 5.6°C, the largest of any generation of models dating to the 1990s. Meanwhile, the range of transient climate response (TCR, the surface temperature warming around the time of CO2 doubling in a 1% per year CO2 increase simulation) for the CMIP6 models of 1.7°C (1.3°C to 3.0°C) is only slightly larger than for the CMIP3 and CMIP5 models. Here we review and synthesize the latest developments in ECS and TCR values in CMIP, compile possible reasons for the current values as supplied by the modeling groups, and highlight future directions. Cloud feedbacks and cloud-aerosol interactions are the most likely contributors to the high values and increased range of ECS in CMIP6.

scholarly journals Combining Emergent Constraints for Climate Sensitivity

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (17) ◽  
pp. 7413-7430 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher S. Bretherton ◽  
Peter M. Caldwell
Keyword(s):  
Climate Sensitivity ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Global Climate Models ◽  
Climate Feedback ◽  
Feedback Parameter ◽  
Emergent Constraints ◽  
Intercomparison Project ◽  
Special Case

AbstractA method is proposed for combining information from several emergent constraints into a probabilistic estimate for a climate sensitivity proxy Y such as equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). The method is based on fitting a multivariate Gaussian PDF for Y and the emergent constraints using an ensemble of global climate models (GCMs); it can be viewed as a form of multiple linear regression of Y on the constraints. The method accounts for uncertainties in sampling this multidimensional PDF with a small number of models, for observational uncertainties in the constraints, and for overconfidence about the correlation of the constraints with the climate sensitivity. Its general form (Method C) accounts for correlations between the constraints. Method C becomes less robust when some constraints are too strongly related to each other; this can be mitigated using regularization approaches such as ridge regression. An illuminating special case, Method U, neglects any correlations between constraints except through their mutual relationship to the climate proxy; it is more robust to small GCM sample size and is appealingly interpretable. These methods are applied to ECS and the climate feedback parameter using a previously published set of 11 possible emergent constraints derived from climate models in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). The ±2σ posterior range of ECS for Method C with no overconfidence adjustment is 4.3 ± 0.7 K. For Method U with a large overconfidence adjustment, it is 4.0 ± 1.3 K. This study adds confidence to past findings that most constraints predict higher climate sensitivity than the CMIP mean.

scholarly journals Geographic Aspects of Temperature and Concentration Feedbacks in the Carbon Budget

2010 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 775-784 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. J. Boer ◽  
V. Arora
Keyword(s):  
Negative Feedback ◽  
Carbon Concentration ◽  
Carbon Budget ◽  
Co2 Concentration ◽  
Atmospheric Co2 ◽  
Climate Feedback ◽  
Climate Modelling ◽  
Emission Scenarios ◽  
Temperature Feedback ◽  
Concentration Changes

Abstract The geographical distribution of feedback processes in the carbon budget is investigated in a manner that parallels that for climate feedback/sensitivity in the energy budget. Simulations for a range of emission scenarios, made with the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (CCCma) earth system model (CanESM1), are the basis of the analysis. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere and provide the forcing for changes to the atmospheric carbon budget. Transports redistribute the emitted CO2 globally where local feedback processes act to enhance (positive feedback) or suppress (negative feedback) local CO2 amounts in response to changes in CO2 concentration and temperature. An increased uptake of CO2 by the land and ocean acts to counteract increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations so that “carbon–concentration” feedbacks are broadly negative over the twenty-first century. Largest values are found over land and particularly in tropical regions where CO2 acts to fertilize plant growth. Extratropical land also takes up CO2 but here the effect is limited by cooler temperatures. Oceans play a lesser negative feedback role with comparatively weak uptake associated with an increase in the atmosphere–ocean CO2 gradient rather than with oceanic biological activity. The effect of CO2-induced temperature increase is, by contrast, to increase atmospheric CO2 on average and so represents an overall positive “carbon–temperature” feedback. Although the average is positive, local regions of both positive and negative carbon–temperature feedback are seen over land as a consequence of the competition between changes in biological productivity and respiration. Positive carbon–temperature feedback is found over most tropical land while mid–high-latitude land exhibits negative feedback. There are also regions of positive and negative oceanic carbon–temperature feedback in the eastern tropical Pacific. The geographical patterns of carbon–concentration and carbon–temperature feedbacks are comparatively robust across the range of emission scenarios used, although their magnitudes are somewhat less robust and scale nonlinearly as a consequence of the large CO2 concentration changes engendered by the scenarios. The feedback patterns deduced nevertheless serve to illustrate the localized carbon feedback processes in the climate system.

scholarly journals Experimental and diagnostic protocol for the physical component of the CMIP6 Ocean Model Intercomparison Project (OMIP)

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen M. Griffies ◽  
Gokhan Danabasoglu ◽  
Paul J. Durack ◽  
Alistair J. Adcroft ◽  
V. Balaji ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Companion Paper ◽  
Ocean Model ◽  
Global Ocean ◽  
Model Intercomparison ◽  
Experimental Protocol ◽  
Diagnostic Protocol ◽  
Intercomparison Project

Abstract. The Ocean Model Intercomparison Project (OMIP) aims to provide a framework for evaluating, understanding, and improving the ocean and sea-ice components of global climate and earth system models contributing to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). OMIP addresses these aims in two complementary manners: (A) by providing an experimental protocol for global ocean/sea-ice models run with a prescribed atmospheric forcing, (B) by providing a protocol for ocean diagnostics to be saved as part of CMIP6. We focus here on the physical component of OMIP, with a companion paper (Orr et al., 2016) offering details for the inert chemistry and interactive biogeochemistry. The physical portion of the OMIP experimental protocol follows that of the interannual Coordinated Ocean-ice Reference Experiments (CORE-II). Since 2009, CORE-I (Normal Year Forcing) and CORE-II have become the standard method to evaluate global ocean/sea-ice simulations and to examine mechanisms for forced ocean climate variability. The OMIP diagnostic protocol is relevant for any ocean model component of CMIP6, including the DECK (Diagnostic, Evaluation and Characterization of Klima experiments), historical simulations, FAFMIP (Flux Anomaly Forced MIP), C4MIP (Coupled Carbon Cycle Climate MIP), DAMIP (Detection and Attribution MIP), DCPP (Decadal Climate Prediction Project), ScenarioMIP (Scenario MIP), as well as the ocean-sea ice OMIP simulations. The bulk of this paper offers scientific rationale for saving these diagnostics.

scholarly journals Quantifying Carbon Cycle Feedbacks

2009 ◽  
Vol 22 (19) ◽  
pp. 5232-5250 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. M. Gregory ◽  
C. D. Jones ◽  
P. Cadule ◽  
P. Friedlingstein
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Cycle ◽  
Co2 Emissions ◽  
Co2 Concentration ◽  
Atmospheric Co2 ◽  
Climate Feedback ◽  
Climate Response ◽  
Carbon Cycle Model ◽  
Atmospheric Co2 Concentration ◽  
Intercomparison Project ◽  
Earth System Models

Abstract Perturbations to the carbon cycle could constitute large feedbacks on future changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration and climate. This paper demonstrates how carbon cycle feedback can be expressed in formally similar ways to climate feedback, and thus compares their magnitudes. The carbon cycle gives rise to two climate feedback terms: the concentration–carbon feedback, resulting from the uptake of carbon by land and ocean as a biogeochemical response to the atmospheric CO2 concentration, and the climate–carbon feedback, resulting from the effect of climate change on carbon fluxes. In the earth system models of the Coupled Climate–Carbon Cycle Model Intercomparison Project (C4MIP), climate–carbon feedback on warming is positive and of a similar size to the cloud feedback. The concentration–carbon feedback is negative; it has generally received less attention in the literature, but in magnitude it is 4 times larger than the climate–carbon feedback and more uncertain. The concentration–carbon feedback is the dominant uncertainty in the allowable CO2 emissions that are consistent with a given CO2 concentration scenario. In modeling the climate response to a scenario of CO2 emissions, the net carbon cycle feedback is of comparable size and uncertainty to the noncarbon–climate response. To quantify simulated carbon cycle feedbacks satisfactorily, a radiatively coupled experiment is needed, in addition to the fully coupled and biogeochemically coupled experiments, which are referred to as coupled and uncoupled in C4MIP. The concentration–carbon and climate–carbon feedbacks do not combine linearly, and the concentration–carbon feedback is dependent on scenario and time.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document