Articles | Volume 19, issue 19
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-4671-2022
© Author(s) 2022. 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-19-4671-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
05 Oct 2022
Research article |
| 05 Oct 2022
| 05 Oct 2022
Evaluation of soil carbon simulation in CMIP6 Earth system models
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Faculty of Environment, Science and Economy, University of Exeter, Laver Building, North Park Road, Exeter, EX4 4QE, UK
Sarah E. Chadburn
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Faculty of Environment, Science and Economy, University of Exeter, Laver Building, North Park Road, Exeter, EX4 4QE, UK
Eleanor J. Burke
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, UK
Peter M. Cox
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Faculty of Environment, Science and Economy, University of Exeter, Laver Building, North Park Road, Exeter, EX4 4QE, UK
Related authors
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.
Camilla Mathison, Eleanor J. Burke, Gregory Munday, Chris D. Jones, Chris J. Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Andy J. Wiltshire, Chris Huntingford, Eszter Kovacs, Laila K. Gohar, Rebecca M. Varney, and Douglas McNeall
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1785–1808, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present PRIME (Probabilistic Regional Impacts from Model patterns and Emissions), which is designed to take new emissions scenarios and rapidly provide regional impact information. PRIME allows large ensembles to be run on multi-centennial timescales, including the analysis of many important variables for impact assessments. Our evaluation shows that PRIME reproduces the climate response for known scenarios, providing confidence in using PRIME for novel scenarios.
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.
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.
Paul D. L. Ritchie, Chris Huntingford, and Peter M. Cox
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 1523–1526, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1523-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1523-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Climate tipping points are not committed 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.
Anastasios Rovithakis, Eleanor Burke, Chantelle Burton, Matthew Kasoar, Manolis G. Grillakis, Konstantinos D. Seiradakis, and Apostolos Voulgarakis
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 3185–3200, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-3185-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-3185-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We used a land surface computer model to forecast how climate change will impact wildfires in Greece. Our results show a significant increase in future burnt area due to hotter, drier climate. Allowing vegetation to change with the climate lessens this increase overall, since fire is no longer igniting in areas already burnt, and it even led to projected decreases in the agricultural areas in the north of the country.
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.
Douglas I. Kelley, Chantelle Burton, Francesca Di Giuseppe, Matthew W. Jones, Maria L. F. Barbosa, Esther Brambleby, Joe R. McNorton, Zhongwei Liu, Anna S. I. Bradley, Katie Blackford, Eleanor Burke, Andrew Ciavarella, Enza Di Tomaso, Jonathan Eden, Igor José M. Ferreira, Lukas Fiedler, Andrew J. Hartley, Theodore R. Keeping, Seppe Lampe, Anna Lombardi, Guilherme Mataveli, Yuquan Qu, Patrícia S. Silva, Fiona R. Spuler, Carmen B. Steinmann, Miguel Ángel Torres-Vázquez, Renata Veiga, Dave van Wees, Jakob B. Wessel, Emily Wright, Bibiana Bilbao, Mathieu Bourbonnais, Gao Cong, Carlos M. Di Bella, Kebonye Dintwe, Victoria M. Donovan, Sarah Harris, Elena A. Kukavskaya, Brigitte N’Dri, Cristina Santín, Galia Selaya, Johan Sjöström, John Abatzoglou, Niels Andela, Rachel Carmenta, Emilio Chuvieco, Louis Giglio, Douglas S. Hamilton, Stijn Hantson, Sarah Meier, Mark Parrington, Mojtaba Sadegh, Jesus San-Miguel-Ayanz, Fernando Sedano, Marco Turco, Guido R. van der Werf, Sander Veraverbeke, Liana O. Anderson, Hamish Clarke, Paulo M. Fernandes, and Crystal A. Kolden
Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-483, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-483, 2025
Preprint under review for ESSD
Short summary
Short summary
The second State of Wildfires report examines extreme wildfire events from 2024 to early 2025. It analyses key regional events in Southern California, Northeast Amazonia, Pantanal-Chiquitano, and the Congo Basin, assessing their drivers, predictability, and attributing them to climate change and land use. Seasonal outlooks and decadal projections are provided. Climate change greatly increased the likelihood of these fires, and without strong mitigation, such events will become more frequent.
Ricarda Winkelmann, Donovan P. Dennis, Jonathan F. Donges, Sina Loriani, Ann Kristin Klose, Jesse F. Abrams, Jorge Alvarez-Solas, Torsten Albrecht, David Armstrong McKay, Sebastian Bathiany, Javier Blasco Navarro, Victor Brovkin, Eleanor Burke, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Reik V. Donner, Markus Drüke, Goran Georgievski, Heiko Goelzer, Anna B. Harper, Gabriele Hegerl, Marina Hirota, Aixue Hu, Laura C. Jackson, Colin Jones, Hyungjun Kim, Torben Koenigk, Peter Lawrence, Timothy M. Lenton, Hannah Liddy, José Licón-Saláiz, Maxence Menthon, Marisa Montoya, Jan Nitzbon, Sophie Nowicki, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Francesco Pausata, Stefan Rahmstorf, Karoline Ramin, Alexander Robinson, Johan Rockström, Anastasia Romanou, Boris Sakschewski, Christina Schädel, Steven Sherwood, Robin S. Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Didier Swingedouw, Matteo Willeit, Wilbert Weijer, Richard Wood, Klaus Wyser, and Shuting Yang
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1899, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1899, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Earth System Dynamics (ESD).
Short summary
Short summary
The Tipping Points Modelling Intercomparison Project (TIPMIP) is an international collaborative effort to systematically assess tipping point risks in the Earth system using state-of-the-art coupled and stand-alone domain models. TIPMIP will provide a first global atlas of potential tipping dynamics, respective critical thresholds and key uncertainties, generating an important building block towards a comprehensive scientific basis for policy- and decision-making.
Katja Frieler, Stefan Lange, Jacob Schewe, Matthias Mengel, Simon Treu, Christian Otto, Jan Volkholz, Christopher P. O. Reyer, Stefanie Heinicke, Colin Jones, Julia L. Blanchard, Cheryl S. Harrison, Colleen M. Petrik, Tyler D. Eddy, Kelly Ortega-Cisneros, Camilla Novaglio, Ryan Heneghan, Derek P. Tittensor, Olivier Maury, Matthias Büchner, Thomas Vogt, Dánnell Quesada Chacón, Kerry Emanuel, Chia-Ying Lee, Suzana J. Camargo, Jonas Jägermeyr, Sam Rabin, Jochen Klar, Iliusi D. Vega del Valle, Lisa Novak, Inga J. Sauer, Gitta Lasslop, Sarah Chadburn, Eleanor Burke, Angela Gallego-Sala, Noah Smith, Jinfeng Chang, Stijn Hantson, Chantelle Burton, Anne Gädeke, Fang Li, Simon N. Gosling, Hannes Müller Schmied, Fred Hattermann, Thomas Hickler, Rafael Marcé, Don Pierson, Wim Thiery, Daniel Mercado-Bettín, Robert Ladwig, Ana Isabel Ayala-Zamora, Matthew Forrest, Michel Bechtold, Robert Reinecke, Inge de Graaf, Jed O. Kaplan, Alexander Koch, and Matthieu Lengaigne
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2103, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2103, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes the experiments and data sets necessary to run historic and future impact projections, and the underlying assumptions of future climate change as defined by the 3rd round of the ISIMIP Project (Inter-sectoral Impactmodel Intercomparison Project, isimip.org). ISIMIP provides a framework for cross-sectorally consistent climate impact simulations to contribute to a comprehensive and consistent picture of the world under different climate-change scenarios.
Camilla Mathison, Eleanor J. Burke, Gregory Munday, Chris D. Jones, Chris J. Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Andy J. Wiltshire, Chris Huntingford, Eszter Kovacs, Laila K. Gohar, Rebecca M. Varney, and Douglas McNeall
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1785–1808, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present PRIME (Probabilistic Regional Impacts from Model patterns and Emissions), which is designed to take new emissions scenarios and rapidly provide regional impact information. PRIME allows large ensembles to be run on multi-centennial timescales, including the analysis of many important variables for impact assessments. Our evaluation shows that PRIME reproduces the climate response for known scenarios, providing confidence in using PRIME for novel scenarios.
Tuula Aalto, Aki Tsuruta, Jarmo Mäkelä, Jurek Müller, Maria Tenkanen, Eleanor Burke, Sarah Chadburn, Yao Gao, Vilma Mannisenaho, Thomas Kleinen, Hanna Lee, Antti Leppänen, Tiina Markkanen, Stefano Materia, Paul A. Miller, Daniele Peano, Olli Peltola, Benjamin Poulter, Maarit Raivonen, Marielle Saunois, David Wårlind, and Sönke Zaehle
Biogeosciences, 22, 323–340, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-323-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-323-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Wetland methane responses to temperature and precipitation were studied in a boreal wetland-rich region in northern Europe using ecosystem models, atmospheric inversions, and upscaled flux observations. The ecosystem models differed in their responses to temperature and precipitation and in their seasonality. However, multi-model means, inversions, and upscaled fluxes had similar seasonality, and they suggested co-limitation by temperature and precipitation.
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.
Matthew W. Jones, Douglas I. Kelley, Chantelle A. Burton, Francesca Di Giuseppe, Maria Lucia F. Barbosa, Esther Brambleby, Andrew J. Hartley, Anna Lombardi, Guilherme Mataveli, Joe R. McNorton, Fiona R. Spuler, Jakob B. Wessel, John T. Abatzoglou, Liana O. Anderson, Niels Andela, Sally Archibald, Dolors Armenteras, Eleanor Burke, Rachel Carmenta, Emilio Chuvieco, Hamish Clarke, Stefan H. Doerr, Paulo M. Fernandes, Louis Giglio, Douglas S. Hamilton, Stijn Hantson, Sarah Harris, Piyush Jain, Crystal A. Kolden, Tiina Kurvits, Seppe Lampe, Sarah Meier, Stacey New, Mark Parrington, Morgane M. G. Perron, Yuquan Qu, Natasha S. Ribeiro, Bambang H. Saharjo, Jesus San-Miguel-Ayanz, Jacquelyn K. Shuman, Veerachai Tanpipat, Guido R. van der Werf, Sander Veraverbeke, and Gavriil Xanthopoulos
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 3601–3685, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-3601-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-3601-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This inaugural State of Wildfires report catalogues extreme fires of the 2023–2024 fire season. For key events, we analyse their predictability and drivers and attribute them to climate change and land use. We provide a seasonal outlook and decadal projections. Key anomalies occurred in Canada, Greece, and western Amazonia, with other high-impact events catalogued worldwide. Climate change significantly increased the likelihood of extreme fires, and mitigation is required to lessen future risk.
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.
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.
Katie R. Blackford, Matthew Kasoar, Chantelle Burton, Eleanor Burke, Iain Colin Prentice, and Apostolos Voulgarakis
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3063–3079, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3063-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3063-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Peatlands are globally important stores of carbon which are being increasingly threatened by wildfires with knock-on effects on the climate system. Here we introduce a novel peat fire parameterization in the northern high latitudes to the INFERNO global fire model. Representing peat fires increases annual burnt area across the high latitudes, alongside improvements in how we capture year-to-year variation in burning and emissions.
Katja Frieler, Jan Volkholz, Stefan Lange, Jacob Schewe, Matthias Mengel, María del Rocío Rivas López, Christian Otto, Christopher P. O. Reyer, Dirk Nikolaus Karger, Johanna T. Malle, Simon Treu, Christoph Menz, Julia L. Blanchard, Cheryl S. Harrison, Colleen M. Petrik, Tyler D. Eddy, Kelly Ortega-Cisneros, Camilla Novaglio, Yannick Rousseau, Reg A. Watson, Charles Stock, Xiao Liu, Ryan Heneghan, Derek Tittensor, Olivier Maury, Matthias Büchner, Thomas Vogt, Tingting Wang, Fubao Sun, Inga J. Sauer, Johannes Koch, Inne Vanderkelen, Jonas Jägermeyr, Christoph Müller, Sam Rabin, Jochen Klar, Iliusi D. Vega del Valle, Gitta Lasslop, Sarah Chadburn, Eleanor Burke, Angela Gallego-Sala, Noah Smith, Jinfeng Chang, Stijn Hantson, Chantelle Burton, Anne Gädeke, Fang Li, Simon N. Gosling, Hannes Müller Schmied, Fred Hattermann, Jida Wang, Fangfang Yao, Thomas Hickler, Rafael Marcé, Don Pierson, Wim Thiery, Daniel Mercado-Bettín, Robert Ladwig, Ana Isabel Ayala-Zamora, Matthew Forrest, and Michel Bechtold
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1–51, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Our paper provides an overview of all observational climate-related and socioeconomic forcing data used as input for the impact model evaluation and impact attribution experiments within the third round of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project. The experiments are designed to test our understanding of observed changes in natural and human systems and to quantify to what degree these changes have already been induced by climate change.
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.
Camilla Mathison, Eleanor Burke, Andrew J. Hartley, Douglas I. Kelley, Chantelle Burton, Eddy Robertson, Nicola Gedney, Karina Williams, Andy Wiltshire, Richard J. Ellis, Alistair A. Sellar, and Chris D. Jones
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4249–4264, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4249-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4249-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes and evaluates a new modelling methodology to quantify the impacts of climate change on water, biomes and the carbon cycle. We have created a new configuration and set-up for the JULES-ES land surface model, driven by bias-corrected historical and future climate model output provided by the Inter-Sectoral Impacts Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP). This allows us to compare projections of the impacts of climate change across multiple impact models and multiple sectors.
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.
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.
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.
Yao Gao, Eleanor J. Burke, Sarah E. Chadburn, Maarit Raivonen, Mika Aurela, Lawrence B. Flanagan, Krzysztof Fortuniak, Elyn Humphreys, Annalea Lohila, Tingting Li, Tiina Markkanen, Olli Nevalainen, Mats B. Nilsson, Włodzimierz Pawlak, Aki Tsuruta, Huiyi Yang, and Tuula Aalto
Biogeosciences Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-229, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-229, 2022
Manuscript not accepted for further review
Short summary
Short summary
We coupled a process-based peatland CH4 emission model HIMMELI with a state-of-art land surface model JULES. The performance of the coupled model was evaluated at six northern wetland sites. The coupled model is considered to be more appropriate in simulating wetland CH4 emission. In order to improve the simulated CH4 emission, the model requires better representation of the peat soil carbon and hydrologic processes in JULES and the methane production and transportation processes in HIMMELI.
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.
Mahdi André Nakhavali, Lina M. Mercado, Iain P. Hartley, Stephen Sitch, Fernanda V. Cunha, Raffaello di Ponzio, Laynara F. Lugli, Carlos A. Quesada, Kelly M. Andersen, Sarah E. Chadburn, Andy J. Wiltshire, Douglas B. Clark, Gyovanni Ribeiro, Lara Siebert, Anna C. M. Moraes, Jéssica Schmeisk Rosa, Rafael Assis, and José L. Camargo
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5241–5269, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5241-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5241-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In tropical ecosystems, the availability of rock-derived elements such as P can be very low. Thus, without a representation of P cycling, tropical forest responses to rising atmospheric CO2 conditions in areas such as Amazonia remain highly uncertain. We introduced P dynamics and its interactions with the N and P cycles into the JULES model. Our results highlight the potential for high P limitation and therefore lower CO2 fertilization capacity in the Amazon forest with low-fertility soils.
Noah D. Smith, Eleanor J. Burke, Kjetil Schanke Aas, Inge H. J. Althuizen, Julia Boike, Casper Tai Christiansen, Bernd Etzelmüller, Thomas Friborg, Hanna Lee, Heather Rumbold, Rachael H. Turton, Sebastian Westermann, and Sarah E. Chadburn
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 3603–3639, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3603-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3603-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Arctic has large areas of small mounds that are caused by ice lifting up the soil. Snow blown by wind gathers in hollows next to these mounds, insulating them in winter. The hollows tend to be wetter, and thus the soil absorbs more heat in summer. The warm wet soil in the hollows decomposes, releasing methane. We have made a model of this, and we have tested how it behaves and whether it looks like sites in Scandinavia and Siberia. Sometimes we get more methane than a model without mounds.
Sarah E. Chadburn, Eleanor J. Burke, Angela V. Gallego-Sala, Noah D. Smith, M. Syndonia Bret-Harte, Dan J. Charman, Julia Drewer, Colin W. Edgar, Eugenie S. Euskirchen, Krzysztof Fortuniak, Yao Gao, Mahdi Nakhavali, Włodzimierz Pawlak, Edward A. G. Schuur, and Sebastian Westermann
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 1633–1657, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1633-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1633-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We present a new method to include peatlands in an Earth system model (ESM). Peatlands store huge amounts of carbon that accumulates very slowly but that can be rapidly destabilised, emitting greenhouse gases. Our model captures the dynamic nature of peat by simulating the change in surface height and physical properties of the soil as carbon is added or decomposed. Thus, we model, for the first time in an ESM, peat dynamics and its threshold behaviours that can lead to destabilisation.
Thomas Schneider von Deimling, Hanna Lee, Thomas Ingeman-Nielsen, Sebastian Westermann, Vladimir Romanovsky, Scott Lamoureux, Donald A. Walker, Sarah Chadburn, Erin Trochim, Lei Cai, Jan Nitzbon, Stephan Jacobi, and Moritz Langer
The Cryosphere, 15, 2451–2471, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-2451-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-2451-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Climate warming puts infrastructure built on permafrost at risk of failure. There is a growing need for appropriate model-based risk assessments. Here we present a modelling study and show an exemplary case of how a gravel road in a cold permafrost environment in Alaska might suffer from degrading permafrost under a scenario of intense climate warming. We use this case study to discuss the broader-scale applicability of our model for simulating future Arctic infrastructure failure.
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.
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.
Richard Essery, Hyungjun Kim, Libo Wang, Paul Bartlett, Aaron Boone, Claire Brutel-Vuilmet, Eleanor Burke, Matthias Cuntz, Bertrand Decharme, Emanuel Dutra, Xing Fang, Yeugeniy Gusev, Stefan Hagemann, Vanessa Haverd, Anna Kontu, Gerhard Krinner, Matthieu Lafaysse, Yves Lejeune, Thomas Marke, Danny Marks, Christoph Marty, Cecile B. Menard, Olga Nasonova, Tomoko Nitta, John Pomeroy, Gerd Schädler, Vladimir Semenov, Tatiana Smirnova, Sean Swenson, Dmitry Turkov, Nander Wever, and Hua Yuan
The Cryosphere, 14, 4687–4698, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-4687-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-4687-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Climate models are uncertain in predicting how warming changes snow cover. This paper compares 22 snow models with the same meteorological inputs. Predicted trends agree with observations at four snow research sites: winter snow cover does not start later, but snow now melts earlier in spring than in the 1980s at two of the sites. Cold regions where snow can last until late summer are predicted to be particularly sensitive to warming because the snow then melts faster at warmer times of year.
Bettina K. Gier, Michael Buchwitz, Maximilian Reuter, Peter M. Cox, Pierre Friedlingstein, and Veronika Eyring
Biogeosciences, 17, 6115–6144, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-6115-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-6115-2020, 2020
Short summary
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.
Eleanor J. Burke, Yu Zhang, and Gerhard Krinner
The Cryosphere, 14, 3155–3174, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-3155-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-3155-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Permafrost will degrade under future climate change. This will have implications locally for the northern high-latitude regions and may well also amplify global climate change. There have been some recent improvements in the ability of earth system models to simulate the permafrost physical state, but further model developments are required. Models project the thawed volume of soil in the top 2 m of permafrost will increase by 10 %–40 % °C−1 of global mean surface air temperature increase.
Cited articles
Amthor, J. S.: Terrestrial higher-plant response to increasing atmospheric
[CO2] in relation to the global carbon cycle, Global Change Biol., 1,
243–274, 1995. a
Arora, V. and Boer, G.: Uncertainties in the 20th century carbon budget
associated with land use change, Global Change Biol., 16, 3327–3348, 2010. a
Arora, V., Boer, G., Christian, J., Curry, C., Denman, K., Zahariev, K., Flato,
G., Scinocca, J., Merryfield, W., and Lee, W.: The effect of terrestrial
photosynthesis down regulation on the twentieth-century carbon budget
simulated with the CCCma Earth System Model, J. Climate, 22,
6066–6088, 2009. a
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, 2013. a, b, c
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. a, b, c, d, e, f
Beer, C.: Permafrost sub-grid heterogeneity of soil properties key for 3-D soil
processes and future climate projections, Front. Earth Sci., 4, 81, https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2016.00081,
2016. a
Bentsen, M., Bethke, I., Debernard, J. B., Iversen, T., Kirkevåg, A., Seland, Ø., Drange, H., Roelandt, C., Seierstad, I. A., Hoose, C., and Kristjánsson, J. E.: The Norwegian Earth System Model, NorESM1-M – Part 1: Description and basic evaluation of the physical climate, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 687–-720, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-687-2013, 2013. a
Best, M. J., Pryor, M., Clark, D. B., Rooney, G. G., Essery, R. L. H., Ménard, C. B., Edwards, J. M., Hendry, M. A., Porson, A., Gedney, N., Mercado, L. M., Sitch, S., Blyth, E., Boucher, O., Cox, P. M., Grimmond, C. S. B., and Harding, R. J.: The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description – Part 1: Energy and water fluxes, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 677–699, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-677-2011, 2011. a
Bloom, A. and Williams, M.: CARDAMOM 2001–2010 global carbon Model-Data
Fusion (MDF) analysis, https://doi.org/10.7488/ds/316, 2015. a, b
Boucher, O., Servonnat, J., Albright, A. L., Aumont, O., et al.:
Presentation and evaluation of the IPSL-CM6A-LR climate model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2019MS002010, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS002010, 2020. a
Burke, E. J., Ekici, A., Huang, Y., Chadburn, S. E., Huntingford, C., Ciais, P., Friedlingstein, P., Peng, S., and Krinner, G.: Quantifying uncertainties of permafrost carbon–climate feedbacks, Biogeosciences, 14, 3051–-3066, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-3051-2017, 2017. a
Burke, E. J., Zhang, Y., and Krinner, G.: Evaluating permafrost physics in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6 (CMIP6) models and their sensitivity to climate change, The Cryosphere, 14, 3155–-3174, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-3155-2020, 2020. a, b
Canadell, J., Monteiro, P., Costa, M., Cotrim da Cunha, L., Cox, P., Eliseev,
A., Henson, S., Ishii, M., Jaccard, S., Koven, C., Lohila, A., Patra, P.,
Piao, S., Rogelj, J., Syampungani, S., Zaehle, S., and Zickfeld, K.: Global
Carbon and other Biogeochemical Cycles and Feedbacks, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter05.pdf (last access: 28 July 2022), 2021. a
CARDAMOM: 2001–2010 global carbon Model-Data Fusion (MDF) analysis, DataShare Edinburgh [data set], https://datashare.ed.ac.uk/handle/10283/875, last access: 14 January 2022.
Carvalhais, N., Forkel, M., Khomik, M., Bellarby, J., Jung, M., Migliavacca,
M., Mu, M., Saatchi, S., Santoro, M., Thurner, M., Weber, U., Ahrens, B., Beer, C., Cescatti, A., Randerson, J. T., and Reichstein, M.: Global covariation
of carbon turnover times with climate in terrestrial ecosystems, Nature, 514,
213, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13731, 2014. a, b, c
Chadburn, S. E., Burke, E. J., Gallego-Sala, A. V., Smith, N. D., Bret-Harte, M. S., Charman, D. J., Drewer, J., Edgar, C. W., Euskirchen, E. S., Fortuniak, K., Gao, Y., Nakhavali, M., Pawlak, W., Schuur, E. A. G., and Westermann, S.: A new approach to simulate peat accumulation, degradation and stability in a global land surface scheme (JULES vn5.8_accumulate_soil) for northern and temperate peatlands, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 1633–1657, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1633-2022, 2022. a
Cheruy, F., Ducharne, A., Hourdin, F., Musat, I., Vignon, É., Gastineau,
G., Bastrikov, V., Vuichard, N., Diallo, B., Dufresne, J.-L., Ghattas, J., Grandpeix, J.-Y., Idelkadi, A., Mellul, L., Maignan, F., Ménégoz, M., Ottlé, C., Peylin, P., Servonnat, J., Wang, F., and Zhao, Y.:
Improved near-surface continental climate in IPSL-CM6A-LR by combined
evolutions of atmospheric and land surface physics, J. Adv.
Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2019MS002005, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS002005, 2020. a
Clark, D. B., Mercado, L. M., Sitch, S., Jones, C. D., Gedney, N., Best, M. J., Pryor, M., Rooney, G. G., Essery, R. L. H., Blyth, E., Boucher, O., Harding, R. J., Huntingford, C., and Cox, P. M.: The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description – Part 2: Carbon fluxes and vegetation dynamics, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 701–-722, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-701-2011, 2011. a
Copernicus Climate Change Service, E. K.: Copernicus Climate Change Service,
Product User Guide and Specification,
https://datastore.copernicus-climate.eu/documents/satellite-soil-moisture/C3S_312b_Lot4.D3.SM.5-v3.0_202101_Product_User_Guide_Specification_i1.0.pdf (last access: 14 January 2022),
2021. a
Copernicus: Soil moisture gridded data from 1978 to present, Copernicus [data set], https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.d7782f18, 2022. a
Cox, P. M., Betts, R. A., Jones, C. D., Spall, S. A., and Totterdell, I. J.:
Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled
climate model, Nature, 408, 184, https://doi.org/10.1038/35041539, 2000. a
Crowther, T. W., Todd-Brown, K. E. O., Rowe, C. W., Wieder, W. R., Carey, J. C., Machmuller, M. B., Snoek, B. L., Fang, S., Zhou, G., Allison, S. D., Blair, J. M., Bridgham, S. D., Burton, A. J., Carrillo, Y., Reich, P. B., Clark, J. S., Classen, A. T., Dijkstra, F. A., Elberling, B., Emmett, B. A., Estiarte, M., Frey, S. D., Guo, J., Harte, J., Jiang, L., Johnson, B. R., Kröel-Dulay, G., Larsen, K. S., Laudon, H., Lavallee, J. M., Luo, Y., Lupascu, M., Ma, L. N., Marhan, S., Michelsen, A., Mohan, J., Niu, S., Pendall, E., Peñuelas, J., Pfeifer-Meister, L., Poll, C., Reinsch, S., Reynolds, L. L., Schmidt, I. K., Sistla, S., Sokol, N. W., Templer, P. H., Treseder, K. K., Welker, J. M., and Bradford, M. A.:
Quantifying global soil carbon losses in response to warming, Nature, 540,
104, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20150, 2016. a
Dai, Y., Zeng, X., Dickinson, R. E., Baker, I., Bonan, G. B., Bosilovich,
M. G., Denning, A. S., Dirmeyer, P. A., Houser, P. R., Niu, G., Oleson, K. W., Schlosser, C. A., and Yang, Z.-L.: The
common land model, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 84,
1013–1024, 2003. a
Danabasoglu, G., Lamarque, J.-F., Bacmeister, J., Bailey, D., DuVivier, A.,
Edwards, J., Emmons, L., Fasullo, J., Garcia, R., Gettelman, A., Hannay, C., Holland, M. M., Large, W. G., Lauritzen, P. H., Lawrence, D. M., Lenaerts, J. T. M., Lindsay, K., Lipscomb, W. H., Mills, M. J., Neale, R., Oleson, K. W., Otto-Bliesner, B., Phillips, A. S., Sacks, W., Tilmes, S., van Kampenhout, L., Vertenstein, M., Bertini, A., Dennis, J., Deser, C., Fischer, C., Fox-Kemper, B., Kay, J. E., Kinnison, D., Kushner, P. J., Larson, V. E., Long, M. C., Mickelson, S., Moore, J. K., Nienhouse, E., Polvani, L., Rasch, P. J., and Strand, W. G.: The community earth system model version 2 (CESM2), J. Adv.
Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2019MS001916, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001916, 2020. a
Davidson, E. A. and Janssens, I. A.: Temperature sensitivity of soil carbon
decomposition and feedbacks to climate change, Nature, 440, 165, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04514, 2006. a, b
Davies-Barnard, T., Meyerholt, J., Zaehle, S., Friedlingstein, P., Brovkin, V., Fan, Y., Fisher, R. A., Jones, C. D., Lee, H., Peano, D., Smith, B., Wårlind, D., and Wiltshire, A. J.: Nitrogen cycling in CMIP6 land surface models: progress and limitations, Biogeosciences, 17, 5129–-5148, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-5129-2020, 2020. a
Del Grosso, S., Parton, W., Mosier, A., Holland, E., Pendall, E., Schimel, D.,
and Ojima, D.: Modeling soil CO2 emissions from ecosystems, Biogeochemistry,
73, 71–91, 2005. a
Delire, C., Séférian, R., Decharme, B., Alkama, R., Calvet, J.-C.,
Carrer, D., Gibelin, A.-L., Joetzjer, E., Morel, X., Rocher, M., and Diane Tzanos, D.: The
global land carbon cycle simulated with ISBA-CTRIP: Improvements over the
last decade, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12,
e2019MS001886, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001886, 2020. a
Dorigo, W., Wagner, W., Albergel, C., Albrecht, F., Balsamo, G., Brocca, L.,
Chung, D., Ertl, M., Forkel, M., Gruber, A., Haas, E., Hamer, P. D., Hirschi, M., Ikonen, J., de Jeu, R., Kidd, R., Lahoz, W., Liu, Y. Y., Miralles, D., Mistelbauer, T., Nicolai-Shaw, N., Parinussa, R., Pratola, C., Reimer, C., van der Schalie, R., Seneviratne, S. I., Smolander, T., and Lecomte, P.: ESA CCI Soil Moisture
for improved Earth system understanding: State-of-the art and future
directions, Remote Sens. Environ., 203, 185–215, 2017. a
Dufresne, J.-L., Foujols, M.-A., Denvil, S., Caubel, A., Marti, O., Aumont, O., Balkanski, Y., Bekki, S., Bellenger, H., Benshila, R., Bony, S., Bopp, L., Braconnot, P., Brockmann, P., Cadule, P., Cheruy, F., Codron, F., Cozic, A., Cugnet, D., de Noblet, N., Duvel, J.-P., Ethé, C., Fairhead, L., Fichefet, T., Flavoni, S., Friedlingstein, P., Grandpeix, J.-Y., Guez, L., Guilyardi, E., Hauglustaine, D., Hourdin, F., Idelkadi, A., Ghattas, J., Joussaume, S., Kageyama, M., Krinner, G., Labetoulle, S., Lahellec, A., Lefebvre, M.-P., Lefevre, F., Levy, C., Li, Z. X., Lloyd, J., Lott, F., Madec, G., Mancip, M., Marchand, M., Masson, S., Meurdesoif, Y., Mignot, J., Musat, I., Parouty, S., Polcher, J., Rio, C., Schulz, M., Swingedouw, D., Szopa, S., Talandier, C., Terray, P., Viovy, N., and Vuichard, N.: Climate change
projections using the IPSL-CM5 Earth System Model: from CMIP3 to CMIP5,
Clim. Dynam., 40, 2123–2165, 2013. a
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. a
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, 2012. a
Dunne, J. P., John, J. G., Shevliakova, E., Stouffer, R. J., Krasting, J. P.,
Malyshev, S. L., Milly, P., 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, 2013. a
ESGF: WCRP Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (Phase 5), CMIP5 [data set], https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/search/cmip5/ (last access: 12 April 2022), 2022a.
ESGF: WCRP Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (Phase 6), CMIP [data set], https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/search/cmip6/ (last access: 12 April 2022), 2022b.
Eswaran, H., Van Den Berg, E., and Reich, P.: Organic carbon in soils of the
world, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 57, 192–194, 1993. a
Evans, C., Peacock, M., Baird, A., et al.: Overriding water table
control on managed peatland greenhouse gas emissions, Nature, 593, 548–552,
2021. a
Exbrayat, J.-F., Pitman, A. J., Zhang, Q., Abramowitz, G., and Wang, Y.-P.: Examining soil carbon uncertainty in a global model: response of microbial decomposition to temperature, moisture and nutrient limitation, Biogeosciences, 10, 7095–-7108, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-7095-2013, 2013. a
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, 2016. a, b
FAO, I. and ISRIC, I.: JRC: Harmonized World Soil Database (version 1.2), FAO,
Rome, Italy and IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1247, 2012 (data available at: https://github.com/rebeccamayvarney/CMIP_soilcarbon_evaluation, last access: 14 January 2022). a, b, c, d
Friedlingstein, P., Fung, I., Holland, E., John, J., Brasseur, G., Erickson,
D., and Schimel, D.: On the contribution of CO2 fertilization to the missing
biospheric sink, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 9, 541–556, 1995. a
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.
Clim., 19, 3337–3353, 2006. a, b
Friedlingstein, P., Jones, M. W., O'Sullivan, M., Andrew, R. M., Bakker, D. C. E., Hauck, J., Le Quéré, C., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Sitch, S., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Alin, S. R., Anthoni, P., Bates, N. R., Becker, M., Bellouin, N., Bopp, L., Chau, T. T. T., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Cronin, M., Currie, K. I., Decharme, B., Djeutchouang, L. M., Dou, X., Evans, W., Feely, R. A., Feng, L., Gasser, T., Gilfillan, D., Gkritzalis, T., Grassi, G., Gregor, L., Gruber, N., Gürses, Ö., Harris, I., Houghton, R. A., Hurtt, G. C., Iida, Y., Ilyina, T., Luijkx, I. T., Jain, A., Jones, S. D., Kato, E., Kennedy, D., Klein Goldewijk, K., Knauer, J., Korsbakken, J. I., Körtzinger, A., Landschützer, P., Lauvset, S. K., Lefèvre, N., Lienert, S., Liu, J., Marland, G., McGuire, P. C., Melton, J. R., Munro, D. R., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Nakaoka, S.-I., Niwa, Y., Ono, T., Pierrot, D., Poulter, B., Rehder, G., Resplandy, L., Robertson, E., Rödenbeck, C., Rosan, T. M., Schwinger, J., Schwingshackl, C., Séférian, R., Sutton, A. J., Sweeney, C., Tanhua, T., Tans, P. P., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., Tubiello, F., van der Werf, G. R., Vuichard, N., Wada, C., Wanninkhof, R., Watson, A. J., Willis, D., Wiltshire, A. J., Yuan, W., Yue, C., Yue, X., Zaehle, S., and Zeng, J.: Global Carbon Budget 2021, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 1917–-2005, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1917-2022, 2022. a, b
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.: The community climate system model version 4, J. Climate, 24,
4973–4991, 2011. a
Georgiou, K., Malhotra, A., Wieder, W. R., Ennis, J. H., Hartman, M. D.,
Sulman, B. N., Berhe, A. A., Grandy, A. S., Kyker-Snowman, E., Lajtha, K., Moore, J. A. M., Pierson, D., and Jackson, R. B.: Divergent controls of soil organic carbon between observations and
process-based models, Biogeochemistry, 156, 5–17, 2021. a
Goll, D. S., Brovkin, V., Liski, J., Raddatz, T., Thum, T., and Todd-Brown,
K. E.: Strong dependence of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic land cover
change on initial land cover and soil carbon parametrization, Global
Biogeochem. Cy., 29, 1511–1523, 2015. a
Goll, D. S., Winkler, A. J., Raddatz, T., Dong, N., Prentice, I. C., Ciais, P., and Brovkin, V.: Carbon–nitrogen interactions in idealized simulations with JSBACH (version 3.10), Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 2009–-2030, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2009-2017, 2017. a
Gruber, A., Dorigo, W. A., Crow, W., and Wagner, W.: Triple collocation-based
merging of satellite soil moisture retrievals, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 55, 6780–6792, 2017. a
Guimberteau, M., Zhu, D., Maignan, F., Huang, Y., Yue, C., Dantec-Nédélec, S., Ottlé, C., Jornet-Puig, A., Bastos, A., Laurent, P., Goll, D., Bowring, S., Chang, J., Guenet, B., Tifafi, M., Peng, S., Krinner, G., Ducharne, A., Wang, F., Wang, T., Wang, X., Wang, Y., Yin, Z., Lauerwald, R., Joetzjer, E., Qiu, C., Kim, H., and Ciais, P.: ORCHIDEE-MICT (v8.4.1), a land surface model for the high latitudes: model description and validation, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 121–-163, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-121-2018, 2018. a
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, 2020. a
Harper, A. B., Wiltshire, A. J., Cox, P. M., Friedlingstein, P., Jones, C. D., Mercado, L. M., Sitch, S., Williams, K., and Duran-Rojas, C.: Vegetation distribution and terrestrial carbon cycle in a carbon cycle configuration of JULES4.6 with new plant functional types, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 2857–-2873, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2857-2018, 2018. a
HARVARD dataverse: Soil carbon profile data from paired land use comparisons, Harvard Dataverse [data set], https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/QQQM8V, 2022.
Haverd, V., Smith, B., Nieradzik, L., Briggs, P. R., Woodgate, W., Trudinger, C. M., Canadell, J. G., and Cuntz, M.: A new version of the CABLE land surface model (Subversion revision r4601) incorporating land use and land cover change, woody vegetation demography, and a novel optimisation-based approach to plant coordination of photosynthesis, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 2995–-3026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2995-2018, 2018. a
Hugelius, G., Tarnocai, C., Broll, G., Canadell, J. G., Kuhry, P., and Swanson, D. K.: The Northern Circumpolar Soil Carbon Database: spatially distributed datasets of soil coverage and soil carbon storage in the northern permafrost regions, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 5, 3–13, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-5-3-2013, 2013 (data available at: https://github.com/rebeccamayvarney/CMIP_soilcarbon_evaluation, last access: 14 January 2022). a, b, c, d
Hugelius, G., Loisel, J., Chadburn, S., Jackson, R. B., Jones, M., MacDonald,
G., Marushchak, M., Olefeldt, D., Packalen, M., Siewert, M. B., Treat, C., Turetsky, M., Voigt, C., and Yu, Z.: Large
stocks of peatland carbon and nitrogen are vulnerable to permafrost thaw,
P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 117, 20438–20446, 2020. a
IGBP: Global Gridded Surfaces of Selected Soil Characteristics
(IGBP-DIS), DAAC [data set],
https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/569, 2000. a, b, c
IPCC, 2021: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S. L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M. I., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J. B. R., Maycock, T. K., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., and Zhou, B., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2391 pp., 2021. a
ISRIC World Soil Information Service (WoSIS): WISE Soil Property Databases, ISRIC [data set], https://www.isric.org/explore/wise-databases, last access: 14 January 2022. a
Ito, A., Hajima, T., Lawrence, D. M., Brovkin, V., Delire, C., Guenet, B.,
Jones, C. D., Malyshev, S., Materia, S., McDermid, S. P., Peano, D., Pongratz, J., Robertson, E., Shevliakova, E., Vuichard, N., Wårlind, D., Wiltshire, A., and Ziehn, T.: Soil carbon
sequestration simulated in CMIP6-LUMIP models: implications for climatic
mitigation, Environ. Res. Lett., 15, 124061, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abc912, 2020. a, b, c
Iversen, T., Bentsen, M., Bethke, I., Debernard, J. B., Kirkevåg, A., Seland, Ø., Drange, H., Kristjansson, J. E., Medhaug, I., Sand, M., and Seierstad, I. A.: The Norwegian Earth System Model, NorESM1-M – Part 2: Climate response and scenario projections, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 389–-415, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-389-2013, 2013. a
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. a, b
Ji, J., Huang, M., and Li, K.: Prediction of carbon exchanges between China
terrestrial ecosystem and atmosphere in 21st century, Sci. China Ser. D, 51, 885–898, 2008. a
Jobbágy, E. G. and Jackson, R. B.: The vertical distribution of soil
organic carbon and its relation to climate and vegetation, Ecol.
Appl., 10, 423–436, 2000. a
Jones, C. D., Hughes, J. K., Bellouin, N., Hardiman, S. C., Jones, G. S., Knight, J., Liddicoat, S., O'Connor, F. M., Andres, R. J., Bell, C., Boo, K.-O., Bozzo, A., Butchart, N., Cadule, P., Corbin, K. D., Doutriaux-Boucher, M., Friedlingstein, P., Gornall, J., Gray, L., Halloran, P. R., Hurtt, G., Ingram, W. J., Lamarque, J.-F., Law, R. M., Meinshausen, M., Osprey, S., Palin, E. J., Parsons Chini, L., Raddatz, T., Sanderson, M. G., Sellar, A. A., Schurer, A., Valdes, P., Wood, N., Woodward, S., Yoshioka, M., and Zerroukat, M.: The HadGEM2-ES implementation of CMIP5 centennial simulations, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 543–-570, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-543-2011, 2011. a
Kimball, B., Mauney, J., Nakayama, F., and Idso, S.: Effects of increasing
atmospheric CO2 on vegetation, Vegetatio, 104, 65–75, 1993. a
Knorr, W.: Annual and interannual CO2 exchanges of the terrestrial biosphere:
Process-based simulations and uncertainties, Global Ecol. Biogeogr.,
9, 225–252, 2000. a
Koster, R. D., Guo, Z., Yang, R., Dirmeyer, P. A., Mitchell, K., and Puma,
M. J.: On the nature of soil moisture in land surface models, J. Climate, 22, 4322–4335, 2009. a
Koven, C. D., Riley, W. J., Subin, Z. M., Tang, J. Y., Torn, M. S., Collins, W. D., Bonan, G. B., Lawrence, D. M., and Swenson, S. C.: The effect of vertically resolved soil biogeochemistry and alternate soil C and N models on C dynamics of CLM4, Biogeosciences, 10, 7109–-7131, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-7109-2013, 2013 a
Koven, C. D., Chambers, J. Q., Georgiou, K., Knox, R., Negron-Juarez, R., Riley, W. J., Arora, V. K., Brovkin, V., Friedlingstein, P., and Jones, C. D.: Controls on terrestrial carbon feedbacks by productivity versus turnover in the CMIP5 Earth System Models, Biogeosciences, 12, 5211–-5228, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-5211-2015, 2015. a, b, c, d
Koven, C. D., Hugelius, G., Lawrence, D. M., and Wieder, W. R.: Higher
climatological temperature sensitivity of soil carbon in cold than warm
climates, Nat. Clim. Change, 7, 817, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3421, 2017. a, b, c
Krinner, G., Viovy, N., de Noblet-Ducoudré, N., Ogée, J., Polcher, J.,
Friedlingstein, P., Ciais, P., Sitch, S., and Prentice, I. C.: A dynamic
global vegetation model for studies of the coupled atmosphere-biosphere
system, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 19, GB1015, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GB002199, 2005. a
Land-Atmosphere Interaction Research Group at Sun Yat-sen University: Global Soil Dataset [data set], http://globalchange.bnu.edu.cn/research/soilw, last access: 14 January 2022.
Lawrence, D. M., Oleson, K. W., Flanner, M. G., Thornton, P. E., Swenson,
S. C., Lawrence, P. J., Zeng, X., Yang, Z.-L., Levis, S., Sakaguchi, K., Bonan, G. B., and Slater, A. G.: Parameterization improvements and functional and structural advances
in version 4 of the Community Land Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 3, M03001, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011MS00045, 2011. a, b
Liu, Y., Dorigo, W. A., Parinussa, R., de Jeu, R. A., Wagner, W., McCabe,
M. F., Evans, J., and Van Dijk, A.: Trend-preserving blending of passive and
active microwave soil moisture retrievals, Remote Sens. Environ.,
123, 280–297, 2012. a
Liu, Y. Y., Parinussa, R. M., Dorigo, W. A., De Jeu, R. A. M., Wagner, W., van Dijk, A. I. J. M., McCabe, M. F., and Evans, J. P.: Developing an improved soil moisture dataset by blending passive and active microwave satellite-based retrievals, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 425–-436, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-425-2011, 2011. a
Lloyd, J. and Taylor, J.: On the temperature dependence of soil respiration,
Funct. Ecol., 8, 315–323, https://doi.org/10.2307/2389824, 1994. a
Mauritsen, T., Bader, J., Becker, T., et al.: 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,
2019. a
Meehl, G. A., Boer, G. J., Covey, C., Latif, M., and Stouffer, R. J.: The
coupled model intercomparison project (CMIP), B. Am.
Meteorol. Soc., 81, 313–318, 2000. a
Meehl, G. A., Moss, R., Taylor, K. E., Eyring, V., Stouffer, R. J., Bony, S.,
and Stevens, B.: Climate model intercomparisons: Preparing for the next
phase, Eos T. Am. Geophys. Un., 95, 77–78, 2014. a
Melton, J. R., Arora, V. K., Wisernig-Cojoc, E., Seiler, C., Fortier, M., Chan, E., and Teckentrup, L.: CLASSIC v1.0: the open-source community successor to the Canadian Land Surface Scheme (CLASS) and the Canadian Terrestrial Ecosystem Model (CTEM) – Part 1: Model framework and site-level performance, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 2825–-2850, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2825-2020, 2020. a
Met Office: Iris: A Python package for analysing and visualising
meteorological and oceanographic data sets, Exeter, Devon, v1.2 edn.,
http://scitools.org.uk/ (last access: 14 January 2022), 2010–2013. a
NASA: MODIS, MODIS Gross Primary Production(GPP)/Net Primary Production (NPP) [data set] https://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/dataprod/mod17.php, last access: 14 January 2022.
NCAR: The WFDEI Meteorological Forcing Data, Research Data Archive [data set], https://rda.ucar.edu/datasets/ds314.2/, last access: 14 January 2022.
Nishina, K., Ito, A., Beerling, D. J., Cadule, P., Ciais, P., Clark, D. B., Falloon, P., Friend, A. D., Kahana, R., Kato, E., Keribin, R., Lucht, W., Lomas, M., Rademacher, T. T., Pavlick, R., Schaphoff, S., Vuichard, N., Warszawaski, L., and Yokohata, T.: Quantifying uncertainties in soil carbon responses to changes in global mean temperature and precipitation, Earth Syst. Dynam., 5, 197–-209, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-5-197-2014, 2014. a
ORNL-DAAC Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Global Gridded Surfaces of Selected Soil Characteristics (IGBP-DIS), ORNL-DAAC [data set], https://daac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/dsviewer.pl?ds_id=569, last access: 14 January 2022.
Pan, Y., Birdsey, R. A., Fang, J., Houghton, R., Kauppi, P. E., Kurz, W. A., Phillips, O. L., Shvidenko, A., Lewis, S. L., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Pacala, S. W., McGuire, A. D., Piao, S., Rautiainen, A., Sitch, S., Hayes, D.: A
large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests, Science, 333,
988–993, 2011. a
Post, W. M., Emanuel, W. R., Zinke, P. J., and Stangenberger, A. G.: Soil
carbon pools and world life zones, Nature, 298, 156–159, 1982. a
Raddatz, T., Reick, C., Knorr, W., Kattge, J., Roeckner, E., Schnur, R.,
Schnitzler, K.-G., Wetzel, P., and Jungclaus, J.: Will the tropical land
biosphere dominate the climate–carbon cycle feedback during the twenty-first
century?, Clim. Dynam., 29, 565–574, 2007. a
Ran, Y., Li, X., Cheng, G., Che, J., Aalto, J., Karjalainen, O., Hjort, J., Luoto, M., Jin, H., Obu, J., Hori, M., Yu, Q., and Chang, X.: New high-resolution estimates of the permafrost thermal state and hydrothermal conditions over the Northern Hemisphere, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 865–-884, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-865-2022, 2022. a
Sato, H., Itoh, A., and Kohyama, T.: SEIB–DGVM: A new Dynamic Global
Vegetation Model using a spatially explicit individual-based approach,
Ecol. Model., 200, 279–307, 2007. a
Schmidt, G. A., Kelley, M., Nazarenko, L., et al.: Configuration
and assessment of the GISS ModelE2 contributions to the CMIP5 archive,
J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 6, 141–184, 2014. a
Schuur, E. A., McGuire, A. D., Schädel, C., Grosse, G., Harden, J. W.,
Hayes, D. J., Hugelius, G., Koven, C. D., Kuhry, P., Lawrence, D. M., Natali, S. M., Olefeldt, D., Romanovsky, V. E., Schaefer, K., Turetsky ,M. R., Treat, C. C., and Vonk, J. E.:
Climate change and the permafrost carbon feedback, Nature, 520, 171–179,
2015. a
Séférian, R., Nabat, P., Michou, M., et al.:
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, 2019. a
Seiler, C., Melton, J. R., Arora, V. K., and Wang, L.: CLASSIC v1.0: the open-source community successor to the Canadian Land Surface Scheme (CLASS) and the Canadian Terrestrial Ecosystem Model (CTEM) – Part 2: Global benchmarking, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2371–-2417, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2371-2021, 2021. a
Seland, Ø., Bentsen, M., Olivié, D., Toniazzo, T., Gjermundsen, A., Graff, L. S., Debernard, J. B., Gupta, A. K., He, Y.-C., 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., Liakka, J., Moseid, K. O., Nummelin, A., Spensberger, C., Tang, H., Zhang, Z., Heinze, C., Iversen, T., and Schulz, M.: Overview of the Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM2) and key climate response of CMIP6 DECK, historical, and scenario simulations, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 6165–-6200, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-6165-2020, 2020. a
Sellar, A. A., Walton, J., Jones, C. G., et al.:
Implementation of UK Earth system models for CMIP6, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2019MS001946, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001946, 2020. a
Shevliakova, E., Pacala, S. W., Malyshev, S., Hurtt, G. C., Milly, P.,
Caspersen, J. P., Sentman, L. T., Fisk, J. P., Wirth, C., and Crevoisier, C.:
Carbon cycling under 300 years of land use change: Importance of the
secondary vegetation sink, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 23, GB2022, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GB003176, 2009. a, b
Sombroek, W. G., Nachtergaele, F. O., and Hebel, A.: Amounts, dynamics and
sequestering of carbon in tropical and subtropical soils, Ambio, Journal of
the Human Environment, Research and Management, Sweden, 22, 417–426, 1993. a
Song, X., Wang, D.-Y., Li, F., and Zeng, X.-D.: Evaluating the performance of
CMIP6 Earth system models in simulating global vegetation structure and
distribution, Advances in Climate Change Research, 12, 584–595, 2021. a
Sulman, B. N., Salmon, V. G., Iversen, C. M., Breen, A. L., Yuan, F., and
Thornton, P. E.: Integrating Arctic Plant Functional Types in a Land Surface
Model Using Above-and Belowground Field Observations, J. Adv.
Model. Earth Sy., 13, e2020MS002396, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020MS002396, 2021. a
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, 2019. a
Tarnocai, C., Canadell, J., Schuur, E. A., Kuhry, P., Mazhitova, G., and Zimov,
S.: Soil organic carbon pools in the northern circumpolar permafrost region,
Global Biogeochem. Cy., 23, GB2023, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GB003327, 2009. a
Taylor, K. E.: Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single
diagram, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 106, 7183–7192, 2001. a
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., and Meehl, G. A.: An overview of CMIP5 and the
experiment design, B. Am. Meteorol. Soci., 93,
485–498, 2012. a
Todd-Brown, K. E. O., Randerson, J. T., Post, W. M., Hoffman, F. M., Tarnocai, C., Schuur, E. A. G., and Allison, S. D.: Causes of variation in soil carbon simulations from CMIP5 Earth system models and comparison with observations, Biogeosciences, 10, 1717–-1736, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-1717-2013, 2013. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t
Trudinger, C. M., Haverd, V., Briggs, P. R., and Canadell, J. G.: Interannual variability in Australia's terrestrial carbon cycle constrained by multiple observation types, Biogeosciences, 13, 6363–-6383, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-6363-2016, 2016. a
UNFCCC: Adoption of The Paris AgreementFCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1,
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf (last access: 14 January 2022),
2015. a
Waddington, J., Morris, P., Kettridge, N., Granath, G., Thompson, D., and
Moore, P.: Hydrological feedbacks in northern peatlands, Ecohydrology, 8,
113–127, 2015. a
Wagner, W., Dorigo, W., de Jeu, R., Fernandez, D., Benveniste, J., Haas, E., and
Ertl, M.: Fusion of active and passive microwave observations to
create an essential climate variable data record on soil moisture, ISPRS
Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences
(ISPRS Annals), 7, 315–321, 2012. a
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. a
Weedon, G. P., Balsamo, G., Bellouin, N., Gomes, S., Best, M. J., and Viterbo,
P.: The WFDEI meteorological forcing data set: WATCH Forcing Data methodology
applied to ERA-Interim reanalysis data, Water Resour. Res., 50,
7505–7514, 2014. a
Wiltshire, A. J., Burke, E. J., Chadburn, S. E., Jones, C. D., Cox, P. M., Davies-Barnard, T., Friedlingstein, P., Harper, A. B., Liddicoat, S., Sitch, S., and Zaehle, S.: JULES-CN: a coupled terrestrial carbon–nitrogen scheme (JULES vn5.1), Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2161–-2186, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2161-2021, 2021. a, b
Witzgall, K., Vidal, A., Schubert, D. I., Höschen, C., Schweizer, S. A.,
Buegger, F., Pouteau, V., Chenu, C., and Mueller, C. W.: Particulate organic
matter as a functional soil component for persistent soil organic carbon,
Nat. Commun., 12, 1–10, 2021. a
Wu, D., Piao, S., Liu, Y., Ciais, P., and Yao, Y.: Evaluation of CMIP5 earth
system models for the spatial patterns of biomass and soil carbon turnover
times and their linkage with climate, J. Climate, 31, 5947–5960,
2018. a
Wu, T., Lu, Y., Fang, Y., Xin, X., Li, L., Li, W., Jie, W., Zhang, J., Liu, Y., Zhang, L., Zhang, F., Zhang, Y., Wu, F., Li, J., Chu, M., Wang, Z., Shi, X., Liu, X., Wei, M., Huang, A., Zhang, Y., and Liu, X.: The Beijing Climate Center Climate System Model (BCC-CSM): the main progress from CMIP5 to CMIP6 , Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 1573–-1600, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1573-2019, 2019. a
Yue, X. and Unger, N.: The Yale Interactive terrestrial Biosphere model version 1.0: description, evaluation and implementation into NASA GISS ModelE2, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 2399–-2417, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-2399-2015, 2015. a
Zhang, Q., Wang, Y.-P., Matear, R., Pitman, A., and Dai, Y.: Nitrogen and
phosphorous limitations significantly reduce future allowable CO2 emissions,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 632–637, 2014. a
Zhao, M., Golaz, J.-C., Held, I., et al.: The GFDL global atmosphere and land
model AM4. 0/LM4. 0: 2. Model description, sensitivity studies, and tuning
strategies, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 10, 735–769,
2018. a
Zhu, D., Peng, S., Ciais, P., Zech, R., Krinner, G., Zimov, S., and Grosse, G.:
Simulating soil organic carbon in yedoma deposits during the Last Glacial
Maximum in a land surface model, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43,
5133–5142, 2016. a
Ziehn, T., Chamberlain, M. A., Law, R. M., Lenton, A., Bodman, R. W., Dix, M.,
Stevens, L., Wang, Y.-P., and Srbinovsky, J.: The Australian Earth System
Model: ACCESS-ESM1. 5, Journal of Southern Hemisphere Earth Systems Science,
70, 193–214, 2020. a
Zimov, S. A., Schuur, E. A., and Chapin III, F. S.: Permafrost and the global
carbon budget, Science (Washington), 312, 1612–1613, 2006. a
Download
- Article
(18664 KB) - Full-text XML
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.
Soil carbon is the Earth’s largest terrestrial carbon store, and the response to climate...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint