Articles | Volume 17, issue 23
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-6115-2020
© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-6115-2020
© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
08 Dec 2020
Research article |
| 08 Dec 2020
| 08 Dec 2020
Spatially resolved evaluation of Earth system models with satellite column-averaged CO2
University of Bremen, Institute of Environmental Physics (IUP),
Bremen, Germany
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Institut für
Physik der Atmosphäre, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany
Michael Buchwitz
University of Bremen, Institute of Environmental Physics (IUP),
Bremen, Germany
Maximilian Reuter
University of Bremen, Institute of Environmental Physics (IUP),
Bremen, Germany
Peter M. Cox
College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University
of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QE, United Kingdom
Pierre Friedlingstein
College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University
of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QE, United Kingdom
LMD/IPSL, ENS, PSL Université, École Polytechnique, Institut
Polytechnique de Paris, Sorbonne Université, CNRS, Paris, France
Veronika Eyring
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Institut für
Physik der Atmosphäre, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany
University of Bremen, Institute of Environmental Physics (IUP),
Bremen, Germany
Related authors
Forrest M. Hoffman, Birgit Hassler, Ranjini Swaminathan, Jared Lewis, Bouwe Andela, Nathaniel Collier, Dóra Hegedűs, Jiwoo Lee, Charlotte Pascoe, Mika Pflüger, Martina Stockhause, Paul Ullrich, Min Xu, Lisa Bock, Felicity Chun, Bettina K. Gier, Douglas I. Kelley, Axel Lauer, Julien Lenhardt, Manuel Schlund, Mohanan G. Sreeush, Katja Weigel, Ed Blockley, Rebecca Beadling, Romain Beucher, Demiso D. Dugassa, Valerio Lembo, Jianhua Lu, Swen Brands, Jerry Tjiputra, Elizaveta Malinina, Brian Mederios, Enrico Scoccimarro, Jeremy Walton, Philip Kershaw, André L. Marquez, Malcolm J. Roberts, Eleanor O’Rourke, Elisabeth Dingley, Briony Turner, Helene Hewitt, and John P. Dunne
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2685, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2685, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
As Earth system models become more complex, rapid and comprehensive evaluation through comparison with observational data is necessary. The upcoming Assessment Fast Track for the Seventh Phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP7) will require fast analysis. This paper describes a new Rapid Evaluation Framework (REF) that was developed for the Assessment Fast Track that will be run at the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) to inform the community about the performance of models.
Bettina K. Gier, Manuel Schlund, Pierre Friedlingstein, Chris D. Jones, Colin Jones, Sönke Zaehle, and Veronika Eyring
Biogeosciences, 21, 5321–5360, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5321-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5321-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates present-day carbon cycle variables in CMIP5 and CMIP6 simulations. Overall, CMIP6 models perform better but also show many remaining biases. A significant improvement in the simulation of photosynthesis in models with a nitrogen cycle is found, with only small differences between emission- and concentration-based simulations. Thus, we recommend using emission-driven simulations in CMIP7 by default and including the nitrogen cycle in all future carbon cycle models.
Katja Weigel, Lisa Bock, Bettina K. Gier, Axel Lauer, Mattia Righi, Manuel Schlund, Kemisola Adeniyi, Bouwe Andela, Enrico Arnone, Peter Berg, Louis-Philippe Caron, Irene Cionni, Susanna Corti, Niels Drost, Alasdair Hunter, Llorenç Lledó, Christian Wilhelm Mohr, Aytaç Paçal, Núria Pérez-Zanón, Valeriu Predoi, Marit Sandstad, Jana Sillmann, Andreas Sterl, Javier Vegas-Regidor, Jost von Hardenberg, and Veronika Eyring
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3159–3184, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3159-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3159-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This work presents new diagnostics for the Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 on the hydrological cycle, extreme events, impact assessment, regional evaluations, and ensemble member selection. The ESMValTool v2.0 diagnostics are developed by a large community of scientists aiming to facilitate the evaluation and comparison of Earth system models (ESMs) with a focus on the ESMs participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP).
Axel Lauer, Veronika Eyring, Omar Bellprat, Lisa Bock, Bettina K. Gier, Alasdair Hunter, Ruth Lorenz, Núria Pérez-Zanón, Mattia Righi, Manuel Schlund, Daniel Senftleben, Katja Weigel, and Sabrina Zechlau
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4205–4228, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4205-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4205-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth System Model Evaluation Tool is a community software tool designed for evaluation and analysis of climate models. New features of version 2.0 include analysis scripts for important large-scale features in climate models, diagnostics for extreme events, regional model and impact evaluation. In this paper, newly implemented climate metrics, emergent constraints for climate-relevant feedbacks and diagnostics for future model projections are described and illustrated with examples.
Joseph Clarke, Chris Huntingford, Paul David Longden Ritchie, Rebecca Varney, Mark Williamson, and Peter Cox
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3703, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3703, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Earth System Dynamics (ESD).
Short summary
Short summary
An increase in CO2 in the atmosphere warms the climate through the greenhouse effect, but also leads to uptake of CO2 by the land and ocean. However, the warming is also expected to suppress carbon uptake. If this suppression were strong enough, it could overwhelm the uptake of carbon, leading to a runaway feedback loop causing severe global warming. We find it is possible that this runaway could be relevant in complex climate models and even at the end of the last ice age.
Ida Bagus Mandhara Brasika, Pierre Friedlingstein, Stephen Sitch, Michael O'Sullivan, Maria Carolina Duran-Rojas, Thais Michele Rosan, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Julia Pongratz, Clemens Schwingshackl, Louise P. Chini, and George C. Hurtt
Biogeosciences, 22, 3547–3561, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-3547-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-3547-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Indonesia is the world's third-highest carbon emitter from land use change. However, there are uncertainties in the carbon emissions of Indonesia. Our best estimate of carbon emissions from land use change in Indonesia is 0.12 ± 0.02 PgC/yr with a steady trend. Despite many uncertainties created by drivers, models, and products, we also found robust agreements between these models and products. All agree that Indonesian carbon emissions from LULCC (land use and land cover change) have had no decreasing trend for the last 2 decades.
Michael Weimer, Michael Hilker, Stefan Noël, Max Reuter, Michael Buchwitz, Blanca Fuentes Andrade, Rüdiger Lang, Bernd Sierk, Yasjka Meijer, Heinrich Bovensmann, John P. Burrows, and Hartmut Bösch
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 18, 3321–3340, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-3321-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-3321-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Optical detectors have a maximum signal (saturation). Exceedance means that the measurement has to be discarded. We investigate where saturation will occur for the future European satellite mission dedicated to CO2 monitoring (CO2M) and strategies to avoid saturation. Saturation impacts coverage and precision, both of which are important for estimation of local CO2 emissions. We find that taking two pictures per sampling should be sufficient to avoid saturation for CO2M, with some impact on CO2 precision.
Forrest M. Hoffman, Birgit Hassler, Ranjini Swaminathan, Jared Lewis, Bouwe Andela, Nathaniel Collier, Dóra Hegedűs, Jiwoo Lee, Charlotte Pascoe, Mika Pflüger, Martina Stockhause, Paul Ullrich, Min Xu, Lisa Bock, Felicity Chun, Bettina K. Gier, Douglas I. Kelley, Axel Lauer, Julien Lenhardt, Manuel Schlund, Mohanan G. Sreeush, Katja Weigel, Ed Blockley, Rebecca Beadling, Romain Beucher, Demiso D. Dugassa, Valerio Lembo, Jianhua Lu, Swen Brands, Jerry Tjiputra, Elizaveta Malinina, Brian Mederios, Enrico Scoccimarro, Jeremy Walton, Philip Kershaw, André L. Marquez, Malcolm J. Roberts, Eleanor O’Rourke, Elisabeth Dingley, Briony Turner, Helene Hewitt, and John P. Dunne
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2685, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2685, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
As Earth system models become more complex, rapid and comprehensive evaluation through comparison with observational data is necessary. The upcoming Assessment Fast Track for the Seventh Phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP7) will require fast analysis. This paper describes a new Rapid Evaluation Framework (REF) that was developed for the Assessment Fast Track that will be run at the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) to inform the community about the performance of models.
Aurélien Sicsik-Paré, Audrey Fortems-Cheiney, Isabelle Pison, Grégoire Broquet, Alvin Opler, Elise Potier, Adrien Martinez, Oliver Schneising, Michael Buchwitz, Joannes D. Maasakkers, Tobias Borsdorff, and Antoine Berchet
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2622, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2622, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Assimilating satellite observations from TROPOMI provides top-down quantification of regional methane emissions. This study compares European emissions in 2019 estimated from the inversion of three TROPOMI datasets. We find inconsistencies in national budgets and spatial patterns, with no product clearly superior. We disentangle drivers of the differences, highlighting the impact of differences in coverage, observations and associated errors on the consistency of methane emission estimates.
Pauline Bonnet, Lorenzo Pastori, Mierk Schwabe, Marco Giorgetta, Fernando Iglesias-Suarez, and Veronika Eyring
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3681–3706, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3681-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3681-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Tuning a climate model means adjusting uncertain parameters in the model to best match observations like the global radiation balance and cloud cover. This is usually done by running many simulations of the model with different settings, which can be time-consuming and relies heavily on expert knowledge. To make this process faster and more objective, we developed a machine learning emulator to create a large ensemble and apply a method called history matching to find the best settings.
Piers M. Forster, Chris Smith, Tristram Walsh, William F. Lamb, Robin Lamboll, Christophe Cassou, Mathias Hauser, Zeke Hausfather, June-Yi Lee, Matthew D. Palmer, Karina von Schuckmann, Aimée B. A. Slangen, Sophie Szopa, Blair Trewin, Jeongeun Yun, Nathan P. Gillett, Stuart Jenkins, H. Damon Matthews, Krishnan Raghavan, Aurélien Ribes, Joeri Rogelj, Debbie Rosen, Xuebin Zhang, Myles Allen, Lara Aleluia Reis, Robbie M. Andrew, Richard A. Betts, Alex Borger, Jiddu A. Broersma, Samantha N. Burgess, Lijing Cheng, Pierre Friedlingstein, Catia M. Domingues, Marco Gambarini, Thomas Gasser, Johannes Gütschow, Masayoshi Ishii, Christopher Kadow, John Kennedy, Rachel E. Killick, Paul B. Krummel, Aurélien Liné, Didier P. Monselesan, Colin Morice, Jens Mühle, Vaishali Naik, Glen P. Peters, Anna Pirani, Julia Pongratz, Jan C. Minx, Matthew Rigby, Robert Rohde, Abhishek Savita, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Peter Thorne, Christopher Wells, Luke M. Western, Guido R. van der Werf, Susan E. Wijffels, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, and Panmao Zhai
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 2641–2680, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-2641-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-2641-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In a rapidly changing climate, evidence-based decision-making benefits from up-to-date and timely information. Here we compile monitoring datasets to track real-world changes over time. To make our work relevant to policymakers, we follow methods from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Human activities are increasing the Earth's energy imbalance and driving faster sea-level rise compared to the IPCC assessment.
Aytaç Paçal, Birgit Hassler, Katja Weigel, Miguel-Ángel Fernández-Torres, Gustau Camps-Valls, and Veronika Eyring
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2460, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2460, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Heatwaves are among the deadliest natural hazards, yet their causes and changes over time are not fully understood. We analyzed European heatwaves using a machine learning method that detects atmospheric patterns from these data. Our findings show that recent summer heatwaves differ from historical ones, indicating a shift in atmospheric dynamics consistent with climate change. This approach improves our understanding of the temporal evolution of heatwaves.
Thara Anna Mathew, Dhanyalekshmi Pillai, Jithin Sukumaran, Monish Vijay Deshpande, Michael Buchwitz, Oliver Schneising, Vishnu Thilakan, Aparnna Ravi, Sanjid Backer Kanakkassery, Sivarajan Sijikumar, Imran A. Girach, and S. Suresh Babu
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1977, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1977, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary
Short summary
India poses a significant methane emission burden, but limited observations challenge accurate national estimations. This study combines satellite retrievals, ground measurements, and models to improve India’s 2018–2019 methane budget. Derived emissions are higher than national reports but lower than global inventories. The findings highlight the potential of satellite instruments to report emissions accurately. Expanded methane monitoring is vital for meeting climate change mitigation targets.
Johann Rasmus Nüß, Nikos Daskalakis, Fabian Günther Piwowarczyk, Angelos Gkouvousis, Oliver Schneising, Michael Buchwitz, Maria Kanakidou, Maarten C. Krol, and Mihalis Vrekoussis
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2861–2890, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2861-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2861-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We estimate carbon monoxide emissions through inverse modeling, an approach where measurements of tracers in the atmosphere are fed to a model to calculate backwards in time (inverse) where the tracers came from. We introduce measurements from a new satellite instrument and show that, in most places globally, these on their own sufficiently constrain the emissions. This alleviates the need for additional datasets, which could shorten the delay for future carbon monoxide source estimates.
Kevin Debeire, Lisa Bock, Peer Nowack, Jakob Runge, and Veronika Eyring
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 607–630, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-607-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-607-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Projecting future precipitation is essential for preparing for climate change, but current climate models still have large uncertainties, especially over land. This study presents a new method to improve precipitation projections by identifying which models best capture key climate patterns. By giving more weight to models that better represent these patterns, our approach leads to more reliable future precipitation projections over land.
Lukas Lindenlaub, Katja Weigel, Birgit Hassler, Colin Jones, and Veronika Eyring
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1517, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1517, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study explores changes in drought characteristic based on projections by 18 different Earth system models. Their performance is evaluated by comparing historical simulations to observation based reanalysis. The analysis of a standardized drought index under different future scenarios revealed that the harvest area that is projected to experience extreme drought conditions towards the end of this century ranges from 10 % to 40 % depending on the emission scenario.
William Lamb, Robbie Andrew, Matthew Jones, Zebedee Nicholls, Glen Peters, Chris Smith, Marielle Saunois, Giacomo Grassi, Julia Pongratz, Steven Smith, Francesco Tubiello, Monica Crippa, Matthew Gidden, Pierre Friedlingstein, Jan Minx, and Piers Forster
Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-188, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-188, 2025
Preprint under review for ESSD
Short summary
Short summary
This study explores why global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions estimates vary. Key reasons include different coverage of gases and sectors, varying definitions of anthropogenic land use change emissions, and the Paris Agreement not covering all emission sources. The study highlights three main ways emissions data is reported, each with different objectives and resulting in varying global emission totals. It emphasizes the need for transparency in choosing datasets and setting assessment scopes.
Tomohiro Hajima, Michio Kawamiya, Akihiko Ito, Kaoru Tachiiri, Chris D. Jones, Vivek Arora, Victor Brovkin, Roland Séférian, Spencer Liddicoat, Pierre Friedlingstein, and Elena Shevliakova
Biogeosciences, 22, 1447–1473, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-1447-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-1447-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study analyzes atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global carbon budgets simulated by multiple Earth system models, using several types of simulations (CO2 concentration- and emission-driven experiments). We successfully identified problems with regard to the global carbon budget in each model. We also found urgent issues with regard to land use change CO2 emissions that should be solved in the latest generation of models.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Judith Hauck, Peter Landschützer, Corinne Le Quéré, Hongmei Li, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Clemens Schwingshackl, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Almut Arneth, Vivek Arora, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Carla F. Berghoff, Henry C. Bittig, Laurent Bopp, Patricia Cadule, Katie Campbell, Matthew A. Chamberlain, Naveen Chandra, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Thomas Colligan, Jeanne Decayeux, Laique M. Djeutchouang, Xinyu Dou, Carolina Duran Rojas, Kazutaka Enyo, Wiley Evans, Amanda R. Fay, Richard A. Feely, Daniel J. Ford, Adrianna Foster, Thomas Gasser, Marion Gehlen, Thanos Gkritzalis, Giacomo Grassi, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Matthew Hefner, Jens Heinke, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Andrew R. Jacobson, Atul K. Jain, Tereza Jarníková, Annika Jersild, Fei Jiang, Zhe Jin, Etsushi Kato, Ralph F. Keeling, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Xin Lan, Siv K. Lauvset, Nathalie Lefèvre, Zhu Liu, Junjie Liu, Lei Ma, Shamil Maksyutov, Gregg Marland, Nicolas Mayot, Patrick C. McGuire, Nicolas Metzl, Natalie M. Monacci, Eric J. Morgan, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Craig Neill, Yosuke Niwa, Tobias Nützel, Lea Olivier, Tsuneo Ono, Paul I. Palmer, Denis Pierrot, Zhangcai Qin, Laure Resplandy, Alizée Roobaert, Thais M. Rosan, Christian Rödenbeck, Jörg Schwinger, T. Luke Smallman, Stephen M. Smith, Reinel Sospedra-Alfonso, Tobias Steinhoff, Qing Sun, Adrienne J. Sutton, Roland Séférian, Shintaro Takao, Hiroaki Tatebe, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Olivier Torres, Etienne Tourigny, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Francesco Tubiello, Guido van der Werf, Rik Wanninkhof, Xuhui Wang, Dongxu Yang, Xiaojuan Yang, Zhen Yu, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, Ning Zeng, and Jiye Zeng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 965–1039, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-965-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-965-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2024 describes the methodology, main results, and datasets used to quantify the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land ecosystems, and the ocean over the historical period (1750–2024). These living datasets are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Detlef van Vuuren, Brian O'Neill, Claudia Tebaldi, Louise Chini, Pierre Friedlingstein, Tomoko Hasegawa, Keywan Riahi, Benjamin Sanderson, Bala Govindasamy, Nico Bauer, Veronika Eyring, Cheikh Fall, Katja Frieler, Matthew Gidden, Laila Gohar, Andrew Jones, Andrew King, Reto Knutti, Elmar Kriegler, Peter Lawrence, Chris Lennard, Jason Lowe, Camila Mathison, Shahbaz Mehmood, Luciana Prado, Qiang Zhang, Steven Rose, Alexander Ruane, Carl-Friederich Schleussner, Roland Seferian, Jana Sillmann, Chris Smith, Anna Sörensson, Swapna Panickal, Kaoru Tachiiri, Naomi Vaughan, Saritha Vishwanathan, Tokuta Yokohata, and Tilo Ziehn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3765, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3765, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a set of six plausible 21st century emission scenarios, and their multi-century extensions, that will be used by the international community of climate modeling centers to produce the next generation of climate projections. These projections will support climate, impact and mitigation researchers, provide information to practitioners to address future risks from climate change, and contribute to policymakers’ considerations of the trade-offs among various levels of mitigation.
Ella Kivimäki, Tuula Aalto, Michael Buchwitz, Kari Luojus, Jouni Pulliainen, Kimmo Rautiainen, Oliver Schneising, Anu-Maija Sundström, Johanna Tamminen, Aki Tsuruta, and Hannakaisa Lindqvist
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-249, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-249, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate how environmental variables influencing natural methane fluxes explain the large-scale seasonal variability of satellite-observed methane at Northern high latitudes. Our findings show that soil moisture, snow cover, and soil temperature have the strongest influence, with snowmelt playing a surprisingly significant role, likely through soil isolation and wetting. This study highlights the value of multi-satellite observations for understanding large-scale wetland emissions.
Maximilian Reuter, Michael Hilker, Stefan Noël, Antonio Di Noia, Michael Weimer, Oliver Schneising, Michael Buchwitz, Heinrich Bovensmann, John P. Burrows, Hartmut Bösch, and Ruediger Lang
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 18, 241–264, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-241-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-241-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) are the main anthropogenic greenhouse gases. The European Copernicus CO2 monitoring satellite mission CO2M will provide measurements of their atmospheric concentrations, but the accuracy requirements are demanding and conventional retrieval methods computationally expensive. We present a new retrieval algorithm based on artificial neural networks that has the potential to meet the stringent requirements of the CO2M mission with minimal computational effort.
Paul J. Durack, Karl E. Taylor, Peter J. Gleckler, Gerald A. Meehl, Bryan N. Lawrence, Curt Covey, Ronald J. Stouffer, Guillaume Levavasseur, Atef Ben-Nasser, Sebastien Denvil, Martina Stockhause, Jonathan M. Gregory, Martin Juckes, Sasha K. Ames, Fabrizio Antonio, David C. Bader, John P. Dunne, Daniel Ellis, Veronika Eyring, Sandro L. Fiore, Sylvie Joussaume, Philip Kershaw, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Michael Lautenschlager, Jiwoo Lee, Chris F. Mauzey, Matthew Mizielinski, Paola Nassisi, Alessandra Nuzzo, Eleanor O’Rourke, Jeffrey Painter, Gerald L. Potter, Sven Rodriguez, and Dean N. Williams
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3729, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3729, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
CMIP6 was the most expansive and ambitious Model Intercomparison Project (MIP), the latest in a history, extending four decades. CMIP engaged a growing community focused on improving climate understanding, and quantifying and attributing observed climate change being experienced today. The project's profound impact is due to the combining the latest climate science and technology, enabling the latest-generation climate simulations and increasing community attention in every successive phase.
Yona Silvy, Thomas L. Frölicher, Jens Terhaar, Fortunat Joos, Friedrich A. Burger, Fabrice Lacroix, Myles Allen, Raffaele Bernardello, Laurent Bopp, Victor Brovkin, Jonathan R. Buzan, Patricia Cadule, Martin Dix, John Dunne, Pierre Friedlingstein, Goran Georgievski, Tomohiro Hajima, Stuart Jenkins, Michio Kawamiya, Nancy Y. Kiang, Vladimir Lapin, Donghyun Lee, Paul Lerner, Nadine Mengis, Estela A. Monteiro, David Paynter, Glen P. Peters, Anastasia Romanou, Jörg Schwinger, Sarah Sparrow, Eric Stofferahn, Jerry Tjiputra, Etienne Tourigny, and Tilo Ziehn
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1591–1628, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1591-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1591-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The adaptive emission reduction approach is applied with Earth system models to generate temperature stabilization simulations. These simulations provide compatible emission pathways and budgets for a given warming level, uncovering uncertainty ranges previously missing in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project scenarios. These target-based emission-driven simulations offer a more coherent assessment across models for studying both the carbon cycle and its impacts under climate stabilization.
Bettina K. Gier, Manuel Schlund, Pierre Friedlingstein, Chris D. Jones, Colin Jones, Sönke Zaehle, and Veronika Eyring
Biogeosciences, 21, 5321–5360, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5321-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5321-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates present-day carbon cycle variables in CMIP5 and CMIP6 simulations. Overall, CMIP6 models perform better but also show many remaining biases. A significant improvement in the simulation of photosynthesis in models with a nitrogen cycle is found, with only small differences between emission- and concentration-based simulations. Thus, we recommend using emission-driven simulations in CMIP7 by default and including the nitrogen cycle in all future carbon cycle models.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Ben B. B. Booth, John Dunne, Veronika Eyring, Rosie A. Fisher, Pierre Friedlingstein, Matthew J. Gidden, Tomohiro Hajima, Chris D. Jones, Colin G. Jones, Andrew King, Charles D. Koven, David M. Lawrence, Jason Lowe, Nadine Mengis, Glen P. Peters, Joeri Rogelj, Chris Smith, Abigail C. Snyder, Isla R. Simpson, Abigail L. S. Swann, Claudia Tebaldi, Tatiana Ilyina, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Roland Séférian, Bjørn H. Samset, Detlef van Vuuren, and Sönke Zaehle
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8141–8172, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8141-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8141-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We discuss how, in order to provide more relevant guidance for climate policy, coordinated climate experiments should adopt a greater focus on simulations where Earth system models are provided with carbon emissions from fossil fuels together with land use change instructions, rather than past approaches that have largely focused on experiments with prescribed atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. We discuss how these goals might be achieved in coordinated climate modeling experiments.
Colin G. Jones, Fanny Adloff, Ben B. B. Booth, Peter M. Cox, Veronika Eyring, Pierre Friedlingstein, Katja Frieler, Helene T. Hewitt, Hazel A. Jeffery, Sylvie Joussaume, Torben Koenigk, Bryan N. Lawrence, Eleanor O'Rourke, Malcolm J. Roberts, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Samuel Somot, Pier Luigi Vidale, Detlef van Vuuren, Mario Acosta, Mats Bentsen, Raffaele Bernardello, Richard Betts, Ed Blockley, Julien Boé, Tom Bracegirdle, Pascale Braconnot, Victor Brovkin, Carlo Buontempo, Francisco Doblas-Reyes, Markus Donat, Italo Epicoco, Pete Falloon, Sandro Fiore, Thomas Frölicher, Neven S. Fučkar, Matthew J. Gidden, Helge F. Goessling, Rune Grand Graversen, Silvio Gualdi, José M. Gutiérrez, Tatiana Ilyina, Daniela Jacob, Chris D. Jones, Martin Juckes, Elizabeth Kendon, Erik Kjellström, Reto Knutti, Jason Lowe, Matthew Mizielinski, Paola Nassisi, Michael Obersteiner, Pierre Regnier, Romain Roehrig, David Salas y Mélia, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Michael Schulz, Enrico Scoccimarro, Laurent Terray, Hannes Thiemann, Richard A. Wood, Shuting Yang, and Sönke Zaehle
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1319–1351, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1319-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1319-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a number of priority areas for the international climate research community to address over the coming decade. Advances in these areas will both increase our understanding of past and future Earth system change, including the societal and environmental impacts of this change, and deliver significantly improved scientific support to international climate policy, such as future IPCC assessments and the UNFCCC Global Stocktake.
Paul David Longden Ritchie, Chris Huntingford, and Peter Cox
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3023, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3023, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate Tipping Points are not instantaneous upon crossing critical thresholds in global warming, as is often assumed. Instead, it is possible to temporarily overshoot a threshold without causing tipping, provided the duration of the overshoot is short. In this Idea, we demonstrate that restricting the time over 1.5 °C would considerably reduce tipping point risks.
Steffen Vanselow, Oliver Schneising, Michael Buchwitz, Maximilian Reuter, Heinrich Bovensmann, Hartmut Boesch, and John P. Burrows
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 10441–10473, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-10441-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-10441-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We developed an algorithm to automatically detect persistent methane source regions, to quantify their emissions and to determine their source types, by analyzing TROPOMI data from 2018–2021. The over 200 globally detected natural and anthropogenic source regions include small-scale point sources such as individual coal mines and larger-scale source regions such as wetlands and large oil and gas fields.
Mark S. Williamson, Peter M. Cox, Chris Huntingford, and Femke J. M. M. Nijsse
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 829–852, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-829-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-829-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Emergent constraints on equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) have generally got statistically weaker in the latest set of state-of-the-art climate models (CMIP6) compared to past sets (CMIP5). We look at why this weakening happened for one particular study (Cox et al, 2018) and attribute it to an assumption made in the theory that when corrected for restores there is a stronger relationship between predictor and ECS.
Oliver Schneising, Michael Buchwitz, Maximilian Reuter, Michael Weimer, Heinrich Bovensmann, John P. Burrows, and Hartmut Bösch
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 7609–7621, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-7609-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-7609-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Large quantities of CO and CO2 are emitted during conventional steel production. As satellite-based estimates of CO2 emissions at the facility level are challenging, co-emitted CO can indicate the carbon footprint of steel plants. We estimate CO emissions for German steelworks and use CO2 emissions from emissions trading data to derive a sector-specific CO/CO2 emission ratio for the steel industry; it is a prerequisite to use CO as a proxy for CO2 emissions from similar steel production sites.
Arndt Kaps, Axel Lauer, Rémi Kazeroni, Martin Stengel, and Veronika Eyring
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 3001–3016, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-3001-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-3001-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
CCClim displays observations of clouds in terms of cloud classes that have been in use for a long time. CCClim is a machine-learning-powered product based on multiple existing observational products from different satellites. We show that the cloud classes in CCClim are physically meaningful and can be used to study cloud characteristics in more detail. The goal of this is to make real-world clouds more easily understandable to eventually improve the simulation of clouds in climate models.
Rebecca M. Varney, Pierre Friedlingstein, Sarah E. Chadburn, Eleanor J. Burke, and Peter M. Cox
Biogeosciences, 21, 2759–2776, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-2759-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-2759-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Soil carbon is the largest store of carbon on the land surface of Earth and is known to be particularly sensitive to climate change. Understanding this future response is vital to successfully meeting Paris Agreement targets, which rely heavily on carbon uptake by the land surface. In this study, the individual responses of soil carbon are quantified and compared amongst CMIP6 Earth system models used within the most recent IPCC report, and the role of soils in the land response is highlighted.
Soufiane Karmouche, Evgenia Galytska, Gerald A. Meehl, Jakob Runge, Katja Weigel, and Veronika Eyring
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 689–715, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-689-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-689-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study explores Atlantic–Pacific interactions and their response to external factors. Causal analysis of 1950–2014 data reveals a shift from a Pacific- to an Atlantic-driven regime. Contrasting impacts between El Niño and tropical Atlantic temperatures are highlighted, along with different pathways connecting the two oceans. The findings also suggest increasing remote contributions of forced Atlantic responses in modulating local Pacific responses during the most recent analyzed decades.
Piers M. Forster, Chris Smith, Tristram Walsh, William F. Lamb, Robin Lamboll, Bradley Hall, Mathias Hauser, Aurélien Ribes, Debbie Rosen, Nathan P. Gillett, Matthew D. Palmer, Joeri Rogelj, Karina von Schuckmann, Blair Trewin, Myles Allen, Robbie Andrew, Richard A. Betts, Alex Borger, Tim Boyer, Jiddu A. Broersma, Carlo Buontempo, Samantha Burgess, Chiara Cagnazzo, Lijing Cheng, Pierre Friedlingstein, Andrew Gettelman, Johannes Gütschow, Masayoshi Ishii, Stuart Jenkins, Xin Lan, Colin Morice, Jens Mühle, Christopher Kadow, John Kennedy, Rachel E. Killick, Paul B. Krummel, Jan C. Minx, Gunnar Myhre, Vaishali Naik, Glen P. Peters, Anna Pirani, Julia Pongratz, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Sophie Szopa, Peter Thorne, Mahesh V. M. Kovilakam, Elisa Majamäki, Jukka-Pekka Jalkanen, Margreet van Marle, Rachel M. Hoesly, Robert Rohde, Dominik Schumacher, Guido van der Werf, Russell Vose, Kirsten Zickfeld, Xuebin Zhang, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, and Panmao Zhai
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 2625–2658, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-2625-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-2625-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper tracks some key indicators of global warming through time, from 1850 through to the end of 2023. It is designed to give an authoritative estimate of global warming to date and its causes. We find that in 2023, global warming reached 1.3 °C and is increasing at over 0.2 °C per decade. This is caused by all-time-high greenhouse gas emissions.
Bjorn Stevens, Stefan Adami, Tariq Ali, Hartwig Anzt, Zafer Aslan, Sabine Attinger, Jaana Bäck, Johanna Baehr, Peter Bauer, Natacha Bernier, Bob Bishop, Hendryk Bockelmann, Sandrine Bony, Guy Brasseur, David N. Bresch, Sean Breyer, Gilbert Brunet, Pier Luigi Buttigieg, Junji Cao, Christelle Castet, Yafang Cheng, Ayantika Dey Choudhury, Deborah Coen, Susanne Crewell, Atish Dabholkar, Qing Dai, Francisco Doblas-Reyes, Dale Durran, Ayoub El Gaidi, Charlie Ewen, Eleftheria Exarchou, Veronika Eyring, Florencia Falkinhoff, David Farrell, Piers M. Forster, Ariane Frassoni, Claudia Frauen, Oliver Fuhrer, Shahzad Gani, Edwin Gerber, Debra Goldfarb, Jens Grieger, Nicolas Gruber, Wilco Hazeleger, Rolf Herken, Chris Hewitt, Torsten Hoefler, Huang-Hsiung Hsu, Daniela Jacob, Alexandra Jahn, Christian Jakob, Thomas Jung, Christopher Kadow, In-Sik Kang, Sarah Kang, Karthik Kashinath, Katharina Kleinen-von Königslöw, Daniel Klocke, Uta Kloenne, Milan Klöwer, Chihiro Kodama, Stefan Kollet, Tobias Kölling, Jenni Kontkanen, Steve Kopp, Michal Koran, Markku Kulmala, Hanna Lappalainen, Fakhria Latifi, Bryan Lawrence, June Yi Lee, Quentin Lejeun, Christian Lessig, Chao Li, Thomas Lippert, Jürg Luterbacher, Pekka Manninen, Jochem Marotzke, Satoshi Matsouoka, Charlotte Merchant, Peter Messmer, Gero Michel, Kristel Michielsen, Tomoki Miyakawa, Jens Müller, Ramsha Munir, Sandeep Narayanasetti, Ousmane Ndiaye, Carlos Nobre, Achim Oberg, Riko Oki, Tuba Özkan-Haller, Tim Palmer, Stan Posey, Andreas Prein, Odessa Primus, Mike Pritchard, Julie Pullen, Dian Putrasahan, Johannes Quaas, Krishnan Raghavan, Venkatachalam Ramaswamy, Markus Rapp, Florian Rauser, Markus Reichstein, Aromar Revi, Sonakshi Saluja, Masaki Satoh, Vera Schemann, Sebastian Schemm, Christina Schnadt Poberaj, Thomas Schulthess, Cath Senior, Jagadish Shukla, Manmeet Singh, Julia Slingo, Adam Sobel, Silvina Solman, Jenna Spitzer, Philip Stier, Thomas Stocker, Sarah Strock, Hang Su, Petteri Taalas, John Taylor, Susann Tegtmeier, Georg Teutsch, Adrian Tompkins, Uwe Ulbrich, Pier-Luigi Vidale, Chien-Ming Wu, Hao Xu, Najibullah Zaki, Laure Zanna, Tianjun Zhou, and Florian Ziemen
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 2113–2122, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-2113-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-2113-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
To manage Earth in the Anthropocene, new tools, new institutions, and new forms of international cooperation will be required. Earth Virtualization Engines is proposed as an international federation of centers of excellence to empower all people to respond to the immense and urgent challenges posed by climate change.
Stefan Noël, Michael Buchwitz, Michael Hilker, Maximilian Reuter, Michael Weimer, Heinrich Bovensmann, John P. Burrows, Hartmut Bösch, and Ruediger Lang
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 2317–2334, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-2317-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-2317-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
FOCAL-CO2M is one of the three operational retrieval algorithms which will be used to derive XCO2 and XCH4 from measurements of the forthcoming European CO2M mission. We present results of applications of FOCAL-CO2M to simulated spectra, from which confidence is gained that the algorithm is able to fulfil the challenging requirements on systematic errors for the CO2M mission (spatio-temporal bias ≤ 0.5 ppm for XCO2 and ≤ 5 ppb for XCH4).
Blanca Fuentes Andrade, Michael Buchwitz, Maximilian Reuter, Heinrich Bovensmann, Andreas Richter, Hartmut Boesch, and John P. Burrows
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 1145–1173, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-1145-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-1145-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We developed a method to estimate CO2 emissions from localized sources, such as power plants, using satellite data and applied it to estimate CO2 emissions from the Bełchatów Power Station (Poland). As the detection of CO2 emission plumes from satellite data is difficult, we used observations of co-emitted NO2 to constrain the emission plume region. Our results agree with CO2 emission estimations based on the power-plant-generated power and emission factors.
Jonas Hachmeister, Oliver Schneising, Michael Buchwitz, John P. Burrows, Justus Notholt, and Matthias Buschmann
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 577–595, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-577-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-577-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We quantified changes in atmospheric methane concentrations using satellite data and a dynamic linear model approach. We calculated global annual methane increases for the years 2019–2022, which are in good agreement with other sources. For zonal methane growth rates, we identified strong inter-hemispheric differences in 2019 and 2022. For 2022, we could attribute decreases in the global growth rate to the Northern Hemisphere, possibly related to a reduction in anthropogenic emissions.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Dorothee C. E. Bakker, Judith Hauck, Peter Landschützer, Corinne Le Quéré, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Clemens Schwingshackl, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Peter Anthoni, Leticia Barbero, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Bertrand Decharme, Laurent Bopp, Ida Bagus Mandhara Brasika, Patricia Cadule, Matthew A. Chamberlain, Naveen Chandra, Thi-Tuyet-Trang Chau, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Margot Cronin, Xinyu Dou, Kazutaka Enyo, Wiley Evans, Stefanie Falk, Richard A. Feely, Liang Feng, Daniel J. Ford, Thomas Gasser, Josefine Ghattas, Thanos Gkritzalis, Giacomo Grassi, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Matthew Hefner, Jens Heinke, Richard A. Houghton, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Andrew R. Jacobson, Atul Jain, Tereza Jarníková, Annika Jersild, Fei Jiang, Zhe Jin, Fortunat Joos, Etsushi Kato, Ralph F. Keeling, Daniel Kennedy, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Arne Körtzinger, Xin Lan, Nathalie Lefèvre, Hongmei Li, Junjie Liu, Zhiqiang Liu, Lei Ma, Greg Marland, Nicolas Mayot, Patrick C. McGuire, Galen A. McKinley, Gesa Meyer, Eric J. Morgan, David R. Munro, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Kevin M. O'Brien, Are Olsen, Abdirahman M. Omar, Tsuneo Ono, Melf Paulsen, Denis Pierrot, Katie Pocock, Benjamin Poulter, Carter M. Powis, Gregor Rehder, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Thais M. Rosan, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, T. Luke Smallman, Stephen M. Smith, Reinel Sospedra-Alfonso, Qing Sun, Adrienne J. Sutton, Colm Sweeney, Shintaro Takao, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Francesco Tubiello, Guido R. van der Werf, Erik van Ooijen, Rik Wanninkhof, Michio Watanabe, Cathy Wimart-Rousseau, Dongxu Yang, Xiaojuan Yang, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, Jiye Zeng, and Bo Zheng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5301–5369, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2023 describes the methodology, main results, and data sets used to quantify the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land ecosystems, and the ocean over the historical period (1750–2023). These living datasets are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Zi Huang, Jiaoyue Wang, Longfei Bing, Yijiao Qiu, Rui Guo, Ying Yu, Mingjing Ma, Le Niu, Dan Tong, Robbie M. Andrew, Pierre Friedlingstein, Josep G. Canadell, Fengming Xi, and Zhu Liu
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 4947–4958, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-4947-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-4947-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This is about global and regional cement process carbon emissions and CO2 uptake calculations from 1930 to 2019. The global cement production is rising to 4.4 Gt, causing processing carbon emission of 1.81 Gt (95% CI: 1.75–1.88 Gt CO2) in 2021. Plus, in 2021, cement’s carbon accumulated uptake (22.9 Gt, 95% CI: 19.6–22.6 Gt CO2) has offset 55.2% of cement process CO2 emissions (41.5 Gt, 95% CI: 38.7–47.1 Gt CO2) since 1930.
Matthew J. McGrath, Ana Maria Roxana Petrescu, Philippe Peylin, Robbie M. Andrew, Bradley Matthews, Frank Dentener, Juraj Balkovič, Vladislav Bastrikov, Meike Becker, Gregoire Broquet, Philippe Ciais, Audrey Fortems-Cheiney, Raphael Ganzenmüller, Giacomo Grassi, Ian Harris, Matthew Jones, Jürgen Knauer, Matthias Kuhnert, Guillaume Monteil, Saqr Munassar, Paul I. Palmer, Glen P. Peters, Chunjing Qiu, Mart-Jan Schelhaas, Oksana Tarasova, Matteo Vizzarri, Karina Winkler, Gianpaolo Balsamo, Antoine Berchet, Peter Briggs, Patrick Brockmann, Frédéric Chevallier, Giulia Conchedda, Monica Crippa, Stijn N. C. Dellaert, Hugo A. C. Denier van der Gon, Sara Filipek, Pierre Friedlingstein, Richard Fuchs, Michael Gauss, Christoph Gerbig, Diego Guizzardi, Dirk Günther, Richard A. Houghton, Greet Janssens-Maenhout, Ronny Lauerwald, Bas Lerink, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Géraud Moulas, Marilena Muntean, Gert-Jan Nabuurs, Aurélie Paquirissamy, Lucia Perugini, Wouter Peters, Roberto Pilli, Julia Pongratz, Pierre Regnier, Marko Scholze, Yusuf Serengil, Pete Smith, Efisio Solazzo, Rona L. Thompson, Francesco N. Tubiello, Timo Vesala, and Sophia Walther
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 4295–4370, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-4295-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-4295-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Accurate estimation of fluxes of carbon dioxide from the land surface is essential for understanding future impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the climate system. A wide variety of methods currently exist to estimate these sources and sinks. We are continuing work to develop annual comparisons of these diverse methods in order to clarify what they all actually calculate and to resolve apparent disagreement, in addition to highlighting opportunities for increased understanding.
Rebecca M. Varney, Sarah E. Chadburn, Eleanor J. Burke, Simon Jones, Andy J. Wiltshire, and Peter M. Cox
Biogeosciences, 20, 3767–3790, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-3767-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-3767-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This study evaluates soil carbon projections during the 21st century in CMIP6 Earth system models. In general, we find a reduced spread of changes in global soil carbon in CMIP6 compared to the previous CMIP5 generation. The reduced CMIP6 spread arises from an emergent relationship between soil carbon changes due to change in plant productivity and soil carbon changes due to changes in turnover time. We show that this relationship is consistent with false priming under transient climate change.
Nina Raoult, Tim Jupp, Ben Booth, and Peter Cox
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 723–731, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-723-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-723-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Climate models are used to predict the impact of climate change. However, poorly constrained parameters used in the physics of the models mean that we simulate a large spread of possible future outcomes. We can use real-world observations to reduce the uncertainty of parameter values, but we do not have observations to reduce the spread of possible future outcomes directly. We present a method for translating the reduction in parameter uncertainty into a reduction in possible model projections.
Paul D. L. Ritchie, Hassan Alkhayuon, Peter M. Cox, and Sebastian Wieczorek
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 669–683, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-669-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-669-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Complex systems can undergo abrupt changes or tipping points when external forcing crosses a critical level and are of increasing concern because of their severe impacts. However, tipping points can also occur when the external forcing changes too quickly without crossing any critical levels, which is very relevant for Earth’s systems and contemporary climate. We give an intuitive explanation of such rate-induced tipping and provide illustrative examples from natural and human systems.
Piers M. Forster, Christopher J. Smith, Tristram Walsh, William F. Lamb, Robin Lamboll, Mathias Hauser, Aurélien Ribes, Debbie Rosen, Nathan Gillett, Matthew D. Palmer, Joeri Rogelj, Karina von Schuckmann, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Blair Trewin, Xuebin Zhang, Myles Allen, Robbie Andrew, Arlene Birt, Alex Borger, Tim Boyer, Jiddu A. Broersma, Lijing Cheng, Frank Dentener, Pierre Friedlingstein, José M. Gutiérrez, Johannes Gütschow, Bradley Hall, Masayoshi Ishii, Stuart Jenkins, Xin Lan, June-Yi Lee, Colin Morice, Christopher Kadow, John Kennedy, Rachel Killick, Jan C. Minx, Vaishali Naik, Glen P. Peters, Anna Pirani, Julia Pongratz, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Sophie Szopa, Peter Thorne, Robert Rohde, Maisa Rojas Corradi, Dominik Schumacher, Russell Vose, Kirsten Zickfeld, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, and Panmao Zhai
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 2295–2327, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-2295-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-2295-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This is a critical decade for climate action, but there is no annual tracking of the level of human-induced warming. We build on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports that are authoritative but published infrequently to create a set of key global climate indicators that can be tracked through time. Our hope is that this becomes an important annual publication that policymakers, media, scientists and the public can refer to.
Chris Huntingford, Peter M. Cox, Mark S. Williamson, Joseph J. Clarke, and Paul D. L. Ritchie
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 433–442, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-433-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-433-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Emergent constraints (ECs) reduce the spread of projections between climate models. ECs estimate changes to climate features impacting adaptation policy, and with this high profile, the method is under scrutiny. Asking
What is an EC?, we suggest they are often the discovery of parameters that characterise hidden large-scale equations that climate models solve implicitly. We present this conceptually via two examples. Our analysis implies possible new paths to link ECs and physical processes.
Anna Agustí-Panareda, Jérôme Barré, Sébastien Massart, Antje Inness, Ilse Aben, Melanie Ades, Bianca C. Baier, Gianpaolo Balsamo, Tobias Borsdorff, Nicolas Bousserez, Souhail Boussetta, Michael Buchwitz, Luca Cantarello, Cyril Crevoisier, Richard Engelen, Henk Eskes, Johannes Flemming, Sébastien Garrigues, Otto Hasekamp, Vincent Huijnen, Luke Jones, Zak Kipling, Bavo Langerock, Joe McNorton, Nicolas Meilhac, Stefan Noël, Mark Parrington, Vincent-Henri Peuch, Michel Ramonet, Miha Razinger, Maximilian Reuter, Roberto Ribas, Martin Suttie, Colm Sweeney, Jérôme Tarniewicz, and Lianghai Wu
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 3829–3859, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-3829-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-3829-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We present a global dataset of atmospheric CO2 and CH4, the two most important human-made greenhouse gases, which covers almost 2 decades (2003–2020). It is produced by combining satellite data of CO2 and CH4 with a weather and air composition prediction model, and it has been carefully evaluated against independent observations to ensure validity and point out deficiencies to the user. This dataset can be used for scientific studies in the field of climate change and the global carbon cycle.
Soufiane Karmouche, Evgenia Galytska, Jakob Runge, Gerald A. Meehl, Adam S. Phillips, Katja Weigel, and Veronika Eyring
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 309–344, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-309-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-309-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This study uses a causal discovery method to evaluate the ability of climate models to represent the interactions between the Atlantic multidecadal variability (AMV) and the Pacific decadal variability (PDV). The approach and findings in this study present a powerful methodology that can be applied to a number of environment-related topics, offering tremendous insights to improve the understanding of the complex Earth system and the state of the art of climate modeling.
Giacomo Grassi, Clemens Schwingshackl, Thomas Gasser, Richard A. Houghton, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Alessandro Cescatti, Philippe Ciais, Sandro Federici, Pierre Friedlingstein, Werner A. Kurz, Maria J. Sanz Sanchez, Raúl Abad Viñas, Ramdane Alkama, Selma Bultan, Guido Ceccherini, Stefanie Falk, Etsushi Kato, Daniel Kennedy, Jürgen Knauer, Anu Korosuo, Joana Melo, Matthew J. McGrath, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Benjamin Poulter, Anna A. Romanovskaya, Simone Rossi, Hanqin Tian, Anthony P. Walker, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, and Julia Pongratz
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 1093–1114, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-1093-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-1093-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Striking differences exist in estimates of land-use CO2 fluxes between the national greenhouse gas inventories and the IPCC assessment reports. These differences hamper an accurate assessment of the collective progress under the Paris Agreement. By implementing an approach that conceptually reconciles land-use CO2 flux from national inventories and the global models used by the IPCC, our study is an important step forward for increasing confidence in land-use CO2 flux estimates.
Oliver Schneising, Michael Buchwitz, Jonas Hachmeister, Steffen Vanselow, Maximilian Reuter, Matthias Buschmann, Heinrich Bovensmann, and John P. Burrows
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 669–694, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-669-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-669-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Methane and carbon monoxide are important constituents of the atmosphere in the context of climate change and air pollution. We present the latest advances in the TROPOMI/WFMD algorithm to simultaneously retrieve atmospheric methane and carbon monoxide abundances from space. The changes in the latest product version are described in detail, and the resulting improvements are demonstrated. An overview of the products is provided including a discussion of annual increases and validation results.
Morgan Sparey, Peter Cox, and Mark S. Williamson
Biogeosciences, 20, 451–488, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-451-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-451-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Accurate climate models are vital for mitigating climate change; however, projections often disagree. Using Köppen–Geiger bioclimate classifications we show that CMIP6 climate models agree well on the fraction of global land surface that will change classification per degree of global warming. We find that 13 % of land will change climate per degree of warming from 1 to 3 K; thus, stabilising warming at 1.5 rather than 2 K would save over 7.5 million square kilometres from bioclimatic change.
Manuel Schlund, Birgit Hassler, Axel Lauer, Bouwe Andela, Patrick Jöckel, Rémi Kazeroni, Saskia Loosveldt Tomas, Brian Medeiros, Valeriu Predoi, Stéphane Sénési, Jérôme Servonnat, Tobias Stacke, Javier Vegas-Regidor, Klaus Zimmermann, and Veronika Eyring
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 315–333, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-315-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-315-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) is a community diagnostics and performance metrics tool for routine evaluation of Earth system models. Originally, ESMValTool was designed to process reformatted output provided by large model intercomparison projects like the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). Here, we describe a new extension of ESMValTool that allows for reading and processing native climate model output, i.e., data that have not been reformatted before.
Isobel M. Parry, Paul D. L. Ritchie, and Peter M. Cox
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1667–1675, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1667-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1667-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Despite little evidence of regional Amazon rainforest dieback, many localised abrupt dieback events are observed in the latest state-of-the-art global climate models under anthropogenic climate change. The detected dieback events would still cause severe consequences for local communities and ecosystems. This study suggests that 7 ± 5 % of the northern South America region would experience abrupt downward shifts in vegetation carbon for every degree of global warming past 1.5 °C.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Luke Gregor, Judith Hauck, Corinne Le Quéré, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Clemens Schwingshackl, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Ramdane Alkama, Almut Arneth, Vivek K. Arora, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Henry C. Bittig, Laurent Bopp, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Margot Cronin, Wiley Evans, Stefanie Falk, Richard A. Feely, Thomas Gasser, Marion Gehlen, Thanos Gkritzalis, Lucas Gloege, Giacomo Grassi, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Matthew Hefner, Richard A. Houghton, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Atul K. Jain, Annika Jersild, Koji Kadono, Etsushi Kato, Daniel Kennedy, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Peter Landschützer, Nathalie Lefèvre, Keith Lindsay, Junjie Liu, Zhu Liu, Gregg Marland, Nicolas Mayot, Matthew J. McGrath, Nicolas Metzl, Natalie M. Monacci, David R. Munro, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Kevin O'Brien, Tsuneo Ono, Paul I. Palmer, Naiqing Pan, Denis Pierrot, Katie Pocock, Benjamin Poulter, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Carmen Rodriguez, Thais M. Rosan, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Jamie D. Shutler, Ingunn Skjelvan, Tobias Steinhoff, Qing Sun, Adrienne J. Sutton, Colm Sweeney, Shintaro Takao, Toste Tanhua, Pieter P. Tans, Xiangjun Tian, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Francesco Tubiello, Guido R. van der Werf, Anthony P. Walker, Rik Wanninkhof, Chris Whitehead, Anna Willstrand Wranne, Rebecca Wright, Wenping Yuan, Chao Yue, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, Jiye Zeng, and Bo Zheng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 4811–4900, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2022 describes the datasets and methodology used to quantify the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and their partitioning among the atmosphere, the land ecosystems, and the ocean. These living datasets are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Rebecca M. Varney, Sarah E. Chadburn, Eleanor J. Burke, and Peter M. Cox
Biogeosciences, 19, 4671–4704, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-4671-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-4671-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Soil carbon is the Earth’s largest terrestrial carbon store, and the response to climate change represents one of the key uncertainties in obtaining accurate global carbon budgets required to successfully militate against climate change. The ability of climate models to simulate present-day soil carbon is therefore vital. This study assesses soil carbon simulation in the latest ensemble of models which allows key areas for future model development to be identified.
Taraka Davies-Barnard, Sönke Zaehle, and Pierre Friedlingstein
Biogeosciences, 19, 3491–3503, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-3491-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-3491-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Biological nitrogen fixation is the largest natural input of new nitrogen onto land. Earth system models mainly represent global total terrestrial biological nitrogen fixation within observational uncertainties but overestimate tropical fixation. The model range of increase in biological nitrogen fixation in the SSP3-7.0 scenario is 3 % to 87 %. While biological nitrogen fixation is a key source of new nitrogen, its predictive power for net primary productivity in models is limited.
Jonas Hachmeister, Oliver Schneising, Michael Buchwitz, Alba Lorente, Tobias Borsdorff, John P. Burrows, Justus Notholt, and Matthias Buschmann
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 4063–4074, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-4063-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-4063-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Sentinel-5P trace gas retrievals rely on elevation data in their calculations. Outdated or inaccurate data can lead to significant errors in e.g. dry-air mole fractions of methane (XCH4). We show that the use of inadequate elevation data leads to strong XCH4 anomalies in Greenland. Similar problems can be expected for other regions with inaccurate elevation data. However, we expect these to be more localized. We show that updating elevation data used in the retrieval solves this issue.
Stefan Noël, Maximilian Reuter, Michael Buchwitz, Jakob Borchardt, Michael Hilker, Oliver Schneising, Heinrich Bovensmann, John P. Burrows, Antonio Di Noia, Robert J. Parker, Hiroshi Suto, Yukio Yoshida, Matthias Buschmann, Nicholas M. Deutscher, Dietrich G. Feist, David W. T. Griffith, Frank Hase, Rigel Kivi, Cheng Liu, Isamu Morino, Justus Notholt, Young-Suk Oh, Hirofumi Ohyama, Christof Petri, David F. Pollard, Markus Rettinger, Coleen Roehl, Constantina Rousogenous, Mahesh Kumar Sha, Kei Shiomi, Kimberly Strong, Ralf Sussmann, Yao Té, Voltaire A. Velazco, Mihalis Vrekoussis, and Thorsten Warneke
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 3401–3437, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-3401-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-3401-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We present a new version (v3) of the GOSAT and GOSAT-2 FOCAL products.
In addition to an increased number of XCO2 data, v3 also includes products for XCH4 (full-physics and proxy), XH2O and the relative ratio of HDO to H2O (δD). For GOSAT-2, we also present first XCO and XN2O results. All FOCAL data products show reasonable spatial distribution and temporal variations and agree well with TCCON. Global XN2O maps show a gradient from the tropics to higher latitudes on the order of 15 ppb.
Shakirudeen Lawal, Stephen Sitch, Danica Lombardozzi, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Hao-Wei Wey, Pierre Friedlingstein, Hanqin Tian, and Bruce Hewitson
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 2045–2071, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2045-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2045-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
To investigate the impacts of drought on vegetation, which few studies have done due to various limitations, we used the leaf area index as proxy and dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) to simulate drought impacts because the models use observationally derived climate. We found that the semi-desert biome responds strongly to drought in the summer season, while the tropical forest biome shows a weak response. This study could help target areas to improve drought monitoring and simulation.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Matthew W. Jones, Michael O'Sullivan, Robbie M. Andrew, Dorothee C. E. Bakker, Judith Hauck, Corinne Le Quéré, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Rob B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Peter Anthoni, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Laurent Bopp, Thi Tuyet Trang Chau, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Margot Cronin, Kim I. Currie, Bertrand Decharme, Laique M. Djeutchouang, Xinyu Dou, Wiley Evans, Richard A. Feely, Liang Feng, Thomas Gasser, Dennis Gilfillan, Thanos Gkritzalis, Giacomo Grassi, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Richard A. Houghton, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Atul Jain, Steve D. Jones, Etsushi Kato, Daniel Kennedy, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Arne Körtzinger, Peter Landschützer, Siv K. Lauvset, Nathalie Lefèvre, Sebastian Lienert, Junjie Liu, Gregg Marland, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, David R. Munro, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Tsuneo Ono, Denis Pierrot, Benjamin Poulter, Gregor Rehder, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Thais M. Rosan, Jörg Schwinger, Clemens Schwingshackl, Roland Séférian, Adrienne J. Sutton, Colm Sweeney, Toste Tanhua, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Francesco Tubiello, Guido R. van der Werf, Nicolas Vuichard, Chisato Wada, Rik Wanninkhof, Andrew J. Watson, David Willis, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Wenping Yuan, Chao Yue, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, and Jiye Zeng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 1917–2005, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1917-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1917-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2021 describes the data sets and methodology used to quantify the emissions of carbon dioxide and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land, and ocean. These living data are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Carlos Alberti, Qiansi Tu, Frank Hase, Maria V. Makarova, Konstantin Gribanov, Stefani C. Foka, Vyacheslav Zakharov, Thomas Blumenstock, Michael Buchwitz, Christopher Diekmann, Benjamin Ertl, Matthias M. Frey, Hamud Kh. Imhasin, Dmitry V. Ionov, Farahnaz Khosrawi, Sergey I. Osipov, Maximilian Reuter, Matthias Schneider, and Thorsten Warneke
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 2199–2229, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-2199-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-2199-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Satellite and ground-based observations at high latitudes are much sparser than at low or mid latitudes, which makes direct coincident comparisons between remote-sensing observations more difficult. Therefore, a method of scaling continuous CAMS model data to the ground-based observations is developed and used for creating virtual COCCON observations. These adjusted CAMS data are then used for satellite inter-comparison, showing good agreement in both Peterhof and Yekaterinburg cities.
István Dunkl, Aaron Spring, Pierre Friedlingstein, and Victor Brovkin
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 1413–1426, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-1413-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-1413-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The variability in atmospheric CO2 is largely controlled by terrestrial carbon fluxes. These land–atmosphere fluxes are predictable for around 2 years, but the mechanisms providing the predictability are not well understood. By decomposing the predictability of carbon fluxes into individual contributors we were able to explain the spatial and seasonal patterns and the interannual variability of CO2 flux predictability.
Alexander J. Winkler, Ranga B. Myneni, Alexis Hannart, Stephen Sitch, Vanessa Haverd, Danica Lombardozzi, Vivek K. Arora, Julia Pongratz, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Daniel S. Goll, Etsushi Kato, Hanqin Tian, Almut Arneth, Pierre Friedlingstein, Atul K. Jain, Sönke Zaehle, and Victor Brovkin
Biogeosciences, 18, 4985–5010, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-4985-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-4985-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Satellite observations since the early 1980s show that Earth's greening trend is slowing down and that browning clusters have been emerging, especially in the last 2 decades. A collection of model simulations in conjunction with causal theory points at climatic changes as a key driver of vegetation changes in natural ecosystems. Most models underestimate the observed vegetation browning, especially in tropical rainforests, which could be due to an excessive CO2 fertilization effect in models.
Katja Weigel, Lisa Bock, Bettina K. Gier, Axel Lauer, Mattia Righi, Manuel Schlund, Kemisola Adeniyi, Bouwe Andela, Enrico Arnone, Peter Berg, Louis-Philippe Caron, Irene Cionni, Susanna Corti, Niels Drost, Alasdair Hunter, Llorenç Lledó, Christian Wilhelm Mohr, Aytaç Paçal, Núria Pérez-Zanón, Valeriu Predoi, Marit Sandstad, Jana Sillmann, Andreas Sterl, Javier Vegas-Regidor, Jost von Hardenberg, and Veronika Eyring
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3159–3184, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3159-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3159-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This work presents new diagnostics for the Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 on the hydrological cycle, extreme events, impact assessment, regional evaluations, and ensemble member selection. The ESMValTool v2.0 diagnostics are developed by a large community of scientists aiming to facilitate the evaluation and comparison of Earth system models (ESMs) with a focus on the ESMs participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP).
Stefan Noël, Maximilian Reuter, Michael Buchwitz, Jakob Borchardt, Michael Hilker, Heinrich Bovensmann, John P. Burrows, Antonio Di Noia, Hiroshi Suto, Yukio Yoshida, Matthias Buschmann, Nicholas M. Deutscher, Dietrich G. Feist, David W. T. Griffith, Frank Hase, Rigel Kivi, Isamu Morino, Justus Notholt, Hirofumi Ohyama, Christof Petri, James R. Podolske, David F. Pollard, Mahesh Kumar Sha, Kei Shiomi, Ralf Sussmann, Yao Té, Voltaire A. Velazco, and Thorsten Warneke
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 3837–3869, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-3837-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-3837-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We present the first GOSAT and GOSAT-2 XCO2 data derived with the FOCAL retrieval algorithm. Comparisons of the GOSAT-FOCAL product with other data reveal long-term agreement within about 1 ppm over 1 decade, differences in seasonal variations of about 0.5 ppm, and a mean regional bias to ground-based TCCON data of 0.56 ppm with a mean scatter of 1.89 ppm. GOSAT-2-FOCAL data are preliminary only, but first comparisons show that they compare well with the GOSAT-FOCAL results and TCCON.
Garry D. Hayman, Edward Comyn-Platt, Chris Huntingford, Anna B. Harper, Tom Powell, Peter M. Cox, William Collins, Christopher Webber, Jason Lowe, Stephen Sitch, Joanna I. House, Jonathan C. Doelman, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Sarah E. Chadburn, Eleanor Burke, and Nicola Gedney
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 513–544, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-513-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-513-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We model greenhouse gas emission scenarios consistent with limiting global warming to either 1.5 or 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. We quantify the effectiveness of methane emission control and land-based mitigation options regionally. Our results highlight the importance of reducing methane emissions for realistic emission pathways that meet the global warming targets. For land-based mitigation, growing bioenergy crops on existing agricultural land is preferable to replacing forests.
Zichong Chen, Junjie Liu, Daven K. Henze, Deborah N. Huntzinger, Kelley C. Wells, Stephen Sitch, Pierre Friedlingstein, Emilie Joetzjer, Vladislav Bastrikov, Daniel S. Goll, Vanessa Haverd, Atul K. Jain, Etsushi Kato, Sebastian Lienert, Danica L. Lombardozzi, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Benjamin Poulter, Hanqin Tian, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Sönke Zaehle, and Scot M. Miller
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 6663–6680, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6663-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6663-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2) satellite observes atmospheric CO2 globally. We use a multiple regression and inverse model to quantify the relationships between OCO-2 and environmental drivers within individual years for 2015–2018 and within seven global biomes. Our results point to limitations of current space-based observations for inferring environmental relationships but also indicate the potential to inform key relationships that are very uncertain in process-based models.
Andrew J. Wiltshire, Eleanor J. Burke, Sarah E. Chadburn, Chris D. Jones, Peter M. Cox, Taraka Davies-Barnard, Pierre Friedlingstein, Anna B. Harper, Spencer Liddicoat, Stephen Sitch, and Sönke Zaehle
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2161–2186, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2161-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2161-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Limited nitrogen availbility can restrict the growth of plants and their ability to assimilate carbon. It is important to include the impact of this process on the global land carbon cycle. This paper presents a model of the coupled land carbon and nitrogen cycle, which is included within the UK Earth System model to improve projections of climate change and impacts on ecosystems.
Ashique Vellalassery, Dhanyalekshmi Pillai, Julia Marshall, Christoph Gerbig, Michael Buchwitz, Oliver Schneising, and Aparnna Ravi
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 5393–5414, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5393-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5393-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate factors contributing to the severe and persistent air quality degradation in northern India that has worsened during every winter over the last decade. This is achieved by implementing atmospheric modelling and using recently available Sentinel-5 P satellite data for carbon monoxide. We see a minimal role of biomass burning, except for the state of Punjab. The aim is to focus on residential and industrial emission reduction strategies to tackle air pollution over northern India.
James Keeble, Birgit Hassler, Antara Banerjee, Ramiro Checa-Garcia, Gabriel Chiodo, Sean Davis, Veronika Eyring, Paul T. Griffiths, Olaf Morgenstern, Peer Nowack, Guang Zeng, Jiankai Zhang, Greg Bodeker, Susannah Burrows, Philip Cameron-Smith, David Cugnet, Christopher Danek, Makoto Deushi, Larry W. Horowitz, Anne Kubin, Lijuan Li, Gerrit Lohmann, Martine Michou, Michael J. Mills, Pierre Nabat, Dirk Olivié, Sungsu Park, Øyvind Seland, Jens Stoll, Karl-Hermann Wieners, and Tongwen Wu
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 5015–5061, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5015-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5015-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric ozone and water vapour are key components of the Earth system; changes to both have important impacts on global and regional climate. We evaluate changes to these species from 1850 to 2100 in the new generation of CMIP6 models. There is good agreement between the multi-model mean and observations, although there is substantial variation between the individual models. The future evolution of both ozone and water vapour is strongly dependent on the assumed future emissions scenario.
Michael Buchwitz, Maximilian Reuter, Stefan Noël, Klaus Bramstedt, Oliver Schneising, Michael Hilker, Blanca Fuentes Andrade, Heinrich Bovensmann, John P. Burrows, Antonio Di Noia, Hartmut Boesch, Lianghai Wu, Jochen Landgraf, Ilse Aben, Christian Retscher, Christopher W. O'Dell, and David Crisp
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 2141–2166, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-2141-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-2141-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in reduced anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions during 2020 in large parts of the world. We have used a small ensemble of satellite retrievals of column-averaged CO2 (XCO2) to find out if a regional-scale reduction of atmospheric CO2 can be detected from space. We focus on East China and show that it is challenging to reliably detect and to accurately quantify the emission reduction, which only results in regional XCO2 reductions of about 0.1–0.2 ppm.
Claudia Tebaldi, Kevin Debeire, Veronika Eyring, Erich Fischer, John Fyfe, Pierre Friedlingstein, Reto Knutti, Jason Lowe, Brian O'Neill, Benjamin Sanderson, Detlef van Vuuren, Keywan Riahi, Malte Meinshausen, Zebedee Nicholls, Katarzyna B. Tokarska, George Hurtt, Elmar Kriegler, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Gerald Meehl, Richard Moss, Susanne E. Bauer, Olivier Boucher, Victor Brovkin, Young-Hwa Byun, Martin Dix, Silvio Gualdi, Huan Guo, Jasmin G. John, Slava Kharin, YoungHo Kim, Tsuyoshi Koshiro, Libin Ma, Dirk Olivié, Swapna Panickal, Fangli Qiao, Xinyao Rong, Nan Rosenbloom, Martin Schupfner, Roland Séférian, Alistair Sellar, Tido Semmler, Xiaoying Shi, Zhenya Song, Christian Steger, Ronald Stouffer, Neil Swart, Kaoru Tachiiri, Qi Tang, Hiroaki Tatebe, Aurore Voldoire, Evgeny Volodin, Klaus Wyser, Xiaoge Xin, Shuting Yang, Yongqiang Yu, and Tilo Ziehn
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 253–293, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-253-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-253-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We present an overview of CMIP6 ScenarioMIP outcomes from up to 38 participating ESMs according to the new SSP-based scenarios. Average temperature and precipitation projections according to a wide range of forcings, spanning a wider range than the CMIP5 projections, are documented as global averages and geographic patterns. Times of crossing various warming levels are computed, together with benefits of mitigation for selected pairs of scenarios. Comparisons with CMIP5 are also discussed.
Maximilian Reuter, Heinrich Bovensmann, Michael Buchwitz, Jakob Borchardt, Sven Krautwurst, Konstantin Gerilowski, Matthias Lindauer, Dagmar Kubistin, and John P. Burrows
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 153–172, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-153-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-153-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
CO2 measurements from a small unmanned aircraft system (sUAS) can provide a cost-effective way to complement and validate satellite-based measurements of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. We introduce an sUAS which is capable of determining atmospheric CO2 mass fluxes from its own sensor data. We show results of validation flights at the ICOS atmospheric station in Steinkimmen and from demonstration flights downwind a CO2-emitting natural gas processing facility.
Manuel Schlund, Axel Lauer, Pierre Gentine, Steven C. Sherwood, and Veronika Eyring
Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 1233–1258, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-1233-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-1233-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
As an important measure of climate change, the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) describes the change in surface temperature after a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Climate models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) show a wide range in ECS. Emergent constraints are a technique to reduce uncertainties in ECS with observational data. Emergent constraints developed with data from CMIP phase 5 show reduced skill and higher ECS ranges when applied to CMIP6 data.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Judith Hauck, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Stephen Sitch, Corinne Le Quéré, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone Alin, Luiz E. O. C. Aragão, Almut Arneth, Vivek Arora, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Alice Benoit-Cattin, Henry C. Bittig, Laurent Bopp, Selma Bultan, Naveen Chandra, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Wiley Evans, Liesbeth Florentie, Piers M. Forster, Thomas Gasser, Marion Gehlen, Dennis Gilfillan, Thanos Gkritzalis, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Ian Harris, Kerstin Hartung, Vanessa Haverd, Richard A. Houghton, Tatiana Ilyina, Atul K. Jain, Emilie Joetzjer, Koji Kadono, Etsushi Kato, Vassilis Kitidis, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Peter Landschützer, Nathalie Lefèvre, Andrew Lenton, Sebastian Lienert, Zhu Liu, Danica Lombardozzi, Gregg Marland, Nicolas Metzl, David R. Munro, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Kevin O'Brien, Tsuneo Ono, Paul I. Palmer, Denis Pierrot, Benjamin Poulter, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Ingunn Skjelvan, Adam J. P. Smith, Adrienne J. Sutton, Toste Tanhua, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Guido van der Werf, Nicolas Vuichard, Anthony P. Walker, Rik Wanninkhof, Andrew J. Watson, David Willis, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, and Sönke Zaehle
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 3269–3340, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3269-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3269-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2020 describes the data sets and methodology used to quantify the emissions of carbon dioxide and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land, and ocean. These living data are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Yilong Wang, Grégoire Broquet, François-Marie Bréon, Franck Lespinas, Michael Buchwitz, Maximilian Reuter, Yasjka Meijer, Armin Loescher, Greet Janssens-Maenhout, Bo Zheng, and Philippe Ciais
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 5813–5831, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-5813-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-5813-2020, 2020
Taraka Davies-Barnard, Johannes Meyerholt, Sönke Zaehle, Pierre Friedlingstein, Victor Brovkin, Yuanchao Fan, Rosie A. Fisher, Chris D. Jones, Hanna Lee, Daniele Peano, Benjamin Smith, David Wårlind, and Andy J. Wiltshire
Biogeosciences, 17, 5129–5148, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-5129-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-5129-2020, 2020
Axel Lauer, Veronika Eyring, Omar Bellprat, Lisa Bock, Bettina K. Gier, Alasdair Hunter, Ruth Lorenz, Núria Pérez-Zanón, Mattia Righi, Manuel Schlund, Daniel Senftleben, Katja Weigel, and Sabrina Zechlau
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4205–4228, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4205-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4205-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth System Model Evaluation Tool is a community software tool designed for evaluation and analysis of climate models. New features of version 2.0 include analysis scripts for important large-scale features in climate models, diagnostics for extreme events, regional model and impact evaluation. In this paper, newly implemented climate metrics, emergent constraints for climate-relevant feedbacks and diagnostics for future model projections are described and illustrated with examples.
Arthur P. K. Argles, Jonathan R. Moore, Chris Huntingford, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Anna B. Harper, Chris D. Jones, and Peter M. Cox
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4067–4089, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4067-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4067-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The Robust Ecosystem Demography (RED) model simulates cohorts of vegetation through mass classes. RED establishes a framework for representing demographic changes through competition, growth, and mortality across the size distribution of a forest. The steady state of the model can be solved analytically, enabling initialization. When driven by mean growth rates from a land-surface model, RED is able to fit the observed global vegetation map, giving a map of implicit mortality rates.
Cited articles
Adachi, Y., Yukimoto, S., Deushi, M., Obata, A., Nakano, H., Tanaka, T. Y.,
Hosaka, M., Sakami, T., Yoshimura, H., Hirabara, M., Shindo, E., Tsujino,
H., Mizuta, R., Yabu, S., Koshiro, T., Ose, T., and Kitoh, A.: Basic
performance of a new earth system model of the Meteorological Research
Institute (MRI-ESM1), Pap. Meteorol. Geophys., 64, 1–19,
https://doi.org/10.2467/mripapers.64.1, 2013.
Anav, A., Friedlingstein, P., Kidston, M., Bopp, L., Ciais, P., Cox, P.,
Jones, C., Jung, M., Myneni, R., and Zhu, Z.: Evaluating the Land and Ocean
Components of the Global Carbon Cycle in the CMIP5 Earth System Models, J.
Climate, 26, 6801–6843, https://doi.org/10.1175/Jcli-D-12-00417.1, 2013.
Andela, B., Broetz, B., de Mora, L., Drost, N., Eyring, V., Koldunov, N., Lauer, A., Predoi, V., Righi, M., Schlund, M., Vegas-Regidor, J., Zimmermann, K., Bock, L., Diblen, F., Dreyer, L., Earnshaw, P., Hassler, B., Little, B., Loosveldt-Tomas, S., Smeets, S., Camphuijsen, J., Gier, B.K., Weigel, K., Hauser, M., Kalverla, P., Galytska, E., Cos-Espuña, P., Pelupessy, I., Koirala, S., Stacke, T., Alidoost, S., and Jury, M.: ESMValCore, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3387139, 2020b.
Arora, V. K., Scinocca, J. F., Boer, G. J., Christian, J. R., Denman, K. L.,
Flato, G. M., Kharin, V. V., Lee, W. G., and Merryfield, W. J.: Carbon
emission limits required to satisfy future representative concentration
pathways of greenhouse gases, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L05805,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2010gl046270, 2011.
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. F., and Wu, 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.
Arora, V. K., Katavouta, A., Williams, R. G., Jones, C. D., Brovkin, V., Friedlingstein, P., Schwinger, J., Bopp, L., Boucher, O., Cadule, P., Chamberlain, M. A., Christian, J. R., Delire, C., Fisher, R. A., Hajima, T., Ilyina, T., Joetzjer, E., Kawamiya, M., Koven, C. D., Krasting, J. P., Law, R. M., Lawrence, D. M., Lenton, A., Lindsay, K., Pongratz, J., Raddatz, T., Séférian, R., Tachiiri, K., Tjiputra, J. F., Wiltshire, A., Wu, T., and Ziehn, T.: Carbon–concentration and carbon–climate feedbacks in CMIP6 models and their comparison to CMIP5 models, Biogeosciences, 17, 4173–4222, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-4173-2020, 2020.
Bao, Y., Qiao, F., and Song, Z.: The historical global carbon cycle simulation of FIO-ESM, Geo-phys. Res. Abstr., EGU2012-6834, EGU General Assembly 2012, Vienna, Austria, 2012.
Barnes, E. A., Parazoo, N., Orbe, C., and Denning, A. S.: Isentropic
transport and the seasonal cycle amplitude of CO2, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121,
8106–8124, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016jd025109, 2016.
Bastos, A., Ciais, P., Chevallier, F., Rödenbeck, C., Ballantyne, A. P., Maignan, F., Yin, Y., Fernández-Martínez, M., Friedlingstein, P., Peñuelas, J., Piao, S. L., Sitch, S., Smith, W. K., Wang, X., Zhu, Z., Haverd, V., Kato, E., Jain, A. K., Lienert, S., Lombardozzi, D., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Peylin, P., Poulter, B., and Zhu, D.: Contrasting effects of CO2 fertilization, land-use change and warming on seasonal amplitude of Northern Hemisphere CO2 exchange, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 12361–12375, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-12361-2019, 2019.
Basu, S., Guerlet, S., Butz, A., Houweling, S., Hasekamp, O., Aben, I., Krummel, P., Steele, P., Langenfelds, R., Torn, M., Biraud, S., Stephens, B., Andrews, A., and Worthy, D.: Global CO2 fluxes estimated from GOSAT retrievals of total column CO2, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 8695–8717, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-8695-2013, 2013.
Bovensmann, H., Burrows, J. P., Buchwitz, M., Frerick, J., Noel, S.,
Rozanov, V. V., Chance, K. V., and Goede, A. P. H.: SCIAMACHY: Mission
objectives and measurement modes, J. Atmos. Sci., 56, 127–150, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1999)056<0127:Smoamm>2.0.Co;2, 1999.
Bronselaer, B., Winton, M., Russell, J., Sabine, C. L., and Khatiwala, S.:
Agreement of CMIP5 Simulated and Observed Ocean Anthropogenic CO2 Uptake,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 298–305, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017gl074435, 2017.
Buchwitz, M. and Reuter, M.: Merged SCIAMACHY/ENVISAT and TANSO-FTS/GOSAT atmospheric column-average dry-air mole fraction of CO2 (XCO2 ) (XCO2_CRDP3_001) – Technical Document, 2016, available at: http://134.102.186.42/?q=webfm_send/330, last access: 30 November 2020.
Buchwitz, M., Reuter, M., Schneising-Weigel, O., Aben, I., Detmers, R. G.,
Hasekamp, O. P., Boesch, H., Anand, J., Crevoisier, C., and Armante, R.:
Product User Guide and Specification (PUGS) – Main document, Technical
Report Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S), Reading, UK, 91 pp., 2017a.
Buchwitz, M., Reuter, M., Schneising-Weigel, O., Aben, I., Detmers, R. G.,
Hasekamp, O. P., Boesch, H., Anand, J., Crevoisier, C., and Armante, R.:
Product Quality Assessment Report (PQAR) – Main document, Technical Report
Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S), Reading, UK, 103 pp., 2017b.
Buchwitz, M., Reuter, M., Schneising, O., Noël, S., Gier, B., Bovensmann, H., Burrows, J. P., Boesch, H., Anand, J., Parker, R. J., Somkuti, P., Detmers, R. G., Hasekamp, O. P., Aben, I., Butz, A., Kuze, A., Suto, H., Yoshida, Y., Crisp, D., and O'Dell, C.: Computation and analysis of atmospheric carbon dioxide annual mean growth rates from satellite observations during 2003–2016, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 17355–17370, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-17355-2018, 2018.
Burrows, J. P., Holzle, E., Goede, A. P. H., Visser, H., and Fricke, W.:
Sciamachy – Scanning Imaging Absorption Spectrometer for Atmospheric
Chartography, Acta Astronaut., 35, 445–451, https://doi.org/10.1016/0094-5765(94)00278-T,
1995.
Calle, L., Poulter, B., and Patra, P. K.: A segmentation algorithm for characterizing rise and fall segments in seasonal cycles: an application to XCO2 to estimate benchmarks and assess model bias, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 12, 2611–2629, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-2611-2019, 2019.
Chevallier, F., Palmer, P. I., Feng, L., Boesch, H., O'Dell, C. W., and
Bousquet, P.: Toward robust and consistent regional CO2 flux estimates from
in situ and spaceborne measurements of atmospheric CO2, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
41, 1065–1070, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013gl058772, 2014.
Ciais, P., Sabine, C., Bala, G., Bopp, L., Brovkin, V., Canadell, J.,
Chhabra, A., DeFries, R., Galloway, J., Heimann, M., Jones, C., Le Quéré,
C., Myneni, R. B., Piao, S., and Thornton, P.: Carbon and Other
Biogeochemical Cycles, in: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S. K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and Midgley, P. M., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 465–570,
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.015, 2013.
Cox, P. M., Pearson, D., Booth, B. B., Friedlingstein, P., Huntingford, C.,
Jones, C. D., and Luke, C. M.: Sensitivity of tropical carbon to climate
change constrained by carbon dioxide variability, Nature, 494, 341–344,
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11882, 2013.
Dlugokencky, E. J., Lang, P. M., Mund, J. W., Crotwell, A. M., Crotwell, M.
J., and Thoning, K. W.: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Dry Air Mole Fractions
from the NOAA ESRL Carbon Cycle Cooperative Global Air Sampling Network,
available at: ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/data/trace_gases/co2/flask/surface/ (last access: 31 July 2018), 2018.
Dlugokencky, E. J., Mund, J. W., Crotwell, A. M., Crotwell, M. J., and
Thoning, K. W.: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Dry Air Mole Fractions from the
NOAA GML Carbon Cycle Cooperative Global Air Sampling Network, 1968–2019, 2020.
Dunne, J. P., John, J. G., Adcroft, A. J., Griffies, S. M., Hallberg, R. W.,
Shevliakova, E., Stouffer, R. J., Cooke, W., Dunne, K. A., Harrison, M. J.,
Krasting, J. P., Malyshev, S. L., Milly, P. C. D., Phillipps, P. J.,
Sentman, L. T., Samuels, B. L., Spelman, M. J., Winton, M., Wittenberg, A.
T., and Zadeh, N.: GFDL's ESM2 Global Coupled Climate-Carbon Earth System
Models. Part I: Physical Formulation and Baseline Simulation
Characteristics, J. Climate, 25, 6646–6665, https://doi.org/10.1175/Jcli-D-11-00560.1, 2012.
Dunne, J. P., John, J. G., Shevliakova, E., Stouffer, R. J., Krasting, J.
P., Malyshev, S. L., Milly, P. C. D., Sentman, L. T., Adcroft, A. J., Cooke,
W., Dunne, K. A., Griffies, S. M., Hallberg, R. W., Harrison, M. J., Levy,
H., Wittenberg, A. T., Phillips, P. J., and Zadeh, N.: GFDL's ESM2 Global
Coupled Climate-Carbon Earth System Models. Part II: Carbon System
Formulation and Baseline Simulation Characteristics, J. Climate, 26,
2247–2267, https://doi.org/10.1175/Jcli-D-12-00150.1, 2013.
Dunne, J. P., Horowitz, L. W., Adcroft, A. J., Ginoux, P., Held, I. M.,
John, J. G., Krasting, J. P., Malyshev, S., Naik, V., Paulot, F.,
Shevliakova, E., Stock, C. A., Zadeh, N., Balaji, V., Blanton, C., Dunne, K.
A., Dupuis, C., Durachta, J., Dussin, R., Gauthier, P. P. G., Griffies, S.
M., Guo, H., Hallberg, R. W., Harrison, M., He, J., Hurlin, W., McHugh, C.,
Menzel, R., Milly, P. C. D., Nikonov, S., Paynter, D. J., Ploshay, J.,
Radhakrishnan, A., Rand, K., Reichl, B. G., Robinson, T., Schwarzkopf, D.
M., Sentman, L. T., Underwood, S., Vahlenkamp, H., Winton, M., Wittenberg,
A. T., Wyman, B., Zeng, Y., and Zhao, M.: The GFDL Earth System Model
version 4.1 (GFDL-ESM 4.1): Overall coupled model description and simulation
characteristics, J. Adv. Model. Earth. Sy., 12, e2019MS002015,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019ms002015, 2020.
Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1937–1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, 2016a.
Eyring, V., Righi, M., Lauer, A., Evaldsson, M., Wenzel, S., Jones, C., Anav, A., Andrews, O., Cionni, I., Davin, E. L., Deser, C., Ehbrecht, C., Friedlingstein, P., Gleckler, P., Gottschaldt, K.-D., Hagemann, S., Juckes, M., Kindermann, S., Krasting, J., Kunert, D., Levine, R., Loew, A., Mäkelä, J., Martin, G., Mason, E., Phillips, A. S., Read, S., Rio, C., Roehrig, R., Senftleben, D., Sterl, A., van Ulft, L. H., Walton, J., Wang, S., and Williams, K. D.: ESMValTool (v1.0) – a community diagnostic and performance metrics tool for routine evaluation of Earth system models in CMIP, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1747–1802, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1747-2016, 2016b.
Eyring, V., Cox, P. M., Flato, G. M., Gleckler, P. J., Abramowitz, G.,
Caldwell, P., Collins, W. D., Gier, B. K., Hall, A. D., Hoffman, F. M.,
Hurtt, G. C., Jahn, A., Jones, C. D., Klein, S. A., Krasting, J. P.,
Kwiatkowski, L., Lorenz, R., Maloney, E., Meehl, G. A., Pendergrass, A. G.,
Pincus, R., Ruane, A. C., Russell, J. L., Sanderson, B. M., Santer, B. D.,
Sherwood, S. C., Simpson, I. R., Stouffer, R. J., and Williamson, M. S.:
Taking climate model evaluation to the next level, Nat. Clim. Change, 9,
102–110, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0355-y, 2019.
Eyring, V., Bock, L., Lauer, A., Righi, M., Schlund, M., Andela, B., Arnone, E., Bellprat, O., Brötz, B., Caron, L.-P., Carvalhais, N., Cionni, I., Cortesi, N., Crezee, B., Davin, E. L., Davini, P., Debeire, K., de Mora, L., Deser, C., Docquier, D., Earnshaw, P., Ehbrecht, C., Gier, B. K., Gonzalez-Reviriego, N., Goodman, P., Hagemann, S., Hardiman, S., Hassler, B., Hunter, A., Kadow, C., Kindermann, S., Koirala, S., Koldunov, N., Lejeune, Q., Lembo, V., Lovato, T., Lucarini, V., Massonnet, F., Müller, B., Pandde, A., Pérez-Zanón, N., Phillips, A., Predoi, V., Russell, J., Sellar, A., Serva, F., Stacke, T., Swaminathan, R., Torralba, V., Vegas-Regidor, J., von Hardenberg, J., Weigel, K., and Zimmermann, K.: Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 – an extended set of large-scale diagnostics for quasi-operational and comprehensive evaluation of Earth system models in CMIP, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3383–3438, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3383-2020, 2020.
Fernández-Martínez, M., Sardans, J., Chevallier, F., Ciais, P.,
Obersteiner, M., Vicca, S., Canadell, J. G., Bastos, A., Friedlingstein, P.,
Sitch, S., Piao, S. L., Janssens, I. A., and Peñuelas, J.: Global trends
in carbon sinks and their relationships with CO2 and temperature, Nat. Clim, Change, 9, 73—9, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0367-7, 2019.
Ferraro, R., Waliser, D. E., Gleckler, P., Taylor, K. E., and Eyring, V.:
Evolving Obs4MIPs to Support Phase 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison
Project (CMIP6), B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 96,
131–133, https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-14-00216.1, 2015.
Friedl, M. A., Sulla-Menashe, D., Tan, B., Schneider, A., Ramankutty, N.,
Sibley, A., and Huang, X. M.: MODIS Collection 5 global land cover:
Algorithm refinements and characterization of new datasets, Remote Sens.
Environ., 114, 168–182, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2009.08.016, 2010a.
Friedl, M. A., Strahler, A. H., Hodges, J., Hall, F. G., Collatz, G. J., Meeson, B. W., Los, S. O., Brown De Colstoun, E., and Landis, D. R.: ISLSCP II MODIS (Collection 4) IGBP Land Cover, 2000–2001, ORNL DAAC, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA, https://doi.org/doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/968 (last access: 3 January 2018), 2010b.
Friedlingstein, P., Cox, P., Betts, R., Bopp, L., von Bloh, W., Brovkin, V.,
Cadule, P., Doney, S., Eby, M., Fung, I., Bala, G., John, J., Jones, C.,
Joos, F., Kato, T., Kawamiya, M., Knorr, W., Lindsay, K., Matthews, H. D.,
Raddatz, T., Rayner, P., Reick, C., Roeckner, E., Schnitzler, K. G., Schnur,
R., Strassmann, K., Weaver, A. J., Yoshikawa, C., and Zeng, N.:
Climate-Carbon Cycle Feedback Analysis: Results from the C4MIP Model
Intercomparison, J. Climate, 19, 3337–3353, https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli3800.1, 2006.
Friedlingstein, P., Meinshausen, M., Arora, V. K., Jones, C. D., Anav, A.,
Liddicoat, S. K., and Knutti, R.: Uncertainties in CMIP5 Climate Projections
due to Carbon Cycle Feedbacks, J. Climate, 27, 511–526,
https://doi.org/10.1175/Jcli-D-12-00579.1, 2014.
Gent, P. R., Danabasoglu, G., Donner, L. J., Holland, M. M., Hunke, E. C.,
Jayne, S. R., Lawrence, D. M., Neale, R. B., Rasch, P. J., Vertenstein, M.,
Worley, P. H., Yang, Z. L., and Zhang, M. H.: The Community Climate System
Model Version 4, J. Climate, 24, 4973–4991, https://doi.org/10.1175/2011jcli4083.1, 2011.
GISTEMP Team: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP), version 4, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, available at: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/, last access: 13 February 2020.
Giorgetta, M. A., Jungclaus, J., Reick, C. H., Legutke, S., Bader, J.,
Bottinger, M., Brovkin, V., Crueger, T., Esch, M., Fieg, K., Glushak, K.,
Gayler, V., Haak, H., Hollweg, H. D., Ilyina, T., Kinne, S., Kornblueh, L.,
Matei, D., Mauritsen, T., Mikolajewicz, U., Mueller, W., Notz, D., Pithan,
F., Raddatz, T., Rast, S., Redler, R., Roeckner, E., Schmidt, H., Schnur,
R., Segschneider, J., Six, K. D., Stockhause, M., Timmreck, C., Wegner, J.,
Widmann, H., Wieners, K. H., Claussen, M., Marotzke, J., and Stevens, B.:
Climate and carbon cycle changes from 1850 to 2100 in MPI-ESM simulations
for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy.,
5, 572–597, https://doi.org/10.1002/jame.20038, 2013.
Graven, H. D., Keeling, R. F., Piper, S. C., Patra, P. K., Stephens, B. B.,
Wofsy, S. C., Welp, L. R., Sweeney, C., Tans, P. P., Kelley, J. J., Daube,
B. C., Kort, E. A., Santoni, G. W., and Bent, J. D.: Enhanced seasonal
exchange of CO2 by northern ecosystems since 1960, Science, 341, 1085–1089,
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1239207, 2013.
Hajima, T., Tachiiri, K., Ito, A., and Kawamiya, M.: Uncertainty of
Concentration-Terrestrial Carbon Feedback in Earth System Models, J. Climate,
27, 3425–3445, https://doi.org/10.1175/Jcli-D-13-00177.1, 2014.
Hajima, T., Abe, M., Arakawa, O., Suzuki, T., Komuro, Y., Ogochi, K.,
Watanabe, M., Yamamoto, A., Tatebe, H., Noguchi, M. A., Ohgaito, R., Ito,
A., Yamazaki, D., Ito, A., Takata, K., Watanabe, S., Kawamiya, M., and
Tachiiri, K.: MIROC MIROC-ES2L model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP esm-hist
v20200318, Earth System Grid Federation, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.5496, 2020a.
Hajima, T., Watanabe, M., Yamamoto, A., Tatebe, H., Noguchi, M. A., Abe, M., Ohgaito, R., Ito, A., Yamazaki, D., Okajima, H., Ito, A., Takata, K., Ogochi, K., Watanabe, S., and Kawamiya, M.: Development of the MIROC-ES2L Earth system model and the evaluation of biogeochemical processes and feedbacks, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 2197–2244, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2197-2020, 2020b.
Hansen, J., Ruedy, R., Sato, M., and Lo, K.: Global Surface Temperature
Change, Rev. Geophys., 48, 4004, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010rg000345, 2010.
Hayman, G. D., O'Connor, F. M., Dalvi, M., Clark, D. B., Gedney, N., Huntingford, C., Prigent, C., Buchwitz, M., Schneising, O., Burrows, J. P., Wilson, C., Richards, N., and Chipperfield, M.: Comparison of the HadGEM2 climate-chemistry model against in situ and SCIAMACHY atmospheric methane data, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 13257–13280, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-13257-2014, 2014.
Hoffman, F. M., Randerson, J. T., Arora, V. K., Bao, Q., Cadule, P., Ji, D.,
Jones, C. D., Kawamiya, M., Khatiwala, S., Lindsay, K., Obata, A.,
Shevliakova, E., Six, K. D., Tjiputra, J. F., Volodin, E. M., and Wu, T.:
Causes and implications of persistent atmospheric carbon dioxide biases in
Earth System Models, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 119, 141–162,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2013jg002381, 2014.
Houweling, S., Baker, D., Basu, S., Boesch, H., Butz, A., Chevallier, F.,
Deng, F., Dlugokencky, E. J., Feng, L., Ganshin, A., Hasekamp, O., Jones,
D., Maksyutov, S., Marshall, J., Oda, T., O'Dell, C. W., Oshchepkov, S.,
Palmer, P. I., Peylin, P., Poussi, Z., Reum, F., Takagi, H., Yoshida, Y.,
and Zhuravlev, R.: An intercomparison of inverse models for estimating
sources and sinks of CO2 using GOSAT measurements, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 120, 5253–5266, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014jd022962, 2015.
IPCC: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK,
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324, 2013.
Ji, D., Wang, L., Feng, J., Wu, Q., Cheng, H., Zhang, Q., Yang, J., Dong, W., Dai, Y., Gong, D., Zhang, R.-H., Wang, X., Liu, J., Moore, J. C., Chen, D., and Zhou, M.: Description and basic evaluation of Beijing Normal University Earth System Model (BNU-ESM) version 1, Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 2039–2064, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-2039-2014, 2014.
Kaminski, T., Knorr, W., Schurmann, G., Scholze, M., Rayner, P. J., Zaehle,
S., Blessing, S., Dorigo, W., Gayler, V., Giering, R., Gobron, N., Grant, J.
P., Heimann, M., Hooker-Stroud, A., Houweling, S., Kato, T., Kattge, J.,
Kelley, D., Kemp, S., Koffi, E. N., Kostler, C., Mathieu, P. P., Pinty, B.,
Reick, C. H., Rodenbeck, C., Schnur, R., Scipal, K., Sebald, C., Stacke, T.,
van Scheltinga, A. T., Vossbeck, M., Widmann, H., and Ziehn, T.: The
BETHY/JSBACH Carbon Cycle Data Assimilation System: experiences and
challenges, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 118, 1414–1426, https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrg.20118, 2013.
Keeling, C. D., Bacastow, R. B., Bainbridge, A. E., Ekdahl, C. A., Guenther,
P. R., Waterman, L. S., and Chin, J. F. S.: Atmospheric Carbon-Dioxide
Variations at Mauna-Loa Observatory, Hawaii, Tellus, 28, 538–551,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1976.tb00701.x, 1976.
Keeling, C. D., Bacastow, R. B., Carter, A. F., Piper, S. C., Whorf, T. P.,
Heimann, M., Mook, W. G., and Roeloffzen, H.: A three-dimensional model of
atmospheric CO2 transport based on observed winds: 1. Analysis of
observational data, in: Aspects of Climate Variability in the Pacific and
the Western Americas, edited by: Peterson, D. H., American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, 165–236, 1989.
Keeling, C. D., Whorf, T. P., Wahlen, M., and Vanderplicht, J.: Interannual
Extremes in the Rate of Rise of Atmospheric Carbon-Dioxide since 1980,
Nature, 375, 666–670, https://doi.org/10.1038/375666a0, 1995.
Keeling, C. D., Chin, J. F. S., and Whorf, T. P.: Increased activity of
northern vegetation inferred from atmospheric CO2 measurements, Nature, 382,
146–149, https://doi.org/10.1038/382146a0, 1996.
Krasting, J. P., John, J. G., Blanton, C., McHugh, C., Nikonov, S.,
Radhakrishnan, A., Rand, K., Zadeh, N. T., Balaji, V., Durachta, J., Dupuis,
C., Menzel, R., Robinson, T., Underwood, S., Vahlenkamp, H., Dunne, K. A.,
Gauthier, P. P. G., Ginoux, P., Griffies, S. M., Hallberg, R., Harrison, M.,
Hurlin, W., Malyshev, S., Naik, V., Paulot, F., Paynter, D. J., Ploshay, J.,
Schwarzkopf, D. M., Seman, C. J., Silvers, L., Wyman, B., Zeng, Y., Adcroft,
A., Dunne, J. P., Dussin, R., Guo, H., He, J., Held, I. M., Horowitz, L. W.,
Lin, P., Milly, P. C. D., Shevliakova, E., Stock, C., Winton, M., Xie, Y.,
and Zhao, M.: NOAA-GFDL GFDL-ESM4 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP
esm-hist v20190829, Earth System Grid Federation, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.8522,
2018.
Kuze, A., Suto, H., Nakajima, M., and Hamazaki, T.: Thermal and near
infrared sensor for carbon observation Fourier-transform spectrometer on the
Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite for greenhouse gases monitoring, Appl.
Opt., 48, 6716–6733, https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.48.006716, 2009.
Lauer, A., Eyring, V., Bellprat, O., Bock, L., Gier, B. K., Hunter, A., Lorenz, R., Pérez-Zanón, N., Righi, M., Schlund, M., Senftleben, D., Weigel, K., and Zechlau, S.: Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 – diagnostics for emergent constraints and future projections from Earth system models in CMIP, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4205–4228, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4205-2020, 2020.
Law, R. M., Ziehn, T., Matear, R. J., Lenton, A., Chamberlain, M. A., Stevens, L. E., Wang, Y.-P., Srbinovsky, J., Bi, D., Yan, H., and Vohralik, P. F.: The carbon cycle in the Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator (ACCESS-ESM1) – Part 1: Model description and pre-industrial simulation, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 2567–2590, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2567-2017, 2017.
Lenssen, N. J. L., Schmidt, G. A., Hansen, J. E., Menne, M. J., Persin, A.,
Ruedy, R., and Zyss, D.: Improvements in the GISTEMP Uncertainty Model,
J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 6307–6326,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018jd029522, 2019.
Lindsay, K., Bonan, G. B., Doney, S. C., Hoffman, F. M., Lawrence, D. M.,
Long, M. C., Mahowald, N. M., Moore, J. K., Randerson, J. T., and Thornton,
P. E.: Preindustrial-Control and Twentieth-Century Carbon Cycle Experiments
with the Earth System Model CESM1 (BGC), J. Climate, 27, 8981–9005,
https://doi.org/10.1175/Jcli-D-12-00565.1, 2014.
Mauritsen, T., Bader, J., Becker, T., Behrens, J., Bittner, M., Brokopf, R.,
Brovkin, V., Claussen, M., Crueger, T., Esch, M., Fast, I., Fiedler, S.,
Fläschner, D., Gayler, V., Giorgetta, M., Goll, D. S., Haak, H.,
Hagemann, S., Hedemann, C., Hohenegger, C., Ilyina, T., Jahns, T.,
Jimenéz-de-la-Cuesta, D., Jungclaus, J., Kleinen, T., Kloster, S.,
Kracher, D., Kinne, S., Kleberg, D., Lasslop, G., Kornblueh, L., Marotzke,
J., Matei, D., Meraner, K., Mikolajewicz, U., Modali, K., Möbis, B.,
Müller, W. A., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Nam, C. C. W., Notz, D., Nyawira,
S.-S., Paulsen, H., Peters, K., Pincus, R., Pohlmann, H., Pongratz, J.,
Popp, M., Raddatz, T. J., Rast, S., Redler, R., Reick, C. H., Rohrschneider,
T., Schemann, V., Schmidt, H., Schnur, R., Schulzweida, U., Six, K. D.,
Stein, L., Stemmler, I., Stevens, B., von Storch, J.-S., Tian, F., Voigt,
A., Vrese, P., Wieners, K.-H., Wilkenskjeld, S., Winkler, A., and Roeckner,
E.: Developments in the MPI-M Earth System Model version 1.2 (MPI-ESM1.2)
and Its Response to Increasing CO2, J. Adv. Model. Earth. Sy., 11, 998–1038,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018ms001400, 2019.
Myneni, R. B., Keeling, C. D., Tucker, C. J., Asrar, G., and Nemani, R. R.:
Increased plant growth in the northern high latitudes from 1981 to 1991,
Nature, 386, 698–702, https://doi.org/10.1038/386698a0, 1997.
Piao, S., Liu, Z., Wang, Y., Ciais, P., Yao, Y., Peng, S., Chevallier, F.,
Friedlingstein, P., Janssens, I. A., Peñuelas, J., Sitch, S., and Wang,
T.: On the causes of trends in the seasonal amplitude of atmospheric CO2,
Glob. Change Biol., 24, 608–616, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13909, 2018.
Qiao, F. L., Song, Z. Y., Bao, Y., Song, Y. J., Shu, Q., Huang, C. J., and
Zhao, W.: Development and evaluation of an Earth System Model with surface
gravity waves, J. Geophys. Res.-Ocean., 118, 4514–4524, https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrc.20327,
2013.
Reich, P. B., Hobbie, S. E., Lee, T., Ellsworth, D. S., West, J. B., Tilman,
D., Knops, J. M. H., Naeem, S., and Trost, J.: Nitrogen limitation
constrains sustainability of ecosystem response to CO2, Nature, 440,
922–925, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04486, 2006.
Reuter, M., Bösch, H., Bovensmann, H., Bril, A., Buchwitz, M., Butz, A., Burrows, J. P., O'Dell, C. W., Guerlet, S., Hasekamp, O., Heymann, J., Kikuchi, N., Oshchepkov, S., Parker, R., Pfeifer, S., Schneising, O., Yokota, T., and Yoshida, Y.: A joint effort to deliver satellite retrieved atmospheric CO2 concentrations for surface flux inversions: the ensemble median algorithm EMMA, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 1771–1780, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-1771-2013, 2013.
Reuter, M., Buchwitz, M., Hilker, M., Heymann, J., Schneising, O., Pillai, D., Bovensmann, H., Burrows, J. P., Bösch, H., Parker, R., Butz, A., Hasekamp, O., O'Dell, C. W., Yoshida, Y., Gerbig, C., Nehrkorn, T., Deutscher, N. M., Warneke, T., Notholt, J., Hase, F., Kivi, R., Sussmann, R., Machida, T., Matsueda, H., and Sawa, Y.: Satellite-inferred European carbon sink larger than expected, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 13739–13753, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-13739-2014, 2014.
Reuter, M., Buchwitz, M., and Schneising-Weigel, O.: Product User Guide and
Specification (PUGS) – ANNEX D for products XCO2_EMMA and
XCH4_EMMA, 1–19, available at: https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/carbon_ghg/docs/C3S/CDR1_2003-2016/PUGS/C3S_D312a_Lot6.3.1.5-v1_PUGS_ANNEX-D_v1.3.pdf (last access: 30 November 2020), 2017.
Reuter, M.: O4Mv3 XCO2 data product version 3, available at: https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/dataset/satellite-carbon-dioxide?tab=form, last access: 1 August 2018.
Reuter, M., Buchwitz, M., Schneising, O., Noël, S., Bovensmann, H., Burrows, J. P., Boesch, H., Di Noia, A., Anand, J., Parker, R. J., Somkuti, P., Wu, L., Hasekamp, O. P., Aben, I., Kuze, A., Suto, H., Shiomi, K., Yoshida, Y., Morino, I., Crisp, D., O'Dell, C. W., Notholt, J., Petri, C., Warneke, T., Velazco, V. A., Deutscher, N. M., Griffith, D. W. T., Kivi, R., Pollard, D. F., Hase, F., Sussmann, R., Té, Y. V., Strong, K., Roche, S., Sha, M. K., De Mazière, M., Feist, D. G., Iraci, L. T., Roehl, C. M., Retscher, C., and Schepers, D.: Ensemble-based satellite-derived carbon dioxide and methane column-averaged dry-air mole fraction data sets (2003–2018) for carbon and climate applications, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 13, 789–819, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-789-2020, 2020.
Righi, M., Andela, B., Eyring, V., Lauer, A., Predoi, V., Schlund, M., Vegas-Regidor, J., Bock, L., Brötz, B., de Mora, L., Diblen, F., Dreyer, L., Drost, N., Earnshaw, P., Hassler, B., Koldunov, N., Little, B., Loosveldt Tomas, S., and Zimmermann, K.: Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 – technical overview, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 1179–1199, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1179-2020, 2020.
Ryu, Y., Berry, J. A., and Baldocchi, D. D.: What is global photosynthesis?
History, uncertainties and opportunities, Remote Sens. Environ., 223, 95–114, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.01.016, 2019.
Schneising, O., Reuter, M., Buchwitz, M., Heymann, J., Bovensmann, H., and Burrows, J. P.: Terrestrial carbon sink observed from space: variation of growth rates and seasonal cycle amplitudes in response to interannual surface temperature variability, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 133–141, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-133-2014, 2014.
Seferian, R.: CNRM-CERFACS CNRM-ESM2-1 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP
esm-hist v20200715, Earth System Grid Federation, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4003,
2019.
Séférian, R., Nabat, P., Michou, M., Saint-Martin, D., Voldoire, A.,
Colin, J., Decharme, B., Delire, C., Berthet, S., Chevallier, M.,
Sénési, S., Franchisteguy, L., Vial, J., Mallet, M., Joetzjer, E.,
Geoffroy, O., Guérémy, J.-F., Moine, M.-P., Msadek, R., Ribes, A.,
Rocher, M., Roehrig, R., Salas-y-Mélia, D., Sanchez, E., Terray, L.,
Valcke, S., Waldman, R., Aumont, O., Bopp, L., Deshayes, J., Éthé,
C., and Madec, G.: Evaluation of CNRM Earth System Model, CNRM-ESM2-1: Role
of Earth System Processes in Present-Day and Future Climate, J. Adv. Model.
Earth Sy., 11, 4182–4227, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019ms001791, 2019.
Seland, Ø., Bentsen, M., Oliviè, D. J. L., Toniazzo, T., Gjermundsen,
A., Graff, L. S., Debernard, J. B., Gupta, A. K., He, Y., Kirkevåg, A.,
Schwinger, J., Tjiputra, J., Aas, K. S., Bethke, I., Fan, Y., Griesfeller,
J., Grini, A., Guo, C., Ilicak, M., Karset, I. H. H., Landgren, O. A.,
Liakka, J., Moseid, K. O., Nummelin, A., Spensberger, C., Tang, H., Zhang,
Z., Heinze, C., Iversen, T., and Schulz, M.: NCC NorESM2-LM model output
prepared for CMIP6 CMIP esm-hist v20190920, Earth System Grid Federation,
https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.7924, 2019.
Seland, Ø., Bentsen, M., Seland Graff, L., Olivié, D., Toniazzo, T., Gjermundsen, A., Debernard, J. B., Gupta, A. K., He, Y., Kirkevåg, A., Schwinger, J., Tjiputra, J., Schancke Aas, K., Bethke, I., Fan, Y., Griesfeller, J., Grini, A., Guo, C., Ilicak, M., Hafsahl Karset, I. H., Landgren, O., Liakka, J., Onsum Moseid, K., Nummelin, A., Spensberger, C., Tang, H., Zhang, Z., Heinze, C., Iverson, T., and Schulz, M.: The Norwegian Earth System Model, NorESM2 – Evaluation of theCMIP6 DECK and historical simulations, Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2019-378, in review, 2020.
Sellar, A. A., Jones, C. G., Mulcahy, J. P., Tang, Y., Yool, A., Wiltshire,
A., O'Connor, F. M., Stringer, M., Hill, R., Palmieri, J., Woodward, S., de
Mora, L., Kuhlbrodt, T., Rumbold, S. T., Kelley, D. I., Ellis, R., Johnson,
C. E., Walton, J., Abraham, N. L., Andrews, M. B., Andrews, T., Archibald,
A. T., Berthou, S., Burke, E., Blockley, E., Carslaw, K., Dalvi, M.,
Edwards, J., Folberth, G. A., Gedney, N., Griffiths, P. T., Harper, A. B.,
Hendry, M. A., Hewitt, A. J., Johnson, B., Jones, A., Jones, C. D., Keeble,
J., Liddicoat, S., Morgenstern, O., Parker, R. J., Predoi, V., Robertson,
E., Siahaan, A., Smith, R. S., Swaminathan, R., Woodhouse, M. T., Zeng, G.,
and Zerroukat, M.: UKESM1: Description and Evaluation of the U.K. Earth
System Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth. Sy., 11, 4513–4558, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001739,
2019.
Shindell, D. T., Lamarque, J.-F., Schulz, M., Flanner, M., Jiao, C., Chin, M., Young, P. J., Lee, Y. H., Rotstayn, L., Mahowald, N., Milly, G., Faluvegi, G., Balkanski, Y., Collins, W. J., Conley, A. J., Dalsoren, S., Easter, R., Ghan, S., Horowitz, L., Liu, X., Myhre, G., Nagashima, T., Naik, V., Rumbold, S. T., Skeie, R., Sudo, K., Szopa, S., Takemura, T., Voulgarakis, A., Yoon, J.-H., and Lo, F.: Radiative forcing in the ACCMIP historical and future climate simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 2939–2974, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2939-2013, 2013.
Still, C. J., Riley, W. J., Biraud, S. C., Noone, D. C., Buenning, N. H.,
Randerson, J. T., Torn, M. S., Welker, J., White, J. W. C., Vachon, R.,
Farquhar, G. D., and Berry, J. A.: Influence of clouds and diffuse radiation
on ecosystem-atmosphere CO2 and CO18O exchanges, J. Geophys.
Res.-Biogeo., 114, G01018, 10.1029/2007jg000675, 2009.
Swart, N. C., Cole, J. N. S., Kharin, V. V., Lazare, M., Scinocca, J. F., Gillett, N. P., Anstey, J., Arora, V., Christian, J. R., Hanna, S., Jiao, Y., Lee, W. G., Majaess, F., Saenko, O. A., Seiler, C., Seinen, C., Shao, A., Sigmond, M., Solheim, L., von Salzen, K., Yang, D., and Winter, B.: The Canadian Earth System Model version 5 (CanESM5.0.3), Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 4823–4873, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4823-2019, 2019a.
Swart, N. C., Cole, J. N. S., Kharin, V. V., Lazare, M., Scinocca, J. F.,
Gillett, N. P., Anstey, J., Arora, V., Christian, J. R., Jiao, Y., Lee, W.
G., Majaess, F., Saenko, O. A., Seiler, C., Seinen, C., Shao, A., Solheim,
L., von Salzen, K., Yang, D., Winter, B., and Sigmond, M.: CCCma
CanESM5-CanOE model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP esm-hist v20190429, Earth
System Grid Federation, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.10232, 2019b.
Swart, N. C., Cole, J. N. S., Kharin, V. V., Lazare, M., Scinocca, J. F.,
Gillett, N. P., Anstey, J., Arora, V., Christian, J. R., Jiao, Y., Lee, W.
G., Majaess, F., Saenko, O. A., Seiler, C., Seinen, C., Shao, A., Solheim,
L., von Salzen, K., Yang, D., Winter, B., and Sigmond, M.: CCCma CanESM5
model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP esm-hist v20190429, Earth System Grid
Federation, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.3583, 2019c.
Tang, Y., Rumbold, S., Ellis, R., Kelley, D., Mulcahy, J., Sellar, A.,
Walton, J., and Jones, C.: MOHC UKESM1.0-LL model output prepared for CMIP6
CMIP esm-hist v20190723, Earth System Grid Federation,
https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.5929, 2019.
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., and Meehl, G. A.: An Overview of CMIP5 and
the Experiment Design, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 93,
485–498, https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-11-00094.1, 2012.
Teixeira, J., Waliser, D., Ferraro, R., Gleckler, P., Lee, T., and Potter,
G.: Satellite Observations for CMIP5: The Genesis of Obs4MIPs, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 95, 1329–1334,
https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-12-00204.1, 2014.
Tjiputra, J. F., Roelandt, C., Bentsen, M., Lawrence, D. M., Lorentzen, T., Schwinger, J., Seland, Ø., and Heinze, C.: Evaluation of the carbon cycle components in the Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM), Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 301–325, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-301-2013, 2013.
Waliser, D., Gleckler, P. J., Ferraro, R., Taylor, K. E., Ames, S., Biard, J., Bosilovich, M. G., Brown, O., Chepfer, H., Cinquini, L., Durack, P. J., Eyring, V., Mathieu, P.-P., Lee, T., Pinnock, S., Potter, G. L., Rixen, M., Saunders, R., Schulz, J., Thépaut, J.-N., and Tuma, M.: Observations for Model Intercomparison Project (Obs4MIPs): status for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 2945–2958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2945-2020, 2020.
Watanabe, S., Hajima, T., Sudo, K., Nagashima, T., Takemura, T., Okajima, H., Nozawa, T., Kawase, H., Abe, M., Yokohata, T., Ise, T., Sato, H., Kato, E., Takata, K., Emori, S., and Kawamiya, M.: MIROC-ESM 2010: model description and basic results of CMIP5-20c3m experiments, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 845–872, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-845-2011, 2011.
Weigel, K., Bock, L., Gier, B. K., Lauer, A., Righi, M., Schlund, M., Adeniyi, K., Andela, B., Arnone, E., Berg, P., Caron, L.-P., Cionni, I., Corti, S., Drost, N., Hunter, A., Lledó, L., Mohr, C. W., Paçal, A., Pérez-Zanón, N., Predoi, V., Sandstad, M., Sillmann, J., Sterl, A., Vegas-Regidor, J., von Hardenberg, J., and Eyring, V.: Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 – diagnostics for extreme events, regional and impact evaluation and analysis of Earth system models in CMIP, Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2020-244, in review, 2020.
Wenzel, S., Cox, P. M., Eyring, V., and Friedlingstein, P.: Emergent
constraints on climate-carbon cycle feedbacks in the CMIP5 Earth system
models, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 119, 794–807, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013jg002591, 2014.
Wenzel, S., Cox, P. M., Eyring, V., and Friedlingstein, P.: Projected land
photosynthesis constrained by changes in the seasonal cycle of atmospheric
CO2, Nature, 538, 499–501, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature19772, 2016.
Wieder, W. R., Lawrence, D. M., Fisher, R. A., Bonan, G. B., Cheng, S. J.,
Goodale, C. L., Grandy, A. S., Koven, C. D., Lombardozzi, D. L., Oleson, K.
W., and Thomas, R. Q.: Beyond Static Benchmarking: Using Experimental
Manipulations to Evaluate Land Model Assumptions, Global Biogeochem.
Cy., 33, 1289–1309, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018gb006141, 2019.
Wieners, K.-H., Giorgetta, M., Jungclaus, J., Reick, C., Esch, M., Bittner,
M., Legutke, S., Schupfner, M., Wachsmann, F., Gayler, V., Haak, H., de
Vrese, P., Raddatz, T., Mauritsen, T., von Storch, J.-S., Behrens, J.,
Brovkin, V., Claussen, M., Crueger, T., Fast, I., Fiedler, S., Hagemann, S.,
Hohenegger, C., Jahns, T., Kloster, S., Kinne, S., Lasslop, G., Kornblueh,
L., Marotzke, J., Matei, D., Meraner, K., Mikolajewicz, U., Modali, K.,
Müller, W., Nabel, J., Notz, D., Peters, K., Pincus, R., Pohlmann, H.,
Pongratz, J., Rast, S., Schmidt, H., Schnur, R., Schulzweida, U., Six, K.,
Stevens, B., Voigt, A., and Roeckner, E.: MPI-M MPI-ESM1.2-LR model output
prepared for CMIP6 CMIP esm-hist v20190710, Earth System Grid Federation,
https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.6545, 2019.
Williams, D. N., Ananthakrishnan, R., Bernholdt, D. E., Bharathi, S., Brown,
D., Chen, M., Chervenak, A. L., Cinquini, L., Drach, R., Foster, I. T., Fox,
P., Fraser, D., Garcia, J., Hankin, S., Jones, P., Middleton, D. E.,
Schwidder, J., Schweitzer, R., Schuler, R., Shoshani, A., Siebenlist, F.,
Sim, A., Strand, W. G., Su, M., and Wilhelmi, N.: The Earth System Grid:
Enabling Access to Multimodel Climate Simulation Data, B.
Am. Meteorol. Soc., 90, 195–206, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008bams2459.1, 2009.
Wunch, D., Toon, G. C., Blavier, J. F., Washenfelder, R. A., Notholt, J.,
Connor, B. J., Griffith, D. W., Sherlock, V., and Wennberg, P. O.: The total
carbon column observing network, Philos. Trans. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci., 369,
2087–2112, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0240, 2011.
Yin, Y., Ciais, P., Chevallier, F., Li, W., Bastos, A., Piao, S. L., Wang,
T., and Liu, H. Y.: Changes in the Response of the Northern Hemisphere
Carbon Uptake to Temperature Over the Last Three Decades, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
45, 4371–4380, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018gl077316, 2018.
Yukimoto, S., Yoshimura, H., Hosaka, M., Sakami, T., Tsujino, H., Hirabara,
M., Tanaka, T. Y., Deushi, M., Obata, A., Nakano, H., Adachi, Y., Shindo,
E., Yabu, S., Ose, T., and Kitoh, A.: Meteorological Research
Institute-Earth System Model Version 1 ( MRI-ESM1 ), Technical Reports,
available at: https://www.mri-jma.go.jp/Publish/Technical/DATA/VOL_64/index_en.html (last access: 30 November 2020), 2011.
Yukimoto, S., Adachi, Y., Hosaka, M., Sakami, T., Yoshimura, H., Hirabara,
M., Tanaka, T. Y., Shindo, E., Tsujino, H., Deushi, M., Mizuta, R., Yabu,
S., Obata, A., Nakano, H., Koshiro, T., Ose, T., and Kitoh, A.: A New Global
Climate Model of the Meteorological Research Institute: MRI-CGCM3 – Model
Description and Basic Performance, J. Meteorol. Soc.
Jpn., 90, 23–64, https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.2012-A02, 2012.
Yukimoto, S., Kawai, H., Koshiro, T., Oshima, N., Yoshida, K., Urakawa, S.,
Tsujino, H., Deushi, M., Tanaka, T., Hosaka, M., Yabu, S., Yoshimura, H.,
Shindo, E., Mizuta, R., Obata, A., Adachi, Y., and Ishii, M.: The
Meteorological Research Institute Earth System Model Version 2.0,
MRI-ESM2.0: Description and Basic Evaluation of the Physical Component,
J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn., 97, 931–965,
https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.2019-051, 2019a.
Yukimoto, S., Koshiro, T., Kawai, H., Oshima, N., Yoshida, K., Urakawa, S.,
Tsujino, H., Deushi, M., Tanaka, T., Hosaka, M., Yoshimura, H., Shindo, E.,
Mizuta, R., Ishii, M., Obata, A., and Adachi, Y.: MRI MRI-ESM2.0 model
output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP esm-hist v20191205, Earth System Grid
Federation, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.6807, 2019b.
Zhao, F., Zeng, N., Asrar, G., Friedlingstein, P., Ito, A., Jain, A., Kalnay, E., Kato, E., Koven, C. D., Poulter, B., Rafique, R., Sitch, S., Shu, S., Stocker, B., Viovy, N., Wiltshire, A., and Zaehle, S.: Role of CO2, climate and land use in regulating the seasonal amplitude increase of carbon fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems: a multimodel analysis, Biogeosciences, 13, 5121–5137, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-5121-2016, 2016.
Ziehn, T., Lenton, A., Law, R. M., Matear, R. J., and Chamberlain, M. A.: The carbon cycle in the Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator (ACCESS-ESM1) – Part 2: Historical simulations, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 2591–2614, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2591-2017, 2017.
Ziehn, T., Chamberlain, M., Lenton, A., Law, R., Bodman, R., Dix, M., Wang,
Y., Dobrohotoff, P., Srbinovsky, J., Stevens, L., Vohralik, P., Mackallah,
C., Sullivan, A., O'Farrell, S., and Druken, K.: CSIRO ACCESS-ESM1.5 model
output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP esm-hist v20191203, Earth System Grid
Federation, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4242, 2019.
Short summary
Models from Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) phases 5 and 6 are compared to a satellite data product of column-averaged CO2 mole fractions (XCO2). The previously believed discrepancy of the negative trend in seasonal cycle amplitude in the satellite product, which is not seen in in situ data nor in the models, is attributed to a sampling characteristic. Furthermore, CMIP6 models are shown to have made progress in reproducing the observed XCO2 time series compared to CMIP5.
Models from Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) phases 5 and 6 are compared to a...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint