Representation of the Terrestrial Carbon Cycle in CMIP6
Authors:
Bettina K. Gier,
Manuel Schlund,
Pierre Friedlingstein,
Chris D. Jones,
Colin Jones,
Sönke Zaehle,
Veronika Eyring
Abstract:
Improvements in the representation of the land carbon cycle in Earth system models participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) include interactive treatment of both the carbon and nitrogen cycles, improved photosynthesis, and soil hydrology. To assess the impact of these model developments on aspects of the global carbon cycle, the Earth System Model Evaluation Tool…
▽ More
Improvements in the representation of the land carbon cycle in Earth system models participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) include interactive treatment of both the carbon and nitrogen cycles, improved photosynthesis, and soil hydrology. To assess the impact of these model developments on aspects of the global carbon cycle, the Earth System Model Evaluation Tool is expanded to compare CO2 concentration and emission-driven historical simulations from CMIP5 and CMIP6 to observational data sets. Overestimations of photosynthesis (GPP) in CMIP5 were largely resolved in CMIP6 for participating models with an interactive nitrogen cycle, but remaining for models without one. This points to the importance of including nutrient limitation. Simulating the leaf area index (LAI) remains challenging with a large model spread in both CMIP5 and CMIP6. In ESMs, global mean land carbon uptake (NBP) is well reproduced in the CMIP5 and CMIP6 multi-model means. However, this is the result of an underestimation of NBP in the northern hemisphere, which is compensated by an overestimation in the southern hemisphere and the tropics. Overall, a slight improvement in the simulation of land carbon cycle parameters is found in CMIP6 compared to CMIP5, but with many biases remaining, further improvements of models in particular for LAI and NBP is required. Emission-driven simulations perform just as well as concentration driven models despite the added process-realism. Due to this we recommend ESMs in future CMIP phases to perform emission-driven simulations as the standard so that climate-carbon cycle feedbacks are fully active. The inclusion of nitrogen limitation led to a large improvement in photosynthesis compared to models not including this process, suggesting the need to view the nitrogen cycle as a necessary part of all future carbon cycle models.
△ Less
Submitted 8 February, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
