Articles | Volume 21, issue 22
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5321-2024
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5321-2024
Research article
 | Highlight paper
 | 
28 Nov 2024
Research article | Highlight paper |  | 28 Nov 2024

Representation of the terrestrial carbon cycle in CMIP6

Bettina K. Gier, Manuel Schlund, Pierre Friedlingstein, Chris D. Jones, Colin Jones, Sönke Zaehle, and Veronika Eyring

Viewed

Total article views: 867 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
478 151 238 867 70 21 22
  • HTML: 478
  • PDF: 151
  • XML: 238
  • Total: 867
  • Supplement: 70
  • BibTeX: 21
  • EndNote: 22
Views and downloads (calculated since 04 Mar 2024)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 04 Mar 2024)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 867 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 898 with geography defined and -31 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Latest update: 28 Nov 2024
Download
Co-editor-in-chief
The work documents the progress in modelling the terrestrial biosphere by including more biology. A new generation of global dynamic vegetation models contributing to the most recent phase of CMIP has included feedbacks between biogeochemical cycling and vegetation development and show improved simulation of photosynthesis. Other model challenges, such as the simulation of leaf area index and carbon pool dynamics still pertain.
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.
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint