Search

Previous phases of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) have primarily focused on simulations driven by atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs), both for idealized model experiments, and for climate projections of different emissions scenarios. We argue that although this approach was pragmatic to allow parallel development of Earth System Model simulations and detailed socioeconomic futures, carbon cycle uncertainty as represented by diverse, process-resolving Earth System Models (ESMs) is not manifested in the scenario outcomes, thus omitting a dominant source of uncertainty in meeting the Paris Agreement. Mitigation policy is defined in terms of human activity (including emissions), with strategies varying in their timing of net-zero emissions, the balance of mitigation effort between short-lived and long-lived climate forcers, their reliance on land use strategy and the extent and timing of carbon removals. To explore the response to these drivers, ESMs need to explicitly represent complete cycles of major GHGs, including natural processes and anthropogenic influences. Carbon removal and sequestration strategies, which rely on proposed human management of natural systems, are currently represented upstream of ESMs in an idealized fashion during scenario development. However, proper accounting of the coupled system impacts of and feedback on such interventions requires explicit process representation in ESMs to build self-consistent physical representations of their potential effectiveness and risks under climate change. We propose that CMIP7 efforts prioritize simulations driven by CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use, projected deployment of carbon dioxide removal technologies, as well as land use and management, using the process resolution allowed by state-of-the-art ESMs to resolve carbon-climate feedbacks. Post-CMIP7 ambitions should aim to incorporate modeling of non-CO2 GHGs (in particular sources and sinks of methane) and process

Achieving the long-term temperature goal of the Paris Agreement requires forest-based mitigation. Collective progress towards this goal will be assessed by the Paris Agreement s Global stocktake. At present, there is a discrepancy of about 4 GtCO 2 yr -1 in global anthropogenic net land-use emissions between global models (reflected in IPCC assessment reports) and aggregated national GHG inventories (under the UNFCCC). We show that a substantial part of this discrepancy (about 3.2 GtCO 2 yr -1 ) can be explained by conceptual differences in anthropogenic forest sink estimation, related to the representation of environmental change impacts and the areas considered as managed. For a more credible tracking of collective progress under the Global stocktake, these conceptual differences between models and inventories need to be reconciled. We implement a new method of disaggregation of global land model results that allows greater comparability with GHG inventories. This provides a deeper understanding of model inventory differences, allowing more transparent analysis of forest-based mitigation and facilitating a more accurate Global stocktake. (c) 2018, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.

Climate change is leading to a disproportionately large warming in the high northern latitudes, but the magnitude and sign of the future carbon balance of the Arctic are highly uncertain. Using 40 terrestrial biosphere models for the Alaskan Arctic from four recent model intercomparison projects – NACP (North American Carbon Program) site and regional syntheses, TRENDY (Trends in net land atmosphere carbon exchanges), and WETCHIMP (Wetland and Wetland CH4 Inter-comparison of Models Project) – we provide a baseline of terrestrial carbon cycle uncertainty, defined as the multi-model standard deviation (o) for each quantity that follows. Mean annual absolute uncertainty was largest for soil carbon (14.0±9.2 kgCm−2), then gross primary production (GPP) (0.22±0.50 kgCm−2 yr−1), ecosystem respiration (Re) (0.23±0.38 kgCm−2 yr−1), net primary production (NPP) (0.14±0.33 kgCm−2 yr−1), autotrophic respiration (Ra) (0.09±0.20 kgCm−2 yr−1), heterotrophic respiration (Rh) (0.14±0.20 kgCm−2 yr−1), net ecosystem exchange (NEE) (−0.01±0.19 kgCm−2 yr−1), and CH4 flux (2.52±4.02 g CH4 m−2 yr−1). There were no consistent spatial patterns in the larger Alaskan Arctic and boreal regional carbon stocks and fluxes, with some models showing NEE for Alaska as a strong carbon sink, others as a strong carbon source, while still others as carbon neutral. Finally, AmeriFlux data are used at two sites in the Alaskan Arctic to evaluate the regional patterns; observed seasonal NEE was captured within multi-model uncertainty. This assessment of carbon cycle uncertainties may be used as a baseline for the improvement of experimental and modeling activities, as well as a reference for future trajectories in carbon cycling with climate change in the Alaskan Arctic and larger boreal region.