203 results on '"Séférian R"'
Search Results
2. Carbon-concentration and carbon-climate feedbacks in CMIP6 models and their comparison to CMIP5 models
- Author
-
K. Arora, V, Katavouta, A, Williams, RG, Jones, CD, Brovkin, V, Friedlingstein, P, Schwinger, J, Bopp, L, Boucher, O, Cadule, P, Chamberlain, MA, Christian, JR, Delire, C, Fisher, ARA, Hajima, T, Ilyina, T, Joetzjer, E, Kawamiya, M, Koven, CD, Krasting, JP, Law, RM, Lawrence, DM, Lenton, A, Lindsay, K, Pongratz, J, Raddatz, T, Séférian, R, Tachiiri, K, Tjiputra, JF, Wiltshire, A, Wu, T, and Ziehn, T
- Subjects
Earth Sciences ,Environmental Sciences ,Biological Sciences ,Meteorology & Atmospheric Sciences - 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 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.
- Published
- 2020
3. Description and Evaluation of the CNRM‐Cerfacs Climate Prediction System (C3PS).
- Author
-
Sanchez‐Gomez, E., Séférian, R., Batté, L., Berthet, S., Cassou, C., Dewitte, B., Moine M, M. P., Msadek, R., Prodhomme, C., Santana‐Falcón, Y., Terray, L., and Voldoire, A.
- Subjects
- *
STRATOSPHERIC aerosols , *STRATOSPHERIC chemistry , *SEA ice , *MARINE ecology , *SURFACE temperature , *CARBON cycle - Abstract
The CNRM‐Cerfacs Climate Prediction System (C3PS) is a new research modeling tool for performing climate reanalyzes and seasonal‐to‐multiannual predictions for a wide array of Earth system variables. C3PS is based on the CNRM‐ESM2‐1 model including interactive aerosols and stratospheric chemistry schemes as well as terrestrial and marine biogeochemistry enabling a comprehensive representation of the global carbon cycle. C3PS operates through a seamless coupled initialization for the atmosphere, land, ocean, sea ice and biogeochemistry components that allows a continuum of predictions across seasonal to multiannual time‐scales. C3PS has also contributed to the Decadal Climate Prediction Project (DCPP‐A) as part of the sixth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). Here we describe the main characteristics of this novel Earth system‐based prediction platform, including the methodological steps for obtaining initial states to produce forecasts. We evaluate the entire C3PS initialization procedure with the most up‐to‐date observations and reanalyzes over 1960–2021, and we discuss the overall performance of the system in the light of the lessons learned from previous and actual prediction platforms. Regarding the forecast skill, C3PS exhibits comparable seasonal predictive skill to other systems. At the multiannual scale, C3PS shows significant predictive skill in surface temperature during the first 2 years after initialization in several regions of the world. C3PS also exhibits potential predictive skill in Net primary production (NPP) and carbon fluxes several years in advance. This expands the possibility of applications of forecasting systems, such as the possibility of performing multiannual predictions of marine ecosystems and carbon cycle. Plain Language Summary: The study introduces and assesses the new climate prediction platform C3PS developed by the CNRM‐Cerfacs modeling group in the framework of the H2020 TRIATLAS project. This prediction system is based on the latest version of the CNRM Earth system model, CNRM‐ESM2.1, and was designed to produce predictions from seasonal to multiannual scales. C3PS is the result of the joint long‐term effort of experts in seasonal and decadal forecasting and modellers of ocean physics and biogeochemistry within the CNRM‐Cerfacs research group. An innovative aspect of our study is that it focuses on validating the initialization procedure, which is not often done in other studies presenting forecasting systems. We believe that the study of the reconstructions created to initialize the climate prediction systems is relevant, and even more so in the context of the new applications offered in the prediction of marine biogeochemistry and carbon fluxes. Regarding forecast skill, C3PS exhibits comparable seasonal predictive skill to other systems. On a multi‐year scale, C3PS shows potential skill not only in physical climate variables, but also in NPP and carbon fluxes up to 3 years in advance, which extends the possibilities of application to marine ecosystems and multi‐year carbon cycle forecasts. Key Points: This study introduces and assesses C3PS, the new CNRM‐Cerfacs Earth System‐based prediction platformThe platform can provide climate predictions from seasonal to multiannual timescales for relevant physical and biogeochemical fieldsThe most outstanding result is the ability of C3PS to predict the net primary production and carbon fluxes at multiannual timescales [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
4. A Synthesis of Global Coastal Ocean Greenhouse Gas Fluxes
- Author
-
Resplandy, L, Hogikyan, A, Müller, JD, Najjar, RG, Bange, HW, Bianchi, D, Weber, T, Cai, W‐J, Doney, SC, Fennel, K, Gehlen, M, Hauck, J, Lacroix, F, Landschützer, P, Le Quéré, C, Roobaert, A, Schwinger, J, Berthet, S, Bopp, L, Chau, TTT, Dai, M, Gruber, N, Ilyina, T, Kock, A, Manizza, M, Lachkar, Z, Laruelle, GG, Liao, E, Lima, ID, Nissen, Cara, Rödenbeck, C, Séférian, R, Toyama, K, Tsujino, H, Regnier, P, Resplandy, L, Hogikyan, A, Müller, JD, Najjar, RG, Bange, HW, Bianchi, D, Weber, T, Cai, W‐J, Doney, SC, Fennel, K, Gehlen, M, Hauck, J, Lacroix, F, Landschützer, P, Le Quéré, C, Roobaert, A, Schwinger, J, Berthet, S, Bopp, L, Chau, TTT, Dai, M, Gruber, N, Ilyina, T, Kock, A, Manizza, M, Lachkar, Z, Laruelle, GG, Liao, E, Lima, ID, Nissen, Cara, Rödenbeck, C, Séférian, R, Toyama, K, Tsujino, H, and Regnier, P
- Abstract
The coastal ocean contributes to regulating atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations by taking up carbon dioxide (CO2) and releasing nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4). In this second phase of the Regional Carbon Cycle Assessment and Processes (RECCAP2), we quantify global coastal ocean fluxes of CO2, N2O and CH4 using an ensemble of global gap-filled observation-based products and ocean biogeochemical models. The global coastal ocean is a net sink of CO2 in both observational products and models, but the magnitude of the median net global coastal uptake is ∼60% larger in models (−0.72 vs. −0.44 PgC year−1, 1998–2018, coastal ocean extending to 300 km offshore or 1,000 m isobath with area of 77 million km2). We attribute most of this model-product difference to the seasonality in sea surface CO2 partial pressure at mid- and high-latitudes, where models simulate stronger winter CO2 uptake. The coastal ocean CO2 sink has increased in the past decades but the available time-resolving observation-based products and models show large discrepancies in the magnitude of this increase. The global coastal ocean is a major source of N2O (+0.70 PgCO2-e year−1 in observational product and +0.54 PgCO2-e year−1 in model median) and CH4 (+0.21 PgCO2-e year−1 in observational product), which offsets a substantial proportion of the coastal CO2 uptake in the net radiative balance (30%–60% in CO2-equivalents), highlighting the importance of considering the three greenhouse gases when examining the influence of the coastal ocean on climate.
- Published
- 2024
5. Physical inconsistencies in the representation of the ocean heat-carbon nexus in simple climate models
- Author
-
Séférian, R., Bossy, T., Gasser, T., Nicholls, Z., Dorheim, K., Su, X., Tsutsui, J., Santana-Falcón, Y., Séférian, R., Bossy, T., Gasser, T., Nicholls, Z., Dorheim, K., Su, X., Tsutsui, J., and Santana-Falcón, Y.
- Abstract
The Ocean Heat-Carbon Nexus, linking ocean heat and carbon uptake, is crucial for understanding climate responses to cumulative carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and to net zero CO2 emissions. It results from a suite of processes involving the exchange of heat and carbon across the sea-air interface as well as their storage below the mixed layer and redistribution by the ocean large-scale circulation. The Ocean Heat and Carbon Nexus is assumed to be consistently represented across two modelling platforms used in the latest IPCC assessments: the Earth System Models (ESMs) and the Simple Climate Models (SCMs). However, our research shows significant deficiencies in state-of-the-art SCMs in replicating the ocean heat-carbon nexus of ESMs due to a crude treatment of the ocean thermal and carbon cycle coupling. With one SCM, we show that a more realistic heat-to-carbon uptake ratio exacerbates the projected warming by 0.1 °C in low overshoot scenarios and up to 0.2 °C in high overshoot scenarios. It is therefore critical to explore how SCMs’ physical inconsistencies, such as the representation of the ocean heat-carbon nexus, can affect future warming projections used in climate assessments, not just by SCMs in Working Group 3 but also by ESMs in Working Group 1 via SCM-driven emission-to-concentration translation.
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
6. A perspective on the next generation of Earth system model scenarios: towards representative emission pathways (REPs)
- Author
-
Meinshausen, M., Schleussner, C.-F., Beyer, K., Bodeker, G., Boucher, O., Canadell, J.G., Daniel, J.S., Diongue-Niang, A., Driouech, F., Fischer, E., Forster, P., Grose, M., Hansen, G., Hausfather, Z., Ilyina, T., Kikstra, J., Kimutai, J., King, A.D., Lee, J.-Y., Lennard, C., Lissner, T., Nauels, A., Peters, G.P., Pirani, A., Plattner, G.-K., Pörtner, H., Rogelj, J., Rojas, M., Roy, J., Samset, B.H., Sanderson, B.M., Séférian, R., Seneviratne, S., Smith, C., Szopa, S., Thomas, A., Urge-Vorsatz, D., Velders, G.J.M., Yokohata, T., Ziehn, T., Nicholls, Z., Meinshausen, M., Schleussner, C.-F., Beyer, K., Bodeker, G., Boucher, O., Canadell, J.G., Daniel, J.S., Diongue-Niang, A., Driouech, F., Fischer, E., Forster, P., Grose, M., Hansen, G., Hausfather, Z., Ilyina, T., Kikstra, J., Kimutai, J., King, A.D., Lee, J.-Y., Lennard, C., Lissner, T., Nauels, A., Peters, G.P., Pirani, A., Plattner, G.-K., Pörtner, H., Rogelj, J., Rojas, M., Roy, J., Samset, B.H., Sanderson, B.M., Séférian, R., Seneviratne, S., Smith, C., Szopa, S., Thomas, A., Urge-Vorsatz, D., Velders, G.J.M., Yokohata, T., Ziehn, T., and Nicholls, Z.
- Published
- 2024
7. A Synthesis of Global Coastal Ocean Greenhouse Gas Fluxes
- Author
-
Resplandy, L., Hogikyan, A., Müller, J. D., Najjar, R. G., Bange, Hermann W., Bianchi, D., Weber, T., Cai, W.‐J., Doney, S. C., Fennel, K., Gehlen, M., Hauck, J., Lacroix, F., Landschützer, P., Le Quéré, C., Roobaert, A., Schwinger, J., Berthet, S., Bopp, L., Chau, T. T. T., Dai, M., Gruber, N., Ilyina, T., Kock, Annette, Manizza, M., Lachkar, Z., Laruelle, G. G., Liao, E., Lima, I. D., Nissen, C., Rödenbeck, C., Séférian, R., Toyama, K., Tsujino, H., Regnier, P., Resplandy, L., Hogikyan, A., Müller, J. D., Najjar, R. G., Bange, Hermann W., Bianchi, D., Weber, T., Cai, W.‐J., Doney, S. C., Fennel, K., Gehlen, M., Hauck, J., Lacroix, F., Landschützer, P., Le Quéré, C., Roobaert, A., Schwinger, J., Berthet, S., Bopp, L., Chau, T. T. T., Dai, M., Gruber, N., Ilyina, T., Kock, Annette, Manizza, M., Lachkar, Z., Laruelle, G. G., Liao, E., Lima, I. D., Nissen, C., Rödenbeck, C., Séférian, R., Toyama, K., Tsujino, H., and Regnier, P.
