Assessment of Global Ocean Biogeochemistry Models for Ocean Carbon Sink Estimates in RECCAP2 and Recommendations for Future Studies

Author:

Terhaar Jens123ORCID,Goris Nadine4ORCID,Müller Jens D.5ORCID,DeVries Tim67ORCID,Gruber Nicolas5ORCID,Hauck Judith8ORCID,Perez Fiz F.9ORCID,Séférian Roland10ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Woods Hole MA USA

2. Climate and Environmental Physics Physics Institute University of Bern Bern Switzerland

3. Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research University of Bern Bern Switzerland

4. NORCE Climate & Environment Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research Bergen Norway

5. Environmental Physics Institute of Biogeochemistry and Pollutant Dynamics ETH Zurich Zürich Switzerland

6. Department of Geography University of California, Santa Barbara Santa Barbara CA USA

7. Earth Research Institute University of California, Santa Barbara Santa Barbara CA USA

8. Alfred‐Wegener‐Institut Helmholtz‐Zentrum für Polar‐ und Meeresforschung Bremerhaven Germany

9. Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas (IIM) CSIC Vigo Spain

10. CNRM (Université de Toulouse, Météo‐France, CNRS) Toulouse France

Abstract

AbstractThe ocean is a major carbon sink and takes up 25%–30% of the anthropogenically emitted CO2. A state‐of‐the‐art method to quantify this sink are global ocean biogeochemistry models (GOBMs), but their simulated CO2 uptake differs between models and is systematically lower than estimates based on statistical methods using surface ocean pCO2 and interior ocean measurements. Here, we provide an in‐depth evaluation of ocean carbon sink estimates from 1980 to 2018 from a GOBM ensemble. As sources of inter‐model differences and ensemble‐mean biases our study identifies (a) the model setup, such as the length of the spin‐up, the starting date of the simulation, and carbon fluxes from rivers and into sediments, (b) the simulated ocean circulation, such as Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and Southern Ocean mode and intermediate water formation, and (c) the simulated oceanic buffer capacity. Our analysis suggests that a late starting date and biases in the ocean circulation cause a too low anthropogenic CO2 uptake across the GOBM ensemble. Surface ocean biogeochemistry biases might also cause simulated anthropogenic fluxes to be too low, but the current setup prevents a robust assessment. For simulations of the ocean carbon sink, we recommend in the short‐term to (a) start simulations at a common date before the industrialization and the associated atmospheric CO2 increase, (b) conduct a sufficiently long spin‐up such that the GOBMs reach steady‐state, and (c) provide key metrics for circulation, biogeochemistry, and the land‐ocean interface. In the long‐term, we recommend improving the representation of these metrics in the GOBMs.

Funder

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung

Horizon 2020 Framework Programme

Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación

National Science Foundation

Alfred-Wegener-Institut, Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar- und Meeresforschung

HORIZON EUROPE European Research Council

Agencia Estatal de Investigación

Publisher

American Geophysical Union (AGU)

Cited by 4 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3