| 1. |
- Piao, Shilong, et al.
(författare)
-
Evaluation of terrestrial carbon cycle models for their response to climate variability and to CO2 trends
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Global Change Biology. - : Wiley. - 1354-1013. ; 19:7, s. 2117-2132
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The purpose of this study was to evaluate 10 process-based terrestrial biosphere models that were used for the IPCC fifth Assessment Report. The simulated gross primary productivity (GPP) is compared with flux-tower-based estimates by Jung etal. [Journal of Geophysical Research 116 (2011) G00J07] (JU11). The net primary productivity (NPP) apparent sensitivity to climate variability and atmospheric CO2 trends is diagnosed from each model output, using statistical functions. The temperature sensitivity is compared against ecosystem field warming experiments results. The CO2 sensitivity of NPP is compared to the results from four Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) experiments. The simulated global net biome productivity (NBP) is compared with the residual land sink (RLS) of the global carbon budget from Friedlingstein etal. [Nature Geoscience 3 (2010) 811] (FR10). We found that models produce a higher GPP (133 +/- 15Pg Cyr-1) than JU11 (118 +/- 6Pg Cyr-1). In response to rising atmospheric CO2 concentration, modeled NPP increases on average by 16% (5-20%) per 100ppm, a slightly larger apparent sensitivity of NPP to CO2 than that measured at the FACE experiment locations (13% per 100ppm). Global NBP differs markedly among individual models, although the mean value of 2.0 +/- 0.8Pg Cyr-1 is remarkably close to the mean value of RLS (2.1 +/- 1.2 Pg Cyr-1). The interannual variability in modeled NBP is significantly correlated with that of RLS for the period 1980-2009. Both model-to-model and interannual variation in model GPP is larger than that in model NBP due to the strong coupling causing a positive correlation between ecosystem respiration and GPP in the model. The average linear regression slope of global NBP vs. temperature across the 10 models is -3.0 +/- 1.5Pg Cyr-1 degrees C-1, within the uncertainty of what derived from RLS (-3.9 +/- 1.1Pg Cyr-1 degrees C-1). However, 9 of 10 models overestimate the regression slope of NBP vs. precipitation, compared with the slope of the observed RLS vs. precipitation. With most models lacking processes that control GPP and NBP in addition to CO2 and climate, the agreement between modeled and observation-based GPP and NBP can be fortuitous. Carbon-nitrogen interactions (only separable in one model) significantly influence the simulated response of carbon cycle to temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration, suggesting that nutrients limitations should be included in the next generation of terrestrial biosphere models.
|
|
| 2. |
- Zhou, Sha, et al.
(författare)
-
Sources of uncertainty in modeled land carbon storage within and across three MIPs : Diagnosis with three new techniques
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Journal of Climate. - 0894-8755. ; 31:7, s. 2833-2851
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Terrestrial carbon cycle models have incorporated increasingly more processes as a means to achieve more-realistic representations of ecosystem carbon cycling. Despite this, there are large across-model variations in the simulation and projection of carbon cycling. Several model intercomparison projects (MIPs), for example, the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) (historical simulations), Trends in Net Land-Atmosphere Carbon Exchange (TRENDY), and Multiscale Synthesis and Terrestrial Model Intercomparison Project (MsTMIP), have sought to understand intermodel differences. In this study, the authors developed a suite of new techniques to conduct post-MIP analysis to gain insights into uncertainty sources across 25 models in the three MIPs. First, terrestrial carbon storage dynamics were characterized by a three-dimensional (3D) model output space with coordinates of carbon residence time, net primary productivity (NPP), and carbon storage potential. The latter represents the potential of an ecosystem to lose or gain carbon. This space can be used to measure how and why model output differs. Models with a nitrogen cycle generally exhibit lower annual NPP in comparison with other models, and mostly negative carbon storage potential. Second, a transient traceability framework was used to decompose any given carbon cycle model into traceable components and identify the sources of model differences. The carbon residence time (or NPP) was traced to baseline carbon residence time (or baseline NPP related to the maximum carbon input), environmental scalars, and climate forcing. Third, by applying a variance decomposition method, the authors show that the intermodel differences in carbon storage can be mainly attributed to the baseline carbon residence time and baseline NPP (>90% in the three MIPs). The three techniques developed in this study offer a novel approach to gain more insight from existing MIPs and can point out directions for future MIPs. Since this study is conducted at the global scale for an overview on intermodel differences, future studies should focus more on regional analysis to identify the sources of uncertainties and improve models at the specified mechanism level.
|
|