- Abstract
The coastal ocean contributes to regulating atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations by taking up carbon dioxide (CO2) and releasing nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4). In this second phase of the Regional Carbon Cycle Assessment and Processes (RECCAP2), we quantify global coastal ocean fluxes of CO2, N2O and CH4 using an ensemble of global gap-filled observation-based products and ocean biogeochemical models. The global coastal ocean is a net sink of CO2 in both observational products and models, but the magnitude of the median net global coastal uptake is similar to 60% larger in models (-0.72 vs. -0.44 PgC year-1, 1998-2018, coastal ocean extending to 300 km offshore or 1,000 m isobath with area of 77 million km2). We attribute most of this model-product difference to the seasonality in sea surface CO2 partial pressure at mid- and high-latitudes, where models simulate stronger winter CO2 uptake. The coastal ocean CO2 sink has increased in the past decades but the available time-resolving observation-based products and models show large discrepancies in the magnitude of this increase. The global coastal ocean is a major source of N2O (+0.70 PgCO2-e year-1 in observational product and +0.54 PgCO2-e year-1 in model median) and CH4 (+0.21 PgCO2-e year-1 in observational product), which offsets a substantial proportion of the coastal CO2 uptake in the net radiative balance (30%-60% in CO2-equivalents), highlighting the importance of considering the three greenhouse gases when examining the influence of the coastal ocean on climate. The coastal ocean regulates greenhouse gases. It acts as a sink of carbon dioxide (CO2) but also releases nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4) into the atmosphere. This synthesis contributes to the second phase of the Regional Carbon Cycle Assessment and Processes (RECCAP2) and provides a comprehensive view of the coastal air-sea fluxes of these three greenhouse gases at the global scale. We use a multi-faceted approach combining gap-f
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
8. A Synthesis of Global Coastal Ocean Greenhouse Gas Fluxes
- Author
-
Resplandy, L., primary, Hogikyan, A., additional, Müller, J. D., additional, Najjar, R. G., additional, Bange, H. W., additional, Bianchi, D., additional, Weber, T., additional, Cai, W.‐J., additional, Doney, S. C., additional, Fennel, K., additional, Gehlen, M., additional, Hauck, J., additional, Lacroix, F., additional, Landschützer, P., additional, Le Quéré, C., additional, Roobaert, A., additional, Schwinger, J., additional, Berthet, S., additional, Bopp, L., additional, Chau, T. T. T., additional, Dai, M., additional, Gruber, N., additional, Ilyina, T., additional, Kock, A., additional, Manizza, M., additional, Lachkar, Z., additional, Laruelle, G. G., additional, Liao, E., additional, Lima, I. D., additional, Nissen, C., additional, Rödenbeck, C., additional, Séférian, R., additional, Toyama, K., additional, Tsujino, H., additional, and Regnier, P., additional
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
9. Global Carbon Budget 2015
- Author
-
Le Quéré, C, Moriarty, R, Andrew, RM, Canadell, JG, Sitch, S, Korsbakken, JI, Friedlingstein, P, Peters, GP, Andres, RJ, Boden, TA, Houghton, RA, House, JI, Keeling, RF, Tans, P, Arneth, A, Bakker, DCE, Barbero, L, Bopp, L, Chang, J, Chevallier, F, Chini, LP, Ciais, P, Fader, M, Feely, RA, Gkritzalis, T, Harris, I, Hauck, J, Ilyina, T, Jain, AK, Kato, E, Kitidis, V, Klein Goldewijk, K, Koven, C, Landschützer, P, Lauvset, SK, Lefèvre, N, Lenton, A, Lima, ID, Metzl, N, Millero, F, Munro, DR, Murata, A, S. Nabel, JEM, Nakaoka, S, Nojiri, Y, O'Brien, K, Olsen, A, Ono, T, Pérez, FF, Pfeil, B, Pierrot, D, Poulter, B, Rehder, G, Rödenbeck, C, Saito, S, Schuster, U, Schwinger, J, Séférian, R, Steinhoff, T, Stocker, BD, Sutton, AJ, Takahashi, T, Tilbrook, B, Van Der Laan-Luijkx, IT, Van Der Werf, GR, Van Heuven, S, Vandemark, D, Viovy, N, Wiltshire, A, Zaehle, S, and Zeng, N
- Subjects
Atmospheric Sciences ,Geochemistry ,Physical Geography and Environmental Geoscience - Abstract
Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe data sets and a methodology to quantify all major components of the global carbon budget, including their uncertainties, based on the combination of a range of data, algorithms, statistics, and model estimates and their interpretation by a broad scientific community. We discuss changes compared to previous estimates as well as consistency within and among components, alongside methodology and data limitations. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry (EFF) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on combined evidence from land-cover-change data, fire activity associated with deforestation, and models. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its rate of growth (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The mean ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) is based on observations from the 1990s, while the annual anomalies and trends are estimated with ocean models. The variability in SOCEAN is evaluated with data products based on surveys of ocean CO2 measurements. The global residual terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) is estimated by the difference of the other terms of the global carbon budget and compared to results of independent dynamic global vegetation models forced by observed climate, CO2, and land-cover change (some including nitrogen-carbon interactions). We compare the mean land and ocean fluxes and their variability to estimates from three atmospheric inverse methods for three broad latitude bands. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ, reflecting the current capacity to characterise the annual estimates of each component of the global carbon budget. For the last decade available (2005-2014), EFF was 9.0 ± 0.5 GtC yrg'1, ELUC was 0.9 ± 0.5 GtC yrg'1, GATM was 4.4 ± 0.1 GtC yrg'1, SOCEAN was 2.6 ± 0.5 GtC yrg'1, and SLAND was 3.0 ± 0.8 GtC yrg'1. For the year 2014 alone, EFF grew to 9.8 ± 0.5 GtC yrg'1, 0.6 % above 2013, continuing the growth trend in these emissions, albeit at a slower rate compared to the average growth of 2.2 % yrg'1 that took place during 2005-2014. Also, for 2014, ELUC was 1.1 ± 0.5 GtC yrg'1, GATM was 3.9 ± 0.2 GtC yrg'1, SOCEAN was 2.9 ± 0.5 GtC yrg'1, and SLAND was 4.1 ± 0.9 GtC yrg'1. GATM was lower in 2014 compared to the past decade (2005-2014), reflecting a larger SLAND for that year. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 397.15 ± 0.10 ppm averaged over 2014. For 2015, preliminary data indicate that the growth in EFF will be near or slightly below zero, with a projection of g'0.6 [range of g'1.6 to +0.5] %, based on national emissions projections for China and the USA, and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the global economy for the rest of the world. From this projection of EFF and assumed constant ELUC for 2015, cumulative emissions of CO2 will reach about 555 ± 55 GtC (2035 ± 205 GtCO2) for 1870-2015, about 75 % from EFF and 25 % from ELUC. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new carbon budget compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quéré et al., 2015, 2014, 2013). All observations presented here can be downloaded from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (doi:10.3334/CDIAC/GCP-2015).
- Published
- 2015
10. Climate-driven variability of the Southern Ocean CO 2 sink
- Author
-
Mayot, N., primary, Le Quéré, C., additional, Rödenbeck, C., additional, Bernardello, R., additional, Bopp, L., additional, Djeutchouang, L. M., additional, Gehlen, M., additional, Gregor, L., additional, Gruber, N., additional, Hauck, J., additional, Iida, Y., additional, Ilyina, T., additional, Keeling, R. F., additional, Landschützer, P., additional, Manning, A. C., additional, Patara, L., additional, Resplandy, L., additional, Schwinger, J., additional, Séférian, R., additional, Watson, A. J., additional, Wright, R. M., additional, and Zeng, J., additional
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
11. Global Carbon Budget 2023
- Author
-
Integr. Assessm. Global Environm. Change, Environmental Sciences, Friedlingstein, P., O'Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Bakker, D. C. E., Hauck, J., Landschützer, P., Le Quéré, C., Luijkx, I. T., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Schwingshackl, C., Sitch, S., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Alin, S. R., Anthoni, P., Barbero, L., Bates, N. R., Becker, M., Bellouin, N., Decharme, B., Bopp, L., Brasika, I. B. M., Cadule, P., Chamberlain, M. A., Chandra, N., Chau, T.-T.-T., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Cronin, M., Dou, X., Enyo, K., Evans, W., Falk, S., Feely, R. A., Feng, L., Ford, D. J., Gasser, T., Ghattas, J., Gkritzalis, T., Grassi, G., Gregor, L., Gruber, N., Gürses, Ö., Harris, I., Hefner, M., Heinke, J., Houghton, R. A., Hurtt, G. C., Iida, Y., Ilyina, T., Jacobson, A. R., Jain, A., Jarníková, T., Jersild, A., Jiang, F., Jin, Z., Joos, F., Kato, E., Keeling, R. F., Kennedy, D., Klein Goldewijk, K., Knauer, J., Korsbakken, J. I., Körtzinger, A., Lan, X., Lefèvre, N., Li, H., Liu, J., Liu, Z., Ma, L., Marland, G., Mayot, N., McGuire, P. C., McKinley, G. A., Meyer, G., Morgan, E. J., Munro, D. R., Nakaoka, S.-I., Niwa, Y., O'Brien, K. M., Olsen, A., Omar, A. M., Ono, T., Paulsen, M., Pierrot, D., Pocock, K., Poulter, B., Powis, C. M., Rehder, G., Resplandy, L., Robertson, E., Rödenbeck, C., Rosan, T. M., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Smallman, T. L., Smith, S. M., Sospedra-Alfonso, R., Sun, Q., Sutton, A. J., Sweeney, C., Takao, S., Tans, P. P., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., Tsujino, H., Tubiello, F., van der Werf, G. R., van Ooijen, E., Wanninkhof, R., Watanabe, M., Wimart-Rousseau, C., Yang, D., Yang, X., Yuan, W., Yue, X., Zaehle, S., Zeng, J., Zheng, B., Integr. Assessm. Global Environm. Change, Environmental Sciences, Friedlingstein, P., O'Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Bakker, D. C. E., Hauck, J., Landschützer, P., Le Quéré, C., Luijkx, I. T., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Schwingshackl, C., Sitch, S., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Alin, S. R., Anthoni, P., Barbero, L., Bates, N. R., Becker, M., Bellouin, N., Decharme, B., Bopp, L., Brasika, I. B. M., Cadule, P., Chamberlain, M. A., Chandra, N., Chau, T.-T.-T., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Cronin, M., Dou, X., Enyo, K., Evans, W., Falk, S., Feely, R. A., Feng, L., Ford, D. J., Gasser, T., Ghattas, J., Gkritzalis, T., Grassi, G., Gregor, L., Gruber, N., Gürses, Ö., Harris, I., Hefner, M., Heinke, J., Houghton, R. A., Hurtt, G. C., Iida, Y., Ilyina, T., Jacobson, A. R., Jain, A., Jarníková, T., Jersild, A., Jiang, F., Jin, Z., Joos, F., Kato, E., Keeling, R. F., Kennedy, D., Klein Goldewijk, K., Knauer, J., Korsbakken, J. I., Körtzinger, A., Lan, X., Lefèvre, N., Li, H., Liu, J., Liu, Z., Ma, L., Marland, G., Mayot, N., McGuire, P. C., McKinley, G. A., Meyer, G., Morgan, E. J., Munro, D. R., Nakaoka, S.-I., Niwa, Y., O'Brien, K. M., Olsen, A., Omar, A. M., Ono, T., Paulsen, M., Pierrot, D., Pocock, K., Poulter, B., Powis, C. M., Rehder, G., Resplandy, L., Robertson, E., Rödenbeck, C., Rosan, T. M., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Smallman, T. L., Smith, S. M., Sospedra-Alfonso, R., Sun, Q., Sutton, A. J., Sweeney, C., Takao, S., Tans, P. P., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., Tsujino, H., Tubiello, F., van der Werf, G. R., van Ooijen, E., Wanninkhof, R., Watanabe, M., Wimart-Rousseau, C., Yang, D., Yang, X., Yuan, W., Yue, X., Zaehle, S., Zeng, J., and Zheng, B.
- Published
- 2023
12. The Zero Emissions Commitment and climate stabilization
- Author
-
Palazzo Corner, S., Siegert, M., Ceppi, P., Fox-Kemper, B., Frölicher, T., Gallego-Sala, A., Haigh, J., Hegerl, G., Jones, C., Knutti, R., Koven, C., MacDougall, A., Meinshausen, M., Nicholls, Z., Sallée, J., Sanderson, B., Séférian, R., Turetsky, M., Williams, R., Zaehle, S., Rogelj, J., Palazzo Corner, S., Siegert, M., Ceppi, P., Fox-Kemper, B., Frölicher, T., Gallego-Sala, A., Haigh, J., Hegerl, G., Jones, C., Knutti, R., Koven, C., MacDougall, A., Meinshausen, M., Nicholls, Z., Sallée, J., Sanderson, B., Séférian, R., Turetsky, M., Williams, R., Zaehle, S., and Rogelj, J.
- Abstract
How do we halt global warming? Reaching net zero carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is understood to be a key milestone on the path to a safer planet. But how confident are we that when we stop carbon emissions, we also stop global warming? The Zero Emissions Commitment (ZEC) quantifies how much warming or cooling we can expect following a complete cessation of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. To date, the best estimate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report is zero change, though with substantial uncertainty. In this article, we present an overview of the changes expected in major Earth system processes after net zero and their potential impact on global surface temperature, providing an outlook toward building a more confident assessment of ZEC in the decades to come. We propose a structure to guide research into ZEC and associated changes in the climate, separating the impacts expected over decades, centuries, and millennia. As we look ahead at the century billed to mark the end of net anthropogenic CO2 emissions, we ask: what is the prospect of a stable climate in a post-net zero world?
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
13. A perspective on the next generation of Earth system model scenarios: towards representative emission pathways (REPs)
- Author
-
Meinshausen, M., Schleussner, C.-F., Beyer, K., Bodeker, G., Boucher, O., Canadell, J.G., Daniel, J.S., Diongue-Niang, A., Driouech, F., Fischer, E., Forster, P., Grose, M., Hansen, G., Hausfather, Z., Ilyina, T., Kikstra, J., Kimutai, J., King, A., Lee, J.-Y., Lennard, C., Lissner, T., Nauels, A., Peters, G.P., Pirani, A., Plattner, G.-K., Pörtner, H., Rogelj, J., Rojas, M., Roy, J., Samset, B.H., Sanderson, B.M., Séférian, R., Seneviratne, S., Smith, C., Szopa, S., Thomas, A., Urge-Vorsatz, D., Velders, G.J.M., Yokohata, T., Ziehn, T., Nicholls, Z., Meinshausen, M., Schleussner, C.-F., Beyer, K., Bodeker, G., Boucher, O., Canadell, J.G., Daniel, J.S., Diongue-Niang, A., Driouech, F., Fischer, E., Forster, P., Grose, M., Hansen, G., Hausfather, Z., Ilyina, T., Kikstra, J., Kimutai, J., King, A., Lee, J.-Y., Lennard, C., Lissner, T., Nauels, A., Peters, G.P., Pirani, A., Plattner, G.-K., Pörtner, H., Rogelj, J., Rojas, M., Roy, J., Samset, B.H., Sanderson, B.M., Séférian, R., Seneviratne, S., Smith, C., Szopa, S., Thomas, A., Urge-Vorsatz, D., Velders, G.J.M., Yokohata, T., Ziehn, T., and Nicholls, Z.
- Abstract
In every IPCC Assessment cycle, a multitude of scenarios are assessed, with different scope and emphasis throughout the various Working Group and Special Reports and their respective chapters. Within the reports, the ambition is to integrate knowledge on possible climate futures across the Working Groups and scientific research domains based on a small set of ‘framing pathways’, such as the so-called RCP pathways from the Fifth IPCC Assessment report (AR5) and the SSP-RCP scenarios in the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6). This perspective, initiated by discussions at the IPCC Bangkok workshop in April 2023 on the “Use of Scenarios in AR6 and Subsequent Assessments”, is intended to serve as one of the community contributions to highlight needs for the next generation of framing pathways that is being advanced under the CMIP umbrella for use in the IPCC AR7. Here we suggest a number of policy research objectives that such a set of framing pathways should ideally fulfil, including mitigation needs for meeting the Paris Agreement objectives, the risks associated with carbon removal strategies, the consequences of delay in enacting that mitigation, guidance for adaptation needs, loss and damage, and for achieving mitigation in the wider context of Societal Development goals. Based on this context we suggest that the next generation of climate scenarios for Earth System Models should evolve towards ‘Representative Emission Pathways’ (REPs) and suggest key categories for such pathways. These ‘framing pathways’ should address the most critical mitigation policy and adaptation needs over the next 5–10 years. In our view the most important categories are those relevant in the context of the Paris Agreement long-term goal, specifically an immediate action (low overshoot) 1.5 °C pathway, and a delayed action (high overshoot) 1.5 °C pathway. Two other key categories are a pathway category approximately in line with current (as expressed by 2023) near- and long-term policy objective
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
14. Reviews and syntheses: Abrupt ocean biogeochemical change under human-made climatic forcing – warming, acidification, and deoxygenation
- Author
-
Heinze, C., Blenckner, T., Brown, P., Fröb, F., Morée, A., New, A., Nissen, C., Rynders, S., Seguro, I., Aksenov, Y., Artioli, Y., Bourgeois, T., Burger, F., Buzan, J., Cael, B., Yumruktepe, V., Chierici, M., Danek, C., Dieckmann, U., Fransson, A., Frölicher, T., Galli, G., Gehlen, M., González, A., Gonzalez-Davila, M.., Gruber, N., Gustafsson, Ö., Hauck, J., Heino, M., Henson, S., Hieronymus, J., Huertas, I., Jebri, F., Jeltsch-Thömmes, A., Joos, F., Joshi, J., Kelly, S., Menon, N., Mongwe, P., Oziel, L., Ólafsdottir, S., Palmieri, J., Pérez, F., Ranith, R., Ramanantsoa, J., Roy, T., Rusiecka, D., Santana Casiano, J., Santana-Falcón, Y., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Seifert, M., Shchiptsova, A., Sinha, B., Somes, C., Steinfeldt, R., Tao, D., Tjiputra, J., Ulfsbo, A., Völker, C., Wakamatsu, T., Ye, Y., Heinze, C., Blenckner, T., Brown, P., Fröb, F., Morée, A., New, A., Nissen, C., Rynders, S., Seguro, I., Aksenov, Y., Artioli, Y., Bourgeois, T., Burger, F., Buzan, J., Cael, B., Yumruktepe, V., Chierici, M., Danek, C., Dieckmann, U., Fransson, A., Frölicher, T., Galli, G., Gehlen, M., González, A., Gonzalez-Davila, M.., Gruber, N., Gustafsson, Ö., Hauck, J., Heino, M., Henson, S., Hieronymus, J., Huertas, I., Jebri, F., Jeltsch-Thömmes, A., Joos, F., Joshi, J., Kelly, S., Menon, N., Mongwe, P., Oziel, L., Ólafsdottir, S., Palmieri, J., Pérez, F., Ranith, R., Ramanantsoa, J., Roy, T., Rusiecka, D., Santana Casiano, J., Santana-Falcón, Y., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Seifert, M., Shchiptsova, A., Sinha, B., Somes, C., Steinfeldt, R., Tao, D., Tjiputra, J., Ulfsbo, A., Völker, C., Wakamatsu, T., and Ye, Y.
- Abstract
Abrupt changes in ocean biogeochemical variables occur as a result of human-induced climate forcing as well as those which are more gradual and occur over longer timescales. These abrupt changes have not yet been identified and quantified to the same extent as the more gradual ones. We review and synthesise abrupt changes in ocean biogeochemistry under human-induced climatic forcing. We specifically address the ocean carbon and oxygen cycles because the related processes of acidification and deoxygenation provide important ecosystem hazards. Since biogeochemical cycles depend also on the physical environment, we also describe the relevant changes in warming, circulation, and sea ice. We include an overview of the reversibility or irreversibility of abrupt marine biogeochemical changes. Important implications of abrupt biogeochemical changes for ecosystems are also discussed. We conclude that there is evidence for increasing occurrence and extent of abrupt changes in ocean biogeochemistry as a consequence of rising greenhouse gas emissions.
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
15. Climate-driven variability of the Southern Ocean CO 2 sink
- Author
-
Mayot, N., Le Quéré, C., Rödenbeck, C., Bernardello, R., Bopp, L., Djeutchouang, L. M., Gehlen, M., Gregor, L., Gruber, N., Hauck, J., Iida, Y., Ilyina, T., Keeling, R. F., Landschützer, P., Manning, A. C., Patara, Lavinia, Resplandy, L., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Watson, A. J., Wright, R. M., Zeng, J., Mayot, N., Le Quéré, C., Rödenbeck, C., Bernardello, R., Bopp, L., Djeutchouang, L. M., Gehlen, M., Gregor, L., Gruber, N., Hauck, J., Iida, Y., Ilyina, T., Keeling, R. F., Landschützer, P., Manning, A. C., Patara, Lavinia, Resplandy, L., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Watson, A. J., Wright, R. M., and Zeng, J.
- Abstract
The Southern Ocean is a major sink of atmospheric CO2, but the nature and magnitude of its variability remains uncertain and debated. Estimates based on observations suggest substantial variability that is not reproduced by process-based ocean models, with increasingly divergent estimates over the past decade. We examine potential constraints on the nature and magnitude of climate-driven variability of the Southern Ocean CO2 sink from observation-based air-sea O-2 fluxes. On interannual time scales, the variability in the air-sea fluxes of CO2 and O-2 estimated from observations is consistent across the two species and positively correlated with the variability simulated by ocean models. Our analysis suggests that variations in ocean ventilation related to the Southern Annular Mode are responsible for this interannual variability. On decadal time scales, the existence of significant variability in the air-sea CO2 flux estimated from observations also tends to be supported by observation-based estimates of O-2 flux variability. However, the large decadal variability in air-sea CO2 flux is absent from ocean models. Our analysis suggests that issues in representing the balance between the thermal and non-thermal components of the CO2 sink and/or insufficient variability in mode water formation might contribute to the lack of decadal variability in the current generation of ocean models.This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'Heat and carbon uptake in the Southern Ocean: the state of the art and future priorities'.
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
16. Intercomparison of dissolved trace elements at the Bermuda Atlantic Time Series station
- Author
-
Middag, R., Séférian, R., Conway, T.M., John, S.G., Bruland, K.W., and de Baar, H.J.W.
- Published
- 2015
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
17. Ocean modelling protocol from RECCAP2-ocean and figures S1-S6 from Climate-driven variability of the Southern Ocean CO2 sink
- Author
-
Mayot, N., Le Quéré, C., Rödenbeck, C., Bernardello, R., Bopp, L., Djeutchouang, L. M., Gehlen, M., Gregor, L., Gruber, N., Hauck, J., Iida, Y., Ilyina, T., Keeling, R. F., Landschützer, P., Manning, A. C., Patara, L., Resplandy, L., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Watson, A. J., Wright, R. M., and Zeng, J.
- Abstract
We are summarizing the ocean modelling protocol provided by RECCAP2, and supplementary figures associated with figure 3.
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
18. Global Carbon Budget 2022
- Author
-
Friedlingstein, P., O'Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Gregor, L., Hauck, J., Le Quéré, C., Luijkx, I. T., Olsen, A., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Schwingshackl, C., Sitch, S., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Alin, S. R., Alkama, R., Arneth, A., Arora, V. K., Bates, N. R., Becker, M., Bellouin, N., Bittig, H. C., Bopp, L., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Cronin, M., Evans, W., Falk, S., Feely, R. A., Gasser, T., Gehlen, M., Gkritzalis, T., Gloege, L., Grassi, G., Gruber, N., Gürses, Ö., Harris, I., Hefner, M., Houghton, R. A., Hurtt, G. C., Iida, Y., Ilyina, T., Jain, A. K., Jersild, A., Kadono, K., Kato, E., Kennedy, D., Klein Goldewijk, K., Knauer, J., Korsbakken, J. I., Landschützer, P., Lefèvre, N., Lindsay, K., Liu, J., Liu, Z., Marland, G., Mayot, N., McGrath, M. J., Metzl, N., Monacci, N. M., Munro, D. R., Nakaoka, S.-I., Niwa, Y., O'Brien, K., Ono, T., Palmer, P. I., Pan, N., Pierrot, D., Pocock, K., Poulter, B., Resplandy, L., Robertson, E., Rödenbeck, C., Rodriguez, C., Rosan, T. M., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Shutler, J. D., Skjelvan, I., Steinhoff, T., Sun, Q., Sutton, A. J., Sweeney, C., Takao, S., Tanhua, T., Tans, P. P., Tian, X., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., Tsujino, H., Tubiello, F., van der Werf, G. R., Walker, A. P., Wanninkhof, R., Whitehead, C., Willstrand Wranne, A., Wright, R., Yuan, W., Yue, C., Yue, X., Zaehle, S., Zeng, J., Zheng, B., Integr. Assessm. Global Environm. Change, Environmental Sciences, Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique (UMR 8539) (LMD), Université Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris 6 (UPMC)-Institut national des sciences de l'Univers (INSU - CNRS)-École polytechnique (X)-École des Ponts ParisTech (ENPC)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Département des Géosciences - ENS Paris, École normale supérieure - Paris (ENS-PSL), Université Paris sciences et lettres (PSL)-Université Paris sciences et lettres (PSL)-École normale supérieure - Paris (ENS-PSL), Université Paris sciences et lettres (PSL)-Université Paris sciences et lettres (PSL), Institut national des sciences de l'Univers (INSU - CNRS)-École polytechnique (X)-École des Ponts ParisTech (ENPC)-Sorbonne Université (SU)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Département des Géosciences - ENS Paris, College of Life and Environmental Sciences [Exeter], University of Exeter, Rice University [Houston], Center for International Climate and Environmental Research [Oslo] (CICERO), University of Oslo (UiO), Institute of Biogeochemistry and Pollutant Dynamics [ETH Zürich] (IBP), Department of Environmental Systems Science [ETH Zürich] (D-USYS), Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule - Swiss Federal Institute of Technology [Zürich] (ETH Zürich)- Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule - Swiss Federal Institute of Technology [Zürich] (ETH Zürich), Alfred-Wegener-Institut, Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar- und Meeresforschung (AWI), Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia [Norwich] (UEA), Meteorology and Air Quality Group, Wageningen University and Research [Wageningen] (WUR), Geophysical Institute [Bergen] (GFI / BiU), University of Bergen (UiB), Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research (BCCR), Department of Biological Sciences [Bergen] (BIO / UiB), University of Bergen (UiB)-University of Bergen (UiB), Meteorology and Air Quality Department [Wageningen] (MAQ), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (LMU), Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI-M), Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation [Canberra] (CSIRO), Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement [Gif-sur-Yvette] (LSCE), Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ)-Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA)-Institut national des sciences de l'Univers (INSU - CNRS)-Université Paris-Saclay-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, European Commission - Joint Research Centre [Ispra] (JRC), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (CCCma), Environment and Climate Change Canada, Austral, Boréal et Carbone (ABC), Laboratoire d'Océanographie et du Climat : Expérimentations et Approches Numériques (LOCEAN), Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle (MNHN)-Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD)-Institut national des sciences de l'Univers (INSU - CNRS)-Sorbonne Université (SU)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Institut Pierre-Simon-Laplace (IPSL (FR_636)), Université Paris sciences et lettres (PSL)-Université Paris sciences et lettres (PSL)-Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ)-Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA)-Institut national des sciences de l'Univers (INSU - CNRS)-École polytechnique (X)-Centre National d'Études Spatiales [Toulouse] (CNES)-Sorbonne Université (SU)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Université Paris Cité (UPCité)-École normale supérieure - Paris (ENS-PSL), Université Paris sciences et lettres (PSL)-Université Paris sciences et lettres (PSL)-Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ)-Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA)-École polytechnique (X)-Centre National d'Études Spatiales [Toulouse] (CNES)-Sorbonne Université (SU)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Université Paris Cité (UPCité)-Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle (MNHN)-Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD)-Institut national des sciences de l'Univers (INSU - CNRS)-Sorbonne Université (SU)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Institut Pierre-Simon-Laplace (IPSL (FR_636)), Université Paris sciences et lettres (PSL)-Université Paris sciences et lettres (PSL)-Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ)-Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA)-École polytechnique (X)-Centre National d'Études Spatiales [Toulouse] (CNES)-Sorbonne Université (SU)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Université Paris Cité (UPCité), Cycles biogéochimiques marins : processus et perturbations (CYBIOM), Earth Sciences, Amsterdam Sustainability Institute, and Isotope Research
- Subjects
WIMEK ,[SDE.MCG]Environmental Sciences/Global Changes ,SDG 13 - Climate Action ,Life Science ,General Earth and Planetary Sciences ,Luchtkwaliteit ,Air Quality - Abstract
Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in a changing climate is critical to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe and synthesize data sets and methodologies to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFOS) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly, and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) is estimated with global ocean biogeochemistry models and observation-based data products. The terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) is estimated with dynamic global vegetation models. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the year 2021, EFOS increased by 5.1 % relative to 2020, with fossil emissions at 10.1 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 (9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when the cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 1.1 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, for a total anthropogenic CO2 emission (including the cement carbonation sink) of 10.9 ± 0.8 GtC yr−1 (40.0 ± 2.9 GtCO2). Also, for 2021, GATM was 5.2 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.5 ± 0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 2.9 ± 0.4 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.5 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of −0.6 GtC yr−1 (i.e. the total estimated sources were too low or sinks were too high). The global atmospheric CO2 concentration averaged over 2021 reached 414.71 ± 0.1 ppm. Preliminary data for 2022 suggest an increase in EFOS relative to 2021 of +1.0 % (0.1 % to 1.9 %) globally and atmospheric CO2 concentration reaching 417.2 ppm, more than 50 % above pre-industrial levels (around 278 ppm). Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2021, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of annual to semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. Comparison of estimates from multiple approaches and observations shows (1) a persistent large uncertainty in the estimate of land-use change emissions, (2) a low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extratropics, and (3) a discrepancy between the different methods on the strength of the ocean sink over the last decade. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set. The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2022 (Friedlingstein et al., 2022b).
- Published
- 2022
19. Climate-driven variability of the Southern Ocean CO2 sink.
- Author
-
Mayot, N., Le Quéré, C., Rödenbeck, C., Bernardello, R., Bopp, L., Djeutchouang, L. M., Gehlen, M., Gregor, L., Gruber, N., Hauck, J., Iida, Y., Ilyina, T., Keeling, R. F., Landschützer, P., Manning, A. C., Patara, L., Resplandy, L., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., and Watson, A. J.
- Subjects
ANTARCTIC oscillation ,OCEAN ,ATMOSPHERIC carbon dioxide ,MINE ventilation - Abstract
The Southern Ocean is a major sink of atmospheric CO
2 , but the nature and magnitude of its variability remains uncertain and debated. Estimates based on observations suggest substantial variability that is not reproduced by process-based ocean models, with increasingly divergent estimates over the past decade. We examine potential constraints on the nature and magnitude of climate-driven variability of the Southern Ocean CO2 sink from observation-based air–sea O2 fluxes. On interannual time scales, the variability in the air–sea fluxes of CO2 and O2 estimated from observations is consistent across the two species and positively correlated with the variability simulated by ocean models. Our analysis suggests that variations in ocean ventilation related to the Southern Annular Mode are responsible for this interannual variability. On decadal time scales, the existence of significant variability in the air–sea CO2 flux estimated from observations also tends to be supported by observation-based estimates of O2 flux variability. However, the large decadal variability in air–sea CO2 flux is absent from ocean models. Our analysis suggests that issues in representing the balance between the thermal and non-thermal components of the CO2 sink and/or insufficient variability in mode water formation might contribute to the lack of decadal variability in the current generation of ocean models. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'Heat and carbon uptake in the Southern Ocean: the state of the art and future priorities'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
20. On the evolution of the oceanic component of the IPSL climate models from CMIP3 to CMIP5: A mean state comparison
- Author
-
Mignot, J., Swingedouw, D., Deshayes, J., Marti, O., Talandier, C., Séférian, R., Lengaigne, M., and Madec, G.
- Published
- 2013
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
21. Characterizing the Southern Ocean Carbon Sink 1985 to 2018: A Synthesis in the Framework of the RECCAP2 Project
- Author
-
Hauck, Judith, Gregor, L., Nissen, Cara, Patara, L., Hague, M., Mongwe, P., Bushinsky, S., Doney, S., Gruber, N., Le Quéré, Corinne, Manizza, M., Mazloff, M., Monteiro, Pedro, Séférian, R., Hauck, Judith, Gregor, L., Nissen, Cara, Patara, L., Hague, M., Mongwe, P., Bushinsky, S., Doney, S., Gruber, N., Le Quéré, Corinne, Manizza, M., Mazloff, M., Monteiro, Pedro, and Séférian, R.
- Published
- 2022
22. Multi-century dynamics of the climate and carbon cycle under both high and net negative emissions scenarios
- Author
-
Koven, CD, Koven, CD, Arora, VK, Cadule, P, Fisher, RA, Jones, CD, Lawrence, DM, Lewis, J, Lindsay, K, Mathesius, S, Meinshausen, M, Mills, M, Nicholls, Z, Sanderson, BM, Séférian, R, Swart, NC, Wieder, WR, Zickfeld, K, Koven, CD, Koven, CD, Arora, VK, Cadule, P, Fisher, RA, Jones, CD, Lawrence, DM, Lewis, J, Lindsay, K, Mathesius, S, Meinshausen, M, Mills, M, Nicholls, Z, Sanderson, BM, Séférian, R, Swart, NC, Wieder, WR, and Zickfeld, K
- Abstract
Future climate projections from Earth system models (ESMs) typically focus on the timescale of this century. We use a set of five ESMs and one Earth system model of intermediate complexity (EMIC) to explore the dynamics of the Earth's climate and carbon cycles under contrasting emissions trajectories beyond this century to the year 2300. The trajectories include a very-high-emissions, unmitigated fossil-fuel-driven scenario, as well as a mitigation scenario that diverges from the first scenario after 2040 and features an "overshoot", followed by a decrease in atmospheric CO2 concentrations by means of large net negative CO2 emissions. In both scenarios and for all models considered here, the terrestrial system switches from being a net sink to either a neutral state or a net source of carbon, though for different reasons and centered in different geographic regions, depending on both the model and the scenario. The ocean carbon system remains a sink, albeit weakened by carbon cycle feedbacks, in all models under the high-emissions scenario and switches from sink to source in the overshoot scenario. The global mean temperature anomaly is generally proportional to cumulative carbon emissions, with a deviation from proportionality in the overshoot scenario that is governed by the zero emissions commitment. Additionally, 23rd century warming continues after the cessation of carbon emissions in several models in the high-emissions scenario and in one model in the overshoot scenario. While ocean carbon cycle responses qualitatively agree in both globally integrated and zonal mean dynamics in both scenarios, the land models qualitatively disagree in zonal mean dynamics, in the relative roles of vegetation and soil in driving C fluxes, in the response of the sink to CO2, and in the timing of the sink-source transition, particularly in the high-emissions scenario. The lack of agreement among land models on the mechanisms and geographic patterns of carbon cycle feedbacks, alo
- Published
- 2022
23. Uncertainty in land carbon budget simulated by terrestrial biosphere models: the role of atmospheric forcing
- Author
-
Hardouin, L, Hardouin, L, Delire, C, Decharme, B, Lawrence, DM, Nabel, JEMS, Brovkin, V, Collier, N, Fisher, R, Hoffman, FM, Koven, CD, Séférian, R, Stacke, T, Hardouin, L, Hardouin, L, Delire, C, Decharme, B, Lawrence, DM, Nabel, JEMS, Brovkin, V, Collier, N, Fisher, R, Hoffman, FM, Koven, CD, Séférian, R, and Stacke, T
- Abstract
Global estimates of the land carbon sink are often based on simulations by terrestrial biosphere models (TBMs). The use of a large number of models that differ in their underlying hypotheses, structure and parameters is one way to assess the uncertainty in the historical land carbon sink. Here we show that the atmospheric forcing datasets used to drive these TBMs represent a significant source of uncertainty that is currently not systematically accounted for in land carbon cycle evaluations. We present results from three TBMs each forced with three different historical atmospheric forcing reconstructions over the period 1850-2015. We perform an analysis of variance to quantify the relative uncertainty in carbon fluxes arising from the models themselves, atmospheric forcing, and model-forcing interactions. We find that atmospheric forcing in this set of simulations plays a dominant role on uncertainties in global gross primary productivity (GPP) (75% of variability) and autotrophic respiration (90%), and a significant but reduced role on net primary productivity and heterotrophic respiration (30%). Atmospheric forcing is the dominant driver (52%) of variability for the net ecosystem exchange flux, defined as the difference between GPP and respiration (both autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration). In contrast, for wildfire-driven carbon emissions model uncertainties dominate and, as a result, model uncertainties dominate for net ecosystem productivity. At regional scales, the contribution of atmospheric forcing to uncertainty shows a very heterogeneous pattern and is smaller on average than at the global scale. We find that this difference in the relative importance of forcing uncertainty between global and regional scales is related to large differences in regional model flux estimates, which partially offset each other when integrated globally, while the flux differences driven by forcing are mainly consistent across the world and therefore add up to a larger fra
- Published
- 2022
24. Global Carbon Budget 2022
- Author
-
Integr. Assessm. Global Environm. Change, Environmental Sciences, Friedlingstein, P., O'Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Gregor, L., Hauck, J., Le Quéré, C., Luijkx, I. T., Olsen, A., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Schwingshackl, C., Sitch, S., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Alin, S. R., Alkama, R., Arneth, A., Arora, V. K., Bates, N. R., Becker, M., Bellouin, N., Bittig, H. C., Bopp, L., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Cronin, M., Evans, W., Falk, S., Feely, R. A., Gasser, T., Gehlen, M., Gkritzalis, T., Gloege, L., Grassi, G., Gruber, N., Gürses, Ö., Harris, I., Hefner, M., Houghton, R. A., Hurtt, G. C., Iida, Y., Ilyina, T., Jain, A. K., Jersild, A., Kadono, K., Kato, E., Kennedy, D., Klein Goldewijk, K., Knauer, J., Korsbakken, J. I., Landschützer, P., Lefèvre, N., Lindsay, K., Liu, J., Liu, Z., Marland, G., Mayot, N., McGrath, M. J., Metzl, N., Monacci, N. M., Munro, D. R., Nakaoka, S.-I., Niwa, Y., O'Brien, K., Ono, T., Palmer, P. I., Pan, N., Pierrot, D., Pocock, K., Poulter, B., Resplandy, L., Robertson, E., Rödenbeck, C., Rodriguez, C., Rosan, T. M., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Shutler, J. D., Skjelvan, I., Steinhoff, T., Sun, Q., Sutton, A. J., Sweeney, C., Takao, S., Tanhua, T., Tans, P. P., Tian, X., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., Tsujino, H., Tubiello, F., van der Werf, G. R., Walker, A. P., Wanninkhof, R., Whitehead, C., Willstrand Wranne, A., Wright, R., Yuan, W., Yue, C., Yue, X., Zaehle, S., Zeng, J., Zheng, B., Integr. Assessm. Global Environm. Change, Environmental Sciences, Friedlingstein, P., O'Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Gregor, L., Hauck, J., Le Quéré, C., Luijkx, I. T., Olsen, A., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Schwingshackl, C., Sitch, S., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Alin, S. R., Alkama, R., Arneth, A., Arora, V. K., Bates, N. R., Becker, M., Bellouin, N., Bittig, H. C., Bopp, L., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Cronin, M., Evans, W., Falk, S., Feely, R. A., Gasser, T., Gehlen, M., Gkritzalis, T., Gloege, L., Grassi, G., Gruber, N., Gürses, Ö., Harris, I., Hefner, M., Houghton, R. A., Hurtt, G. C., Iida, Y., Ilyina, T., Jain, A. K., Jersild, A., Kadono, K., Kato, E., Kennedy, D., Klein Goldewijk, K., Knauer, J., Korsbakken, J. I., Landschützer, P., Lefèvre, N., Lindsay, K., Liu, J., Liu, Z., Marland, G., Mayot, N., McGrath, M. J., Metzl, N., Monacci, N. M., Munro, D. R., Nakaoka, S.-I., Niwa, Y., O'Brien, K., Ono, T., Palmer, P. I., Pan, N., Pierrot, D., Pocock, K., Poulter, B., Resplandy, L., Robertson, E., Rödenbeck, C., Rodriguez, C., Rosan, T. M., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Shutler, J. D., Skjelvan, I., Steinhoff, T., Sun, Q., Sutton, A. J., Sweeney, C., Takao, S., Tanhua, T., Tans, P. P., Tian, X., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., Tsujino, H., Tubiello, F., van der Werf, G. R., Walker, A. P., Wanninkhof, R., Whitehead, C., Willstrand Wranne, A., Wright, R., Yuan, W., Yue, C., Yue, X., Zaehle, S., Zeng, J., and Zheng, B.
- Published
- 2022
25. Impact of bioenergy crop expansion on climate–carbon cycle feedbacks in overshoot scenarios
- Author
-
Melnikova, I., Boucher, O., Cadule, P., Tanaka, K., Gasser, T., Hajima, T., Quilcaille, Y., Shiogama, H., Séférian, R., Tachiiri, K., Vuichard, N., Yokohata, T., Ciais, P., Melnikova, I., Boucher, O., Cadule, P., Tanaka, K., Gasser, T., Hajima, T., Quilcaille, Y., Shiogama, H., Séférian, R., Tachiiri, K., Vuichard, N., Yokohata, T., and Ciais, P.
- Abstract
Stringent mitigation pathways frame the deployment of second-generation bioenergy crops combined with carbon capture and storage (CCS) to generate negative CO2 emissions. This bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) technology facilitates the achievement of the long-term temperature goal of the Paris Agreement. Here, we use five state-of-the-art Earth system models (ESMs) to explore the consequences of large-scale BECCS deployment on the climate–carbon cycle feedbacks under the CMIP6 SSP5-3.4-OS overshoot scenario keeping in mind that all these models use generic crop vegetation to simulate BECCS. First, we evaluate the land cover representation by ESMs and highlight the inconsistencies that emerge during translation of the data from integrated assessment models (IAMs) that are used to develop the scenario. Second, we evaluate the land-use change (LUC) emissions of ESMs against bookkeeping models. Finally, we show that an extensive cropland expansion for BECCS causes ecosystem carbon loss that drives the acceleration of carbon turnover and affects the CO2 fertilization effect- and climate-change-driven land carbon uptake. Over the 2000–2100 period, the LUC for BECCS leads to an offset of the CO2 fertilization effect-driven carbon uptake by 12.2 % and amplifies the climate-change-driven carbon loss by 14.6 %. A human choice on land area allocation for energy crops should take into account not only the potential amount of the bioenergy yield but also the LUC emissions, and the associated loss of future potential change in the carbon uptake. The dependency of the land carbon uptake on LUC is strong in the SSP5-3.4-OS scenario, but it also affects other Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) scenarios and should be taken into account by the IAM teams. Future studies should further investigate the trade-offs between the carbon gains from the bioenergy yield and losses from the reduced CO2 fertilization effect-driven carbon uptake where BECCS is applied.
- Published
- 2022
26. The Climate Response to Emissions Reductions Due to COVID‐19: Initial Results From CovidMIP
- Author
-
Jones, C.D., Hickman, J.E., Rumbold, S.T., Walton, J., Lamboll, R.D., Skeie, R.B., Fiedler, S., Forster, P.M., Rogelj, J., Abe, M., Botzet, M., Calvin, K., Cassou, C., Cole, J., Davini, P., Deushi, M., Dix, M., Fyfe, J., Gillett, N., Ilyina, T., Kawamiya, M., Kelley, M., Kharin, S., Koshiro, T., Li, H., Mackallah, C., Müller, W., Nabat, P., van Noije, T., Nolan, P., Ohgaito, R., Olivié, D., Oshima, N., Parodi, J., Reerink, T., Ren, L., Romanou, A., Séférian, R., Tang, Y., Timmreck, C., Tjiputra, J., Tourigny, E., Tsigaridis, K., Wang, H., Wu, M., Wyser, K., Yang, S., Yang, Y., Ziehn, T., Jones, C.D., Hickman, J.E., Rumbold, S.T., Walton, J., Lamboll, R.D., Skeie, R.B., Fiedler, S., Forster, P.M., Rogelj, J., Abe, M., Botzet, M., Calvin, K., Cassou, C., Cole, J., Davini, P., Deushi, M., Dix, M., Fyfe, J., Gillett, N., Ilyina, T., Kawamiya, M., Kelley, M., Kharin, S., Koshiro, T., Li, H., Mackallah, C., Müller, W., Nabat, P., van Noije, T., Nolan, P., Ohgaito, R., Olivié, D., Oshima, N., Parodi, J., Reerink, T., Ren, L., Romanou, A., Séférian, R., Tang, Y., Timmreck, C., Tjiputra, J., Tourigny, E., Tsigaridis, K., Wang, H., Wu, M., Wyser, K., Yang, S., Yang, Y., and Ziehn, T.
- Abstract
Many nations responded to the corona virus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic by restricting travel and other activities during 2020, resulting in temporarily reduced emissions of CO2, other greenhouse gases and ozone and aerosol precursors. We present the initial results from a coordinated Intercomparison, CovidMIP, of Earth system model simulations which assess the impact on climate of these emissions reductions. 12 models performed multiple initial-condition ensembles to produce over 300 simulations spanning both initial condition and model structural uncertainty. We find model consensus on reduced aerosol amounts (particularly over southern and eastern Asia) and associated increases in surface shortwave radiation levels. However, any impact on near-surface temperature or rainfall during 2020–2024 is extremely small and is not detectable in this initial analysis. Regional analyses on a finer scale, and closer attention to extremes (especially linked to changes in atmospheric composition and air quality) are required to test the impact of COVID-19-related emission reductions on near-term climate. © 2021. Crown Copyright. © 2021. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. This article is published with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.
- Published
- 2021
27. Climate model projections from the Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) of CMIP6
- Author
-
Tebaldi, C., Debeire, K., Eyring, V., Fischer, E., Fyfe, J., Friedlingstein, P., Knutti, R., Lowe, J., O'Neill, B., Sanderson, B., van Vuuren, D., Riahi, K., Meinshausen, M., Nicholls, Z., Tokarska, K. B., Hurtt, G., Kriegler, E., Lamarque, J.-F., Meehl, G., Moss, R., Bauer, S. E., Boucher, O., Brovkin, V., Byun, Y.-H., Dix, M., Gualdi, S., Guo, H., John, J. G., Kharin, S., Kim, Y., Koshiro, T., Ma, L., Olivié, D., Panickal, S., Qiao, F., Rong, X., Rosenbloom, N., Schupfner, M., Séférian, R., Sellar, A., Semmler, T., Shi, X., Song, Z., Steger, C., Stouffer, R., Swart, N., Tachiiri, K., Tang, Q., Tatebe, H., Voldoire, A., Volodin, E., Wyser, K., Xin, X., Yang, S., Yu, Y., Ziehn, T., Tebaldi, C., Debeire, K., Eyring, V., Fischer, E., Fyfe, J., Friedlingstein, P., Knutti, R., Lowe, J., O'Neill, B., Sanderson, B., van Vuuren, D., Riahi, K., Meinshausen, M., Nicholls, Z., Tokarska, K. B., Hurtt, G., Kriegler, E., Lamarque, J.-F., Meehl, G., Moss, R., Bauer, S. E., Boucher, O., Brovkin, V., Byun, Y.-H., Dix, M., Gualdi, S., Guo, H., John, J. G., Kharin, S., Kim, Y., Koshiro, T., Ma, L., Olivié, D., Panickal, S., Qiao, F., Rong, X., Rosenbloom, N., Schupfner, M., Séférian, R., Sellar, A., Semmler, T., Shi, X., Song, Z., Steger, C., Stouffer, R., Swart, N., Tachiiri, K., Tang, Q., Tatebe, H., Voldoire, A., Volodin, E., Wyser, K., Xin, X., Yang, S., Yu, Y., and Ziehn, T.
- Abstract
The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) defines and coordinates the main set of future climate projections, based on concentration-driven simulations, within the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6). This paper presents a range of its outcomes by synthesizing results from the participating global coupled Earth system models. We limit our scope to the analysis of strictly geophysical outcomes: mainly global averages and spatial patterns of change for surface air temperature and precipitation. We also compare CMIP6 projections to CMIP5 results, especially for those scenarios that were designed to provide continuity across the CMIP phases, at the same time highlighting important differences in forcing composition, as well as in results. The range of future temperature and precipitation changes by the end of the century (2081–2100) encompassing the Tier 1 experiments based on the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) scenarios (SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5) and SSP1-1.9 spans a larger range of outcomes compared to CMIP5, due to higher warming (by close to 1.5 ∘C) reached at the upper end of the 5 %–95 % envelope of the highest scenario (SSP5-8.5). This is due to both the wider range of radiative forcing that the new scenarios cover and the higher climate sensitivities in some of the new models compared to their CMIP5 predecessors. Spatial patterns of change for temperature and precipitation averaged over models and scenarios have familiar features, and an analysis of their variations confirms model structural differences to be the dominant source of uncertainty. Models also differ with respect to the size and evolution of internal variability as measured by individual models' initial condition ensemble spreads, according to a set of initial condition ensemble simulations available under SSP3-7.0. These experiments suggest a tendency for internal variability to decrease along the course of the century in this scenario, a result
- Published
- 2021
28. Global Carbon Budget 2020
- Author
-
Friedlingstein, P, O'Sullivan, M, Jones, MW, Andrew, RM, Hauck, J, Olsen, A, Peters, GP, Peters, W, Pongratz, J, Sitch, S, Le Quéré, C, Canadell, JG, Ciais, P, Jackson, RB, Alin, S, Aragão, LEOC, Arneth, A, Arora, V, Bates, NR, Becker, M, Benoit-Cattin, A, Bittig, HC, Bopp, L, Bultan, S, Chandra, N, Chevallier, F, Chini, LP, Evans, W, Florentie, L, Forster, PM, Gasser, T, Gehlen, M, Gilfillan, D, Gkritzalis, T, Gregor, L, Gruber, N, Harris, I, Hartung, K, Haverd, V, Houghton, RA, Ilyina, T, Jain, AK, Joetzjer, E, Kadono, K, Kato, E, Kitidis, V, Korsbakken, JI, Landschützer, P, Lefèvre, N, Lenton, A, Lienert, S, Liu, Z, Lombardozzi, D, Marland, G, Metzl, N, Munro, DR, Nabel, JEMS, Nakaoka, S-I, Niwa, Y, O'Brien, K, Ono, T, Palmer, PI, Pierrot, D, Poulter, B, Resplandy, L, Robertson, E, Rödenbeck, C, Schwinger, J, Séférian, R, Skjelvan, I, Smith, AJP, Sutton, AJ, Tanhua, T, Tans, PP, Tian, H, Tilbrook, B, van der Werf, G, Vuichard, N, Walker, AP, Wanninkhof, R, Watson, AJ, Willis, D, Wiltshire, AJ, Yuan, W, Yue, X, and Zaehle, S
- Abstract
Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in a changing climate – the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe and synthesize data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFOS) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade available (2010–2019), EFOS was 9.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 excluding the cement carbonation sink (9.4 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when the cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 1.6 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1. For the same decade, GATM was 5.1 ± 0.02 GtC yr−1 (2.4 ± 0.01 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN 2.5 ± 0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.4 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1, with a budget imbalance BIM of −0.1 GtC yr−1 indicating a near balance between estimated sources and sinks over the last decade. For the year 2019 alone, the growth in EFOS was only about 0.1 % with fossil emissions increasing to 9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 excluding the cement carbonation sink (9.7 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 1.8 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, for total anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 11.5 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1 (42.2 ± 3.3 GtCO2). Also for 2019, GATM was 5.4 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.5 ± 0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 2.6 ± 0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.1 ± 1.2 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 409.85 ± 0.1 ppm averaged over 2019. Preliminary data for 2020, accounting for the COVID-19-induced changes in emissions, suggest a decrease in EFOS relative to 2019 of about −7 % (median estimate) based on individual estimates from four studies of −6 %, −7 %, −7 % (−3 % to −11 %), and −13 %. Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2019, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. Comparison of estimates from diverse approaches and observations shows (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land-use change emissions over the last decade, (2) a persistent low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent discrepancy between the different methods for the ocean sink outside the tropics, particularly in the Southern Ocean. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Friedlingstein et al., 2019; Le Quéré et al., 2018b, a, 2016, 2015b, a, 2014, 2013). The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2020 (Friedlingstein et al., 2020).
- Published
- 2020
29. Predictable Variations of the Carbon Sinks and Atmospheric CO2Growth in a Multi‐Model Framework
- Author
-
Ilyina, T., primary, Li, H., additional, Spring, A., additional, Müller, W. A., additional, Bopp, L., additional, Chikamoto, M. O., additional, Danabasoglu, G., additional, Dobrynin, M., additional, Dunne, J., additional, Fransner, F., additional, Friedlingstein, P., additional, Lee, W., additional, Lovenduski, N. S., additional, Merryfield, W.J., additional, Mignot, J., additional, Park, J.Y., additional, Séférian, R., additional, Sospedra‐Alfonso, R., additional, Watanabe, M., additional, and Yeager, S., additional
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
30. Opportunities and challenges in using remaining carbon budgets to guide climate policy
- Author
-
Matthews, HD, Matthews, HD, Tokarska, KB, Nicholls, ZRJ, Rogelj, J, Canadell, JG, Friedlingstein, P, Frölicher, TL, Forster, PM, Gillett, NP, Ilyina, T, Jackson, RB, Jones, CD, Koven, C, Knutti, R, MacDougall, AH, Meinshausen, M, Mengis, N, Séférian, R, Zickfeld, K, Matthews, HD, Matthews, HD, Tokarska, KB, Nicholls, ZRJ, Rogelj, J, Canadell, JG, Friedlingstein, P, Frölicher, TL, Forster, PM, Gillett, NP, Ilyina, T, Jackson, RB, Jones, CD, Koven, C, Knutti, R, MacDougall, AH, Meinshausen, M, Mengis, N, Séférian, R, and Zickfeld, K
- Abstract
The remaining carbon budget represents the total amount of CO2 that can still be emitted in the future while limiting global warming to a given temperature target. Remaining carbon budget estimates range widely, however, and this uncertainty can be used to either trivialize the most ambitious mitigation targets by characterizing them as impossible, or to argue that there is ample time to allow for a gradual transition to a low-carbon economy. Neither of these extremes is consistent with our best understanding of the policy implications of remaining carbon budgets. Understanding the scientific and socio-economic uncertainties affecting the size of the remaining carbon budgets, as well as the methodological choices and assumptions that underlie their calculation, is essential before applying them as a policy tool. Here we provide recommendations on how to calculate remaining carbon budgets in a traceable and transparent way, and discuss their uncertainties and implications for both international and national climate policies.
- Published
- 2020
31. Is there warming in the pipeline? A multi-model analysis of the Zero Emissions Commitment from CO2
- Author
-
MacDougall, A.H., Frölicher, T.L., Jones, C.D., Rogelj, J., Matthews, H. D., Zickfeld, K., Arora, V.K., Barrett, N.J., Brovkin, V., Burger, F.A., Eby, M., Eliseev, A.V., Hajima, T., Holden, P.B., Jeltsch-Thömmes, A., Koven, C., Mengis, N., Menviel, L., Michou, M., Mokhov, I.I., Oka, A., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Shaffer, G., Sokolov, A., Tachiiri, K., Tjiputra, J., Wiltshire, A., Ziehn, T., MacDougall, A.H., Frölicher, T.L., Jones, C.D., Rogelj, J., Matthews, H. D., Zickfeld, K., Arora, V.K., Barrett, N.J., Brovkin, V., Burger, F.A., Eby, M., Eliseev, A.V., Hajima, T., Holden, P.B., Jeltsch-Thömmes, A., Koven, C., Mengis, N., Menviel, L., Michou, M., Mokhov, I.I., Oka, A., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Shaffer, G., Sokolov, A., Tachiiri, K., Tjiputra, J., Wiltshire, A., and Ziehn, T.
- Abstract
The Zero Emissions Commitment (ZEC) is the change in global mean temperature expected to occur following the cessation of net CO2 emissions and as such is a critical parameter for calculating the remaining carbon budget. The Zero Emissions Commitment Model Intercomparison Project (ZECMIP) was established to gain a better understanding of the potential magnitude and sign of ZEC, in addition to the processes that underlie this metric. A total of 18 Earth system models of both full and intermediate complexity participated in ZECMIP. All models conducted an experiment where atmospheric CO2 concentration increases exponentially until 1000 PgC has been emitted. Thereafter emissions are set to zero and models are configured to allow free evolution of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Many models conducted additional second-priority simulations with different cumulative emission totals and an alternative idealized emissions pathway with a gradual transition to zero emissions. The inter-model range of ZEC 50 years after emissions cease for the 1000 PgC experiment is −0.36 to 0.29 ∘C, with a model ensemble mean of −0.07 ∘C, median of −0.05 ∘C, and standard deviation of 0.19 ∘C. Models exhibit a wide variety of behaviours after emissions cease, with some models continuing to warm for decades to millennia and others cooling substantially. Analysis shows that both the carbon uptake by the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere are important for counteracting the warming effect from the reduction in ocean heat uptake in the decades after emissions cease. This warming effect is difficult to constrain due to high uncertainty in the efficacy of ocean heat uptake. Overall, the most likely value of ZEC on multi-decadal timescales is close to zero, consistent with previous model experiments and simple theory.
- Published
- 2020
32. Opportunities and challenges in using remaining carbon budgets to guide climate policy
- Author
-
Matthews, H.D., Tokarska, K.B., Nicholls, Z.R.J., Rogelj, J., Canadell, J.G., Friedlingstein, P., Frölicher, T.L., Forster, P.M., Gillett, N.P., Ilyina, T., Jackson, R.B., Jones, C.D., Koven, C., Knutti, R., MacDougall, A.H., Meinshausen, M., Mengis, N., Séférian, R., Zickfeld, K., Matthews, H.D., Tokarska, K.B., Nicholls, Z.R.J., Rogelj, J., Canadell, J.G., Friedlingstein, P., Frölicher, T.L., Forster, P.M., Gillett, N.P., Ilyina, T., Jackson, R.B., Jones, C.D., Koven, C., Knutti, R., MacDougall, A.H., Meinshausen, M., Mengis, N., Séférian, R., and Zickfeld, K.
- Abstract
The remaining carbon budget represents the total amount of CO2 that can still be emitted in the future while limiting global warming to a given temperature target. Remaining carbon budget estimates range widely, however, and this uncertainty can be used to either trivialize the most ambitious mitigation targets by characterizing them as impossible, or to argue that there is ample time to allow for a gradual transition to a low-carbon economy. Neither of these extremes is consistent with our best understanding of the policy implications of remaining carbon budgets. Understanding the scientific and socio-economic uncertainties affecting the size of the remaining carbon budgets, as well as the methodological choices and assumptions that underlie their calculation, is essential before applying them as a policy tool. Here we provide recommendations on how to calculate remaining carbon budgets in a traceable and transparent way, and discuss their uncertainties and implications for both international and national climate policies.
- Published
- 2020
33. Uncertainty in carbon budget estimates due to internal climate variability
- Author
-
Tokarska, K.B., Arora, V.K., Gillett, N.P., Lehner, F., Rogelj, J., Schleussner, C.-F., Séférian, R., Knutti, R., Tokarska, K.B., Arora, V.K., Gillett, N.P., Lehner, F., Rogelj, J., Schleussner, C.-F., Séférian, R., and Knutti, R.
- Abstract
Remaining carbon budget specifies the cap on global cumulative CO2 emissions from the present-day onwards that would be in line with limiting global warming to a specific maximum level. In the context of the Paris Agreement, global warming is usually interpreted as the externally-forced response to anthropogenic activities and emissions, but it excludes the natural fluctuations of the climate system known as internal variability. A remaining carbon budget can be calculated from an estimate of the anthropogenic warming to date, and either (i) the ratio of CO2-induced warming to cumulative emissions, known as the Transient Climate Response to Emissions (TCRE), in addition to information on the temperature response to the future evolution of non-CO2 emissions; or (ii) climate model scenario simulations that reach a given temperature threshold. Here we quantify the impact of internal variability on the carbon budgets consistent with the Paris Agreement derived using either approach, and on the TCRE diagnosed from individual models. Our results show that internal variability contributes approximately ±0.09 °C to the overall uncertainty range of the human-induced warming to-date, leading to a spread in the remaining carbon budgets as large as ±50 PgC, when using approach (i). Differences in diagnosed TCRE due to internal variability in individual models can be as large as ±0.1 °C/1000 PgC (5%–95% range). Alternatively, spread in the remaining carbon budgets calculated from (ii) using future concentration-driven simulations of large ensembles of CMIP6 and CMIP5 models is estimated at ±30 PgC and ±40 PgC (5%–95% range). These results are important for model evaluation and imply that caution is needed when interpreting small remaining budgets in policy discussions. We do not question the validity of a carbon budget approach in determining mitigation requirements. However, due to intrinsic uncertainty arising from internal variability, it may only be possible to determine the
- Published
- 2020
34. Global carbon budget 2019
- Author
-
Friedlingstein, P., Jones, M. W., O'Sullivan, M., Andrew, R. M., Hauck, J., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Sitch, S., Le Quéré, C., Bakker, D. C. E., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Anthoni, P., Barbero, L., Bastos, A., Bastrikov, V., Becker, M., Bopp, L., Buitenhuis, E., Chandra, N., Chevalier, F., Chini, L. P., Currie, K. I., Feely, R. A., Gehlen, M., Gilfillan, D., Gkritzalis, T., Goll, D. S., Gruber, N., Gutekunst, S., Harris, I., Kato, E., Klein Goldewijk, K., Korsbakken, J. I., Landschützer, P., Lauvset, S. K., Lefèvre, N., Lenton, A., Lienert, S., Lombardozzi, D., Marland, G., McGuire, Patrick C., Melton, J. R., Metzl, N., Munro, D. R., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Nakaoka, S.-I., Neill, C., Omar, A. M., Ono, T., Peregon, A., Pierrot, D., Poulter, B., Rehder, G., Resplandy, L., Robertson, E., Rödenbeck, C., Séférian, R., Schwinger, J., Smith, N., Tans, P. P., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., Tubiello, F. N., ven der Werf, G. R., Wiltshire, A. J., and Zaehle, S.
- Abstract
Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere – the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFF) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade available (2009–2018), EFF was 9.5±0.5 GtC yr−1, ELUC 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM 4.9±0.02 GtC yr−1 (2.3±0.01 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN 2.5±0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.2±0.6 GtC yr−1, with a budget imbalance BIM of 0.4 GtC yr−1 indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2018 alone, the growth in EFF was about 2.1 % and fossil emissions increased to 10.0±0.5 GtC yr−1, reaching 10 GtC yr−1 for the first time in history, ELUC was 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, for total anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 11.5±0.9 GtC yr−1 (42.5±3.3 GtCO2). Also for 2018, GATM was 5.1±0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.4±0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 2.6±0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 407.38±0.1 ppm averaged over 2018. For 2019, preliminary data for the first 6–10 months indicate a reduced growth in EFF of +0.6 % (range of −0.2 % to 1.5 %) based on national emissions projections for China, the USA, the EU, and India and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. Overall, the mean and trend in the five components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2018, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. A detailed comparison among individual estimates and the introduction of a broad range of observations shows (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land use change emissions over the last decade, (2) a persistent low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent underestimation of the CO2 variability by ocean models outside the tropics. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quéré et al., 2018a, b, 2016, 2015a, b, 2014, 2013). The data generated by this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2019 (Friedlingstein et al., 2019).
- Published
- 2019
35. Quantification of Chaotic Intrinsic Variability of Sea‐Air CO 2 Fluxes at Interannual Timescales
- Author
-
Gehlen, M., primary, Berthet, S., additional, Séférian, R., additional, Ethé, Ch., additional, and Penduff, T., additional
- Published
- 2020
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
36. Present‐Day and Historical Aerosol and Ozone Characteristics in CNRM CMIP6 Simulations
- Author
-
Michou, M., primary, Nabat, P., additional, Saint‐Martin, D., additional, Bock, J., additional, Decharme, B., additional, Mallet, M., additional, Roehrig, R., additional, Séférian, R., additional, Sénési, S., additional, and Voldoire, A., additional
- Published
- 2020
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
37. The Zero Emissions Commitment Model Intercomparison Project (ZECMIP) contribution to C4MIP: quantifying committed climate changes following zero carbon emissions
- Author
-
Jones, C.D., Frölicher, T.L., Koven, C., MacDougall, A.H., Matthews, H.D., Zickfeld, K., Rogelj, J., Tokarska, K.B., Gillett, N.P., Ilyina, T., Meinshausen, M., Mengis, N., Séférian, R., Eby, M., Burger, F.A., Jones, C.D., Frölicher, T.L., Koven, C., MacDougall, A.H., Matthews, H.D., Zickfeld, K., Rogelj, J., Tokarska, K.B., Gillett, N.P., Ilyina, T., Meinshausen, M., Mengis, N., Séférian, R., Eby, M., and Burger, F.A.
- Abstract
The amount of additional future temperature change following a complete cessation of CO2 emissions is a measure of the unrealized warming to which we are committed due to CO2 already emitted to the atmosphere. This "zero emissions commitment" (ZEC) is also an important quantity when estimating the remaining carbon budget - a limit on the total amount of CO2 emissions consistent with limiting global mean temperature at a particular level. In the recent IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, the carbon budget framework used to calculate the remaining carbon budget for 1.5°C included the assumption that the ZEC due to CO2 emissions is negligible and close to zero. Previous research has shown significant uncertainty even in the sign of the ZEC. To close this knowledge gap, we propose the Zero Emissions Commitment Model Intercomparison Project (ZECMIP), which will quantify the amount of unrealized temperature change that occurs after CO2 emissions cease and investigate the geophysical drivers behind this climate response. Quantitative information on ZEC is a key gap in our knowledge, and one that will not be addressed by currently planned CMIP6 simulations, yet it is crucial for verifying whether carbon budgets need to be adjusted to account for any unrealized temperature change resulting from past CO2 emissions. We request only one top-priority simulation from comprehensive general circulation Earth system models (ESMs) and Earth system models of intermediate complexity (EMICs) - a branch from the 1% CO2 run with CO2 emissions set to zero at the point of 1000PgC of total CO2 emissions in the simulation - with the possibility for additional simulations, if resources allow. ZECMIP is part of CMIP6, under joint sponsorship by C4MIP and CDRMIP, with associated experiment names to enable data submissions to the Earth System Grid Federation. All data will be published and made freely available.
- Published
- 2019
38. Estimating and tracking the remaining carbon budget for stringent climate targets
- Author
-
Rogelj, J., Forster, P.M., Kriegler, E., Smith, C.J., Séférian, R., Rogelj, J., Forster, P.M., Kriegler, E., Smith, C.J., and Séférian, R.
- Abstract
Research reported during the past decade has shown that global warming is roughly proportional to the total amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. This makes it possible to estimate the remaining carbon budget: the total amount of anthropogenic carbon dioxide that can still be emitted into the atmosphere while holding the global average temperature increase to the limit set by the Paris Agreement. However, a wide range of estimates for the remaining carbon budget has been reported, reducing the effectiveness of the remaining carbon budget as a means of setting emission reduction targets that are consistent with the Paris Agreement. Here we present a framework that enables us to track estimates of the remaining carbon budget and to understand how these estimates can improve over time as scientific knowledge advances. We propose that application of this framework may help to reconcile differences between estimates of the remaining carbon budget and may provide a basis for reducing uncertainty in the range of future estimates.
- Published
- 2019
39. Impact of the 2015-16 El Nino on the terrestrial carbon cycle constrained by bottom-up and top-down approaches
- Author
-
Bastos, A., Friedlingstein, P., Sitch, S., Chen, C., Mialon, A., Wigneron, J., Arora, V., Briggs, P., Canadell, J., Ciais, P., Chevallier, F., Cheng, L., Delire, C., Haverd, V., Jain, A., Joos, F., Kato, E., Lienert, S., Lombardozzi, D., Melton, J., Myneni, R., Nabel, J., https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8122-5206, Pongratz, J., https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0372-3960, Poulter, B., Rödenbeck, C., Séférian, R., Tian, H., van Eck, C., Viovy, N., Vuichard, N., Walker, A., Wiltshire, A., Yang, J., Zaehle, S., Zeng, N., and Zhu, D.
- Abstract
Evaluating the response of the land carbon sink to the anomalies in temperature and drought imposed by El Niño events provides insights into the present-day carbon cycle and its climate-driven variability. It is also a necessary step to build confidence in terrestrial ecosystems models' response to the warming and drying stresses expected in the future over many continents, and particularly in the tropics. Here we present an in-depth analysis of the response of the terrestrial carbon cycle to the 2015/2016 El Niño that imposed extreme warming and dry conditions in the tropics and other sensitive regions. First, we provide a synthesis of the spatio-temporal evolution of anomalies in net land–atmosphere CO2 fluxes estimated by two in situ measurements based on atmospheric inversions and 16 land-surface models (LSMs) from TRENDYv6. Simulated changes in ecosystem productivity, decomposition rates and fire emissions are also investigated. Inversions and LSMs generally agree on the decrease and subsequent recovery of the land sink in response to the onset, peak and demise of El Niño conditions and point to the decreased strength of the land carbon sink: by 0.4–0.7 PgC yr−1 (inversions) and by 1.0 PgC yr−1 (LSMs) during 2015/2016. LSM simulations indicate that a decrease in productivity, rather than increase in respiration, dominated the net biome productivity anomalies in response to ENSO throughout the tropics, mainly associated with prolonged drought conditions.This article is part of a discussion meeting issue ‘The impact of the 2015/2016 El Niño on the terrestrial tropical carbon cycle: patterns, mechanisms and implications’.
- Published
- 2018
40. Evaluation of CMIP6 DECK Experiments With CNRM‐CM6‐1
- Author
-
Voldoire, A., primary, Saint‐Martin, D., additional, Sénési, S., additional, Decharme, B., additional, Alias, A., additional, Chevallier, M., additional, Colin, J., additional, Guérémy, J.‐F., additional, Michou, M., additional, Moine, M.‐P., additional, Nabat, P., additional, Roehrig, R., additional, Salas y Mélia, D., additional, Séférian, R., additional, Valcke, S., additional, Beau, I., additional, Belamari, S., additional, Berthet, S., additional, Cassou, C., additional, Cattiaux, J., additional, Deshayes, J., additional, Douville, H., additional, Ethé, C., additional, Franchistéguy, L., additional, Geoffroy, O., additional, Lévy, C., additional, Madec, G., additional, Meurdesoif, Y., additional, Msadek, R., additional, Ribes, A., additional, Sanchez‐Gomez, E., additional, Terray, L., additional, and Waldman, R., additional
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
41. Predictable Variations of the Carbon Sinks and Atmospheric CO2 Growth in a Multi‐Model Framework.
- Author
-
Ilyina, T., Li, H., Spring, A., Müller, W. A., Bopp, L., Chikamoto, M. O., Danabasoglu, G., Dobrynin, M., Dunne, J., Fransner, F., Friedlingstein, P., Lee, W., Lovenduski, N. S., Merryfield, W.J., Mignot, J., Park, J.Y., Séférian, R., Sospedra‐Alfonso, R., Watanabe, M., and Yeager, S.
- Subjects
CARBON cycle ,ATMOSPHERIC carbon dioxide ,GLOBAL warming ,LEAD time (Supply chain management) ,CARBON analysis - Abstract
Inter‐annual to decadal variability in the strength of the land and ocean carbon sinks impede accurate predictions of year‐to‐year atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) growth rate. Such information is crucial to verify the effectiveness of fossil fuel emissions reduction measures. Using a multi‐model framework comprising prediction systems initialized by the observed state of the physical climate, we find a predictive skill for the global ocean carbon sink of up to 6 years for some models. Longer regional predictability horizons are found across single models. On land, a predictive skill of up to 2 years is primarily maintained in the tropics and extra‐tropics enabled by the initialization of the physical climate. We further show that anomalies of atmospheric CO2 growth rate inferred from natural variations of the land and ocean carbon sinks are predictable at lead time of 2 years and the skill is limited by the land carbon sink predictability horizon. Plain Language Summary: Variations of the natural land and ocean carbon sinks in response to climate variability strongly regulate year‐to‐year variations in the growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). Information on the near‐term evolution of the carbon sinks and CO2 in the atmosphere is necessary to understand where the anthropogenic carbon would go in response to emission reduction efforts addressing global warming mitigation. Predictions of this near‐term evolution would thus assist policy‐relevant analysis and carbon management activities. Here we use a set of prediction systems based on Earth system models to establish predictive skills of the ocean and land carbon sinks and to infer predictability of atmospheric CO2 growth rate. We show predictability horizons of up to 6 years for some models for the globally integrated ocean carbon sink, with even higher regional predictive skill. Variations of the land carbon sink are predictable up to 2 years and limit predictability of changes in atmospheric CO2 growth rate at lead time of 2 years. Our study thereby demonstrates an emerging capacity of the initialized simulations for predicting the global carbon cycle and the planet's breath maintained by variations of atmospheric CO2. Key Points: Predictive skill of the global ocean carbon sink due to initialization is up to 6 years for some models, with longer regional predictability in single modelsPredictive skill due to initialization for the land carbon sink of up to 2 years is primarily maintained in the tropics and extra‐tropicsAnomalies of atmospheric CO2 growth rate are predictable up to 2 years and are limited by the land carbon sink predictability horizon [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
42. The many possible climates from the Paris Agreement’s aim of 1.5 °C warming
- Author
-
Seneviratne, S.I., Rogelj, J., Séférian, R., Wartenburger, R., Allen, M.R., Cain, M., Millar, R.J., Ebi, K.L., Ellis, N., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Payne, A.J., Schleussner, C.-F., Tschakert, P., Warren, R.F., Seneviratne, S.I., Rogelj, J., Séférian, R., Wartenburger, R., Allen, M.R., Cain, M., Millar, R.J., Ebi, K.L., Ellis, N., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Payne, A.J., Schleussner, C.-F., Tschakert, P., and Warren, R.F.
- Abstract
The United Nations’ Paris Agreement includes the aim of pursuing efforts to limit global warming to only 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. However, it is not clear what the resulting climate would look like across the globe and over time.Here we show that trajectories towards a ‘1.5 °C warmer world’ may result in vastly different outcomes at regional scales,owing to variations in the pace and location of climate change and their interactions with society’s mitigation, adaptation and vulnerabilities to climate change. Pursuing policies that are considered to be consistent with the 1.5 °C aim will not completely remove the risk of global temperatures being much higher or of some regional extremes reaching dangerous levels for ecosystems and societies over the coming decades.
- Published
- 2018
43. Quantification of Chaotic Intrinsic Variability of Sea‐Air CO2 Fluxes at Interannual Timescales.
- Author
-
Gehlen, M., Berthet, S., Séférian, R., Ethé, Ch., and Penduff, T.
- Subjects
ATMOSPHERIC carbon dioxide ,CARBON dioxide ,OCEAN dynamics ,MESOSCALE eddies ,FLUX (Energy) ,KINETIC energy - Abstract
Chaotic intrinsic variability (CIV) emerges spontaneously from nonlinear ocean dynamics even without any atmospheric variability. Eddy‐permitting numerical simulations suggest that CIV is a significant contributor to the interannual to decadal variability of physical properties. Here we show from an ensemble of global ocean eddy‐permitting simulations that large‐scale interannual CIV propagates from physical properties to sea‐air CO2 fluxes in areas of high mesoscale eddy activity (e.g., Southern Ocean and western boundary currents). In these regions and at scales larger than 500 km (~5°), CIV contributes significantly to the interannual variability of sea‐air CO2 fluxes. Between 35°S and 45°S (midlatitude Southern Ocean), CIV amounts to 23.76 TgC yr−1 or one half of the atmospherically forced variability. Locally, its contribution to the total interannual variance of sea‐air CO2 fluxes exceeds 76%. Outside eddy‐active regions its contribution to total interannual variability is below 16%. Plain Language Summary: Sea‐air CO2 fluxes undergo substantial regional and interannual fluctuations. These fluctuations are mostly forced by changes in large‐scale atmospheric patterns, but ocean internal dynamics could also contribute to them. This study quantifies these two sources of variability and their contributions to fluctuations of sea‐air CO2 fluxes over large oceanic regions. It relies on the analyses of three ocean numerical simulations driven by the same atmospheric forcing but starting from small differences in initial conditions, and including a simplified representation of marine ecosystems. Simulations are run at a horizontal resolution allowing to model part of the effect of ocean mesoscale activity on physical and chemical tracers. We demonstrate that nonlinear oceanic processes drive fluctuations of sea‐air CO2 fluxes at interannual timescales that are inherently random. The magnitude of these fluctuations is substantial over areas of high kinetic energy and locally exceeds 76% of the total interannual variance of sea‐air CO2 fluxes. Key Points: Interannual chaotic intrinsic (CIV) variability propagates from physical to chemical tracers in areas of strong mesoscale activityIt contributes significantly to interannual variability of sea‐air CO2 fluxes over the Southern Ocean and western boundary current systemsCIV is small outside eddy‐active regions where interannual variability of sea‐air CO2 fluxes is prominently driven by atmospheric forcing [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2020
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
44. Global carbon budget 2016
- Author
-
Le Quéré, C., Andrew, R.M., Canadell, J.G., Sitch, S., Korsbakken, J.I., Peters, G.P., Manning, A.C., Boden, T.A., Tans, P.P., Houghton, R.A., Keeling, R.F., Alin, S., Andrews, O.D., Anthoni, P., Barbero, L., Bopp, L., Chevallier, F., Chini, L.P., Ciais, P., Currie, K., Delire, C., Doney, S.C., Friedlingstein, P., Gkritzalis, T., Harris, I., Hauck, J., Haverd, V., Hoppema, M., Goldewijk, K.K., Jain, A.K., Kato, E., Körtzinger, A., Landschützer, P., Lefèvre, N., Lenton, A., Lienert, S., Lombardozzi, D., Melton, J.R., Metzl, N., Millero, F., Monteiro, P.M.S., Munro, D.R., Nabel, J.E.M.S., Nakaoka, S., O'Brien, K., Olsen, A., Omar, A.M., Ono, T., Pierrot, D., Poulter, B., Rödenbeck, C., Salisbury, J., Schuster, U., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Skjelvan, I., Stocker, B.D., Sutton, A.J., Takahashi, T., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., van der Laan-Luijkx, I.T., van der Werf, G.R., Viovy, N., Walker, A.P., Wiltshire, A.J., and Zaehle, S.
- Abstract
Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere – the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe data sets and methodology to quantify all major components of the global carbon budget, including their uncertainties, based on the combination of a range of data, algorithms, statistics, and model estimates and their interpretation by a broad scientific community. We discuss changes compared to previous estimates and consistency within and among components, alongside methodology and data limitations. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry (EFF) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, respectively, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on combined evidence from land-cover change data, fire activity associated with deforestation, and models. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its rate of growth (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The mean ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) is based on observations from the 1990s, while the annual anomalies and trends are estimated with ocean models. The variability in SOCEAN is evaluated with data products based on surveys of ocean CO2 measurements. The global residual terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) is estimated by the difference of the other terms of the global carbon budget and compared to results of independent dynamic global vegetation models. We compare the mean land and ocean fluxes and their variability to estimates from three atmospheric inverse methods for three broad latitude bands. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ, reflecting the current capacity to characterise the annual estimates of each component of the global carbon budget. For the last decade available (2006–2015), EFF was 9.3 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, ELUC 1.0 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, GATM 4.5 ± 0.1 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN 2.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.1 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1. For year 2015 alone, the growth in EFF was approximately zero and emissions remained at 9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, showing a slowdown in growth of these emissions compared to the average growth of 1.8 % yr−1 that took place during 2006–2015. Also, for 2015, ELUC was 1.3 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, GATM was 6.3 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN was 3.0 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 1.9 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1. GATM was higher in 2015 compared to the past decade (2006–2015), reflecting a smaller SLAND for that year. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 399.4 ± 0.1 ppm averaged over 2015. For 2016, preliminary data indicate the continuation of low growth in EFF with +0.2 % (range of −1.0 to +1.8 %) based on national emissions projections for China and USA, and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. In spite of the low growth of EFF in 2016, the growth rate in atmospheric CO2 concentration is expected to be relatively high because of the persistence of the smaller residual terrestrial sink (SLAND) in response to El Niño conditions of 2015–2016. From this projection of EFF and assumed constant ELUC for 2016, cumulative emissions of CO2 will reach 565 ± 55 GtC (2075 ± 205 GtCO2) for 1870–2016, about 75 % from EFF and 25 % from ELUC. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new carbon budget compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quéré et al., 2015b, a, 2014, 2013). All observations presented here can be downloaded from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (doi:10.3334/CDIAC/GCP_2016).
- Published
- 2016
45. Global carbon budget 2014
- Author
-
Le Quéré, C., Moriarty, R., Andrew, R. M., Peters, G. P., Ciais, P., Friedlingstein, P., Jones, S. D., Sitch, S., Tans, P., Arneth, A., Boden, T. A., Bopp, L., Bozec, Y., Canadell, J. G., Chevallier, F., Cosca, C. E., Harris, I., Hoppema, M., Houghton, R. A., House, J. I., Jain, A., Johannessen, T., Kato, E., Keeling, R. F., Kitidis, V., Klein Goldewijk, K., Koven, C., Landa, C. S., Landschützer, P., Lenton, A., Lima, I. D., Marland, G., Mathis, J. T., Metzl, N., Nojiri, Y., Olsen, A., Ono, T., Peters, W., Pfeil, B., Poulter, B., Raupach, M. R., Regnier, P., Rödenbeck, C., Saito, S., Salisbury, J. E., Schuster, U., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Segschneider, J., Steinhoff, T., Stocker, B. D., Sutton, A. J., Takahashi, T., Tilbrook, B., van der Werf, G. R., Viovy, N., Wang, Y.-P., Wanninkhof, R., Wiltshire, A., Zeng, N., Environmental Sciences, LS Economische Geschiedenis, and Leerstoel Aarts
- Abstract
Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2)emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, andterrestrial biosphere is important to better understand the globalcarbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and projectfuture climate change. Here we describe datasets and a methodology toquantify all major components of the global carbon budget, includingtheir uncertainties, based on the combination of a range of data,algorithms, statistics and model estimates and their interpretation by abroad scientific community. We discuss changes compared to previousestimates, consistency within and among components, alongsidemethodology and data limitations. CO2 emissions from fossilfuel combustion and cement production (EFF) are based onenergy statistics and cement production data, respectively, whileemissions from Land-Use Change (ELUC), mainly deforestation,are based on combined evidence from land-cover change data, fireactivity associated with deforestation, and models. The globalatmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and itsrate of growth (GATM) is computed from the annual changes inconcentration. The mean ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) isbased on observations from the 1990s, while the annual anomalies andtrends are estimated with ocean models. The variability inSOCEAN is evaluated with data products based on surveys ofocean CO2 measurements. The global residual terrestrialCO2 sink (SLAND) is estimated by the difference ofthe other terms of the global carbon budget and compared to results ofindependent Dynamic Global Vegetation Models forced by observed climate,CO2 and land cover change (some including nitrogen-carboninteractions). We compare the variability and mean land and ocean fluxesto estimates from three atmospheric inverse methods for three broadlatitude bands. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ,reflecting the current capacity to characterise the annual estimates ofeach component of the global carbon budget. For the last decadeavailable (2004-2013), EFF was 8.9 ± 0.4 GtCyr-1, ELUC 0.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr-1,GATM 4.3 ± 0.1 GtC yr-1, SOCEAN2.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr-1, and SLAND 2.9 ±0.8 GtC yr-1. For year 2013 alone, EFF grew to 9.9± 0.5 GtC yr-1, 2.3% above 2012, contining the growthtrend in these emissions. ELUC was 0.9 ± 0.5 GtCyr-1, GATM was 5.4 ± 0.2 GtCyr-1, SOCEAN was 2.9 ± 0.5 GtCyr-1 and SLAND was 2.5 ± 0.9 GtCyr-1. GATM was high in 2013 reflecting a steadyincrease in EFF and smaller and opposite changes betweenSOCEAN and SLAND compared to the past decade(2004-2013). The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached395.31 ± 0.10 ppm averaged over 2013. We estimate thatEFF will increase by 2.5% (1.3-3.5%) to 10.1 ± 0.6 GtCin 2014 (37.0 ± 2.2 GtCO2 yr-1), 65% aboveemissions in 1990, based on projections of World Gross Domestic Productand recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy. From thisprojection of EFF and assumed constant ELUC for2014, cumulative emissions of CO2 will reach about 545± 55 GtC (2000 ± 200 GtCO2) for 1870-2014,about 75% from EFF and 25% from ELUC. This paperdocuments changes in the methods and datasets used in this new carbonbudget compared with previous publications of this living dataset (LeQuéré et al., 2013, 2014). All observations presented herecan be downloaded from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center(doi:10.3334/CDIAC/GCP_2014). Italic font highlights significant methodological changesand results compared to the Le Quéré et al. (2015)manuscript that accompanies the previous version of this living data.
- Published
- 2015
46. Global carbon budget 2014
- Author
-
Canadell, J. G., Tilbrook, B., Raupach, M. R., House, J. I., Salisbury, J. E., Keeling, R. F., Steinhoff, T., Moriarty, R., Wanninkhof, R., Lenton, A., Andrew, R. M., Poulter, B., Koven, C., Schuster, U., Peters, G. P., Landa, C. S., Arneth, A., Bopp, L., Johannessen, T., Bozec, Y., Wang, Y.-P., Cosca, C. E., Ciais, P., Mathis, J. T., Tans, P., Viovy, N., Harris, I., Landschützer, P., Lima, I. D., Takahashi, T., Friedlingstein, P., Jain, A. K., Metzl, N., Regnier, P., Olsen, A., Hoppema, M., Jones, S. D., Le Quéré, C., Chevallier, F., Sitch, S., Klein Goldewijk, K., Marland, G., Boden, T. A., Ono, T., Houghton, R. A., Peters, W., Kato, E., Nojiri, Y., Peng, S., Wiltshire, A., Chini, L. P., Rödenbeck, C., Segschneider, J., Saito, S., Schwinger, J., Sutton, A. J., Zeng, N., Van Der Werf, G. R., Stocker, Benjamin, Séférian, R., Pfeil, B., and Kitidis, V.
- Subjects
530 Physics - Published
- 2015
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
47. Global Carbon Budget 2016
- Author
-
Environmental Sciences, Le Quéré, C., Andrew, R. M., Canadell, J. G., Sitch, S., Korsbakken, J. I., Peters, G. P., Manning, A. C., Boden, T. A., Tans, P. P., Houghton, R. A., Keeling, R. F., Alin, S., Andrews, O. D., Anthoni, P., Barbero, L., Bopp, L., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Ciais, P., Currie, K., Delire, C., Doney, S. C., Friedlingstein, P., Gkritzalis, T., Harris, I., Hauck, J., Haverd, V., Hoppema, M., Klein Goldewijk, K., Jain, A. K., Kato, E., Körtzinger, A., Landschützer, P., Lefèvre, N., Lenton, A., Lienert, S., Lombardozzi, D., Melton, J. R., Metzl, N., Millero, F., Monteiro, P. M. S., Munro, D. R., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Nakaoka, S.-I., O'Brien, K., Olsen, A., Omar, A. M., Ono, T., Pierrot, D., Poulter, B., Rödenbeck, C., Salisbury, J., Schuster, U., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Skjelvan, I., Stocker, B. D., Sutton, A. J., Takahashi, T., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., van der Laan-Luijkx, I. T., van der Werf, G. R., Viovy, N., Walker, A. P., Wiltshire, A. J., Zaehle, S., Environmental Sciences, Le Quéré, C., Andrew, R. M., Canadell, J. G., Sitch, S., Korsbakken, J. I., Peters, G. P., Manning, A. C., Boden, T. A., Tans, P. P., Houghton, R. A., Keeling, R. F., Alin, S., Andrews, O. D., Anthoni, P., Barbero, L., Bopp, L., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Ciais, P., Currie, K., Delire, C., Doney, S. C., Friedlingstein, P., Gkritzalis, T., Harris, I., Hauck, J., Haverd, V., Hoppema, M., Klein Goldewijk, K., Jain, A. K., Kato, E., Körtzinger, A., Landschützer, P., Lefèvre, N., Lenton, A., Lienert, S., Lombardozzi, D., Melton, J. R., Metzl, N., Millero, F., Monteiro, P. M. S., Munro, D. R., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Nakaoka, S.-I., O'Brien, K., Olsen, A., Omar, A. M., Ono, T., Pierrot, D., Poulter, B., Rödenbeck, C., Salisbury, J., Schuster, U., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Skjelvan, I., Stocker, B. D., Sutton, A. J., Takahashi, T., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., van der Laan-Luijkx, I. T., van der Werf, G. R., Viovy, N., Walker, A. P., Wiltshire, A. J., and Zaehle, S.
- Published
- 2016
48. Global Carbon Budget 2016
- Author
-
Le Quéré, Corinne, Andrew, R.M., Canadell, J.G., Sitch, S., Korsbakken, J.I., Peters, G.P., Manning, A.C., Boden, T.A., Tans, P.P., Houghton, R.A., Keeling, R.F., Alin, S., Andrews, O.D., Anthoni, P., Barbero, L., Bopp, L., Chevallier, F., Chini, L.P., Ciais, P., Currie, K., Delire, C., Doney, S.C., Friedlingstein, P., Gkritzalis, T., Harris, I., Hauck, Judith, Haverd, V., Hoppema, Mario, Klein Goldewijk, K., Jain, A.K., Kato, E., Körtzinger, A., Landschützer, P., Lefèvre, N., Lenton, A., Lienert, S., Lombardozzi, D., Melton, J.R., Metzl, N., Millero, F., Monteiro, P.M.S., Munro, D.R., Nabel, J.E.M.S., Nakaoka, S.-i., O'Brien, K., Olsen, A., Omar, A.M., Ono, T., Pierrot, D., Poulter, B., Rödenbeck, C., Salisbury, J., Schuster, U., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Skjelvan, I., Stocker, B.D., Sutton, A.J., Takahashi, T., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., van der Laan-Luijkx, I.T., van der Werf, G.R., Viovy, N., Walker, A.P., Wiltshire, A.J., Zaehle, S., Le Quéré, Corinne, Andrew, R.M., Canadell, J.G., Sitch, S., Korsbakken, J.I., Peters, G.P., Manning, A.C., Boden, T.A., Tans, P.P., Houghton, R.A., Keeling, R.F., Alin, S., Andrews, O.D., Anthoni, P., Barbero, L., Bopp, L., Chevallier, F., Chini, L.P., Ciais, P., Currie, K., Delire, C., Doney, S.C., Friedlingstein, P., Gkritzalis, T., Harris, I., Hauck, Judith, Haverd, V., Hoppema, Mario, Klein Goldewijk, K., Jain, A.K., Kato, E., Körtzinger, A., Landschützer, P., Lefèvre, N., Lenton, A., Lienert, S., Lombardozzi, D., Melton, J.R., Metzl, N., Millero, F., Monteiro, P.M.S., Munro, D.R., Nabel, J.E.M.S., Nakaoka, S.-i., O'Brien, K., Olsen, A., Omar, A.M., Ono, T., Pierrot, D., Poulter, B., Rödenbeck, C., Salisbury, J., Schuster, U., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Skjelvan, I., Stocker, B.D., Sutton, A.J., Takahashi, T., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., van der Laan-Luijkx, I.T., van der Werf, G.R., Viovy, N., Walker, A.P., Wiltshire, A.J., and Zaehle, S.
- Published
- 2016
49. Global Carbon Budget 2015
- Author
-
Leerstoel Ridder, Environmental Sciences, Sub Algemeen Math. Inst, Le Quéré, C., Moriarty, R., Andrew, R. M., Canadell, J. G., Sitch, S., Korsbakken, J. I., Friedlingstein, P., Peters, G. P., Andres, R. J., Boden, T. A., Houghton, R. A., House, J. I., Keeling, R. F., Tans, P., Arneth, A., Bakker, D. C. E., Barbero, L., Bopp, L., Chang, J., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Ciais, P., Fader, M., Feely, R. A., Gkritzalis, T., Harris, I., Hauck, J., Ilyina, T., Jain, A. K., Kato, E., Kitidis, V., Klein Goldewijk, K., Koven, C., Landschützer, P., Lauvset, S. K., Lefèvre, N., Lenton, A., Lima, I. D., Metzl, N., Millero, F., Munro, D. R., Murata, A., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Nakaoka, S., Nojiri, Y., O'Brien, K., Olsen, A., Ono, T., Pérez, F. F., Pfeil, B., Pierrot, D., Poulter, B., Rehder, G., Rödenbeck, C., Saito, S., Schuster, U., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Steinhoff, T., Stocker, B. D., Sutton, A. J., Takahashi, T., Tilbrook, B., van der Laan-Luijkx, I. T., van der Werf, G. R., van Heuven, S., Vandemark, D., Viovy, N., Wiltshire, A., Zaehle, S., Zeng, N., Leerstoel Ridder, Environmental Sciences, Sub Algemeen Math. Inst, Le Quéré, C., Moriarty, R., Andrew, R. M., Canadell, J. G., Sitch, S., Korsbakken, J. I., Friedlingstein, P., Peters, G. P., Andres, R. J., Boden, T. A., Houghton, R. A., House, J. I., Keeling, R. F., Tans, P., Arneth, A., Bakker, D. C. E., Barbero, L., Bopp, L., Chang, J., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Ciais, P., Fader, M., Feely, R. A., Gkritzalis, T., Harris, I., Hauck, J., Ilyina, T., Jain, A. K., Kato, E., Kitidis, V., Klein Goldewijk, K., Koven, C., Landschützer, P., Lauvset, S. K., Lefèvre, N., Lenton, A., Lima, I. D., Metzl, N., Millero, F., Munro, D. R., Murata, A., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Nakaoka, S., Nojiri, Y., O'Brien, K., Olsen, A., Ono, T., Pérez, F. F., Pfeil, B., Pierrot, D., Poulter, B., Rehder, G., Rödenbeck, C., Saito, S., Schuster, U., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Steinhoff, T., Stocker, B. D., Sutton, A. J., Takahashi, T., Tilbrook, B., van der Laan-Luijkx, I. T., van der Werf, G. R., van Heuven, S., Vandemark, D., Viovy, N., Wiltshire, A., Zaehle, S., and Zeng, N.
- Published
- 2015
50. Global carbon budget 2014
- Author
-
Environmental Sciences, LS Economische Geschiedenis, Leerstoel Aarts, Le Quéré, C., Moriarty, R., Andrew, R. M., Peters, G. P., Ciais, P., Friedlingstein, P., Jones, S. D., Sitch, S., Tans, P., Arneth, A., Boden, T. A., Bopp, L., Bozec, Y., Canadell, J. G., Chevallier, F., Cosca, C. E., Harris, I., Hoppema, M., Houghton, R. A., House, J. I., Jain, A., Johannessen, T., Kato, E., Keeling, R. F., Kitidis, V., Klein Goldewijk, K., Koven, C., Landa, C. S., Landschützer, P., Lenton, A., Lima, I. D., Marland, G., Mathis, J. T., Metzl, N., Nojiri, Y., Olsen, A., Ono, T., Peters, W., Pfeil, B., Poulter, B., Raupach, M. R., Regnier, P., Rödenbeck, C., Saito, S., Salisbury, J. E., Schuster, U., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Segschneider, J., Steinhoff, T., Stocker, B. D., Sutton, A. J., Takahashi, T., Tilbrook, B., van der Werf, G. R., Viovy, N., Wang, Y.-P., Wanninkhof, R., Wiltshire, A., Zeng, N., Environmental Sciences, LS Economische Geschiedenis, Leerstoel Aarts, Le Quéré, C., Moriarty, R., Andrew, R. M., Peters, G. P., Ciais, P., Friedlingstein, P., Jones, S. D., Sitch, S., Tans, P., Arneth, A., Boden, T. A., Bopp, L., Bozec, Y., Canadell, J. G., Chevallier, F., Cosca, C. E., Harris, I., Hoppema, M., Houghton, R. A., House, J. I., Jain, A., Johannessen, T., Kato, E., Keeling, R. F., Kitidis, V., Klein Goldewijk, K., Koven, C., Landa, C. S., Landschützer, P., Lenton, A., Lima, I. D., Marland, G., Mathis, J. T., Metzl, N., Nojiri, Y., Olsen, A., Ono, T., Peters, W., Pfeil, B., Poulter, B., Raupach, M. R., Regnier, P., Rödenbeck, C., Saito, S., Salisbury, J. E., Schuster, U., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Segschneider, J., Steinhoff, T., Stocker, B. D., Sutton, A. J., Takahashi, T., Tilbrook, B., van der Werf, G. R., Viovy, N., Wang, Y.-P., Wanninkhof, R., Wiltshire, A., and Zeng, N.
- Published
- 2015
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.