Quantifying uncertainties of permafrost carbon-climate feedbacks

被引:74
作者
Burke, Eleanor J. [1 ]
Ekici, Altug [2 ,3 ,4 ]
Huang, Ye [5 ]
Chadburn, Sarah E. [2 ,6 ]
Huntingford, Chris [7 ]
Ciais, Philippe [5 ]
Friedlingstein, Pierre [2 ]
Peng, Shushi [5 ,8 ]
Krinner, Gerhard [9 ]
机构
[1] Met Off Hadley Ctr, FitzRoy Rd, Exeter EX1 3PB, Devon, England
[2] Univ Exeter, Coll Engn Math & Phys Sci, Exeter EX4 4QF, Devon, England
[3] Univ Res Climate, Bergen, Norway
[4] Bjerknes Ctr Climate Res, Bergen, Norway
[5] UVSQ, CEA, Lab Sci Climat & Environm, CNRS,UMR1572, F-91191 Gif Sur Yvette, France
[6] Univ Leeds, Sch Earth & Environm, Leeds LS2 9JT, W Yorkshire, England
[7] Ctr Ecol & Hydrol, Wallingford OX10 8BB, Oxon, England
[8] Peking Univ, Coll Urban & Environm Sci, Sino French Inst Earth Syst Sci, Beijing 100871, Peoples R China
[9] Lab Glaciol & Geophys Environm, F-38402 St Martin Dheres, France
关键词
ENVIRONMENT SIMULATOR JULES; SOIL CARBON; MODEL DESCRIPTION; ANALOG MODEL; RELEASE; REPRESENTATION; SCENARIOS; DYNAMICS; IMPACTS; SCHEME;
D O I
10.5194/bg-14-3051-2017
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
The land surface models JULES (Joint UK Land Environment Simulator, two versions) and ORCHIDEE-MICT (Organizing Carbon and Hydrology in Dynamic Ecosystems), each with a revised representation of permafrost carbon, were coupled to the Integrated Model Of Global Effects of climatic aNomalies (IMOGEN) intermediate-complexity climate and ocean carbon uptake model. IMOGEN calculates atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and local monthly surface climate for a given emission scenario with the land-atmosphere CO2 flux exchange from either JULES or ORCHIDEE-MICT. These simulations include feedbacks associated with permafrost carbon changes in a warming world. Both IMOGEN-JULES and IMOGEN-ORCHIDEE-MICT were forced by historical and three alternative future-CO2-emission scenarios. Those simulations were performed for different climate sensitivities and regional climate change patterns based on 22 different Earth system models (ESMs) used for CMIP3 (phase 3 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project), allowing us to explore climate uncertainties in the context of permafrost carbon-climate feedbacks. Three future emission scenarios consistent with three representative concentration pathways were used: RCP2.6, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5. Paired simulations with and without frozen carbon processes were required to quantify the impact of the permafrost carbon feedback on climate change. The additional warming from the permafrost carbon feedback is between 0.2 and 12% of the change in the global mean temperature (Delta T) by the year 2100 and 0.5 and 17% of Delta T by 2300, with these ranges reflecting differences in land surface models, climate models and emissions pathway. As a percentage of Delta T, the permafrost carbon feedback has a greater impact on the low-emissions scenario (RCP2.6) than on the higher-emissions scenarios, suggesting that permafrost carbon should be taken into account when evaluating scenarios of heavy mitigation and stabilization. Structural differences between the land surface models (particularly the representation of the soil carbon decomposition) are found to be a larger source of uncertainties than differences in the climate response. Inertia in the permafrost carbon system means that the permafrost carbon response depends on the temporal trajectory of warming as well as the absolute amount of warming. We propose a new policy-relevant metric - the frozen carbon residence time (FCRt) in years - that can be derived from these complex land surface models and used to quantify the permafrost carbon response given any pathway of global temperature change.
引用
收藏
页码:3051 / 3066
页数:16
相关论文
共 48 条
[1]   Forcing, feedbacks and climate sensitivity in CMIP5 coupled atmosphere-ocean climate models [J].
Andrews, Timothy ;
Gregory, Jonathan M. ;
Webb, Mark J. ;
Taylor, Karl E. .
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2012, 39
[2]   Carbon-Concentration and Carbon-Climate Feedbacks in CMIP5 Earth System Models [J].
Arora, Vivek K. ;
Boer, George J. ;
Friedlingstein, Pierre ;
Eby, Michael ;
Jones, Chris D. ;
Christian, James R. ;
Bonan, Gordon ;
Bopp, Laurent ;
Brovkin, Victor ;
Cadule, Patricia ;
Hajima, Tomohiro ;
Ilyina, Tatiana ;
Lindsay, Keith ;
Tjiputra, Jerry F. ;
Wu, Tongwen .
JOURNAL OF CLIMATE, 2013, 26 (15) :5289-5314
[3]   Harmonized soil property values for broad-scale modelling (WISE30sec) with estimates of global soil carbon stocks [J].
Batjes, N. H. .
GEODERMA, 2016, 269 :61-68
[4]   The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description - Part 1: Energy and water fluxes [J].
Best, M. J. ;
Pryor, M. ;
Clark, D. B. ;
Rooney, G. G. ;
Essery, R. L. H. ;
Menard, 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. ;
Harding, R. J. .
GEOSCIENTIFIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT, 2011, 4 (03) :677-699
[5]  
Brown J., 1998, CIRCUMARCTIC MAP PER
[6]   Uncertainties in the global temperature change caused by carbon release from permafrost thawing [J].
Burke, E. J. ;
Hartley, I. P. ;
Jones, C. D. .
CRYOSPHERE, 2012, 6 (05) :1063-1076
[7]   A vertical representation of soil carbon in the JULES land surface scheme (vn4.3_permafrost) with a focus on permafrost regions [J].
Burke, Eleanor J. ;
Chadburn, Sarah E. ;
Ekici, Altug .
GEOSCIENTIFIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT, 2017, 10 (02) :959-975
[8]   Estimating the Permafrost-Carbon Climate Response in the CMIP5 Climate Models Using a Simplified Approach [J].
Burke, Eleanor J. ;
Jones, Chris D. ;
Koven, Charles D. .
JOURNAL OF CLIMATE, 2013, 26 (14) :4897-4909
[9]   An improved representation of physical permafrost dynamics in the JULES land-surface model [J].
Chadburn, S. ;
Burke, E. ;
Essery, R. ;
Boike, J. ;
Langer, M. ;
Heikenfeld, M. ;
Cox, P. ;
Friedlingstein, P. .
GEOSCIENTIFIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT, 2015, 8 (05) :1493-1508
[10]  
Chadburn SE, 2017, NAT CLIM CHANGE, V7, P340, DOI [10.1038/nclimate3262, 10.1038/NCLIMATE3262]