Quantifying uncertainties of permafrost carbon–climate feedbacks
-
Published:2017-06-22
Issue:12
Volume:14
Page:3051-3066
-
ISSN:1726-4189
-
Container-title:Biogeosciences
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Biogeosciences
Author:
Burke Eleanor J.ORCID, Ekici AltugORCID, Huang Ye, Chadburn Sarah E., Huntingford Chris, Ciais Philippe, Friedlingstein PierreORCID, Peng Shushi, Krinner GerhardORCID
Abstract
Abstract. The land surface models JULES (Joint UK Land Environment Simulator, two versions) and ORCHIDEE-MICT (Organizing Carbon and Hydrology in Dynamic Ecosystems), each with a revised representation of permafrost carbon, were coupled to the Integrated Model Of Global Effects of climatic aNomalies (IMOGEN) intermediate-complexity climate and ocean carbon uptake model. IMOGEN calculates atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and local monthly surface climate for a given emission scenario with the land–atmosphere CO2 flux exchange from either JULES or ORCHIDEE-MICT. These simulations include feedbacks associated with permafrost carbon changes in a warming world. Both IMOGEN–JULES and IMOGEN–ORCHIDEE-MICT were forced by historical and three alternative future-CO2-emission scenarios. Those simulations were performed for different climate sensitivities and regional climate change patterns based on 22 different Earth system models (ESMs) used for CMIP3 (phase 3 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project), allowing us to explore climate uncertainties in the context of permafrost carbon–climate feedbacks. Three future emission scenarios consistent with three representative concentration pathways were used: RCP2.6, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5. Paired simulations with and without frozen carbon processes were required to quantify the impact of the permafrost carbon feedback on climate change. The additional warming from the permafrost carbon feedback is between 0.2 and 12 % of the change in the global mean temperature (ΔT) by the year 2100 and 0.5 and 17 % of ΔT by 2300, with these ranges reflecting differences in land surface models, climate models and emissions pathway. As a percentage of ΔT, the permafrost carbon feedback has a greater impact on the low-emissions scenario (RCP2.6) than on the higher-emissions scenarios, suggesting that permafrost carbon should be taken into account when evaluating scenarios of heavy mitigation and stabilization. Structural differences between the land surface models (particularly the representation of the soil carbon decomposition) are found to be a larger source of uncertainties than differences in the climate response. Inertia in the permafrost carbon system means that the permafrost carbon response depends on the temporal trajectory of warming as well as the absolute amount of warming. We propose a new policy-relevant metric – the frozen carbon residence time (FCRt) in years – that can be derived from these complex land surface models and used to quantify the permafrost carbon response given any pathway of global temperature change.
Funder
Natural Environment Research Council Seventh Framework Programme Horizon 2020
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Subject
Earth-Surface Processes,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Reference48 articles.
1. Andrews, T., Gregory, J. M., Webb, M. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Forcing, feedbacks and climate sensitivity in CMIP5 coupled atmosphere-ocean climate models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L09712, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051607, 2012. 2. Arora, V. K., Boer, G. J., Friedlingstein, P., Eby, M., Jones, C. D., Christian, J. R., Bonan, G., Bopp, L., Brovkin, V., Cadule, P., Hajima, T., Ilyina, T., Lindsay, K., Tjiputra, J., and Wuj, T.: Carbon-concentration and carbon–climate feedbacks in CMIP5 Earth system models, J. Climate, 26, 5289–5314, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00494.1, 2013. 3. Batjes, N. H.: Harmonised soil property values for broadscale modelling (WISE30sec) with estimates of global soil carbon stocks, Geoderma, 269, 61–68, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.01.034, 2016. 4. Best, M. J., Pryor, M., Clark, D. B., Rooney, G. G., Essery, R. L. H., Ménard, C. B., Edwards, J. M., Hendry, M. A., Porson, A., Gedney, N., Mercado, L. M., Sitch, S., Blyth, E., Boucher, O., Cox, P. M., Grimmond, C. S. B., and Harding, R. J.: The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description – Part 1: Energy and water fluxes, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 677–699, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-677-2011, 2011. 5. Brown, J., Ferrians Jr., O. J., Heginbottom, J. A., and Melnikov, E. S.: Circum-arctic map of permafrost and ground ice conditions, Digital media, National Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder, CO (revised February 2001), 1998.
Cited by
58 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
|
|