Articles | Volume 15, issue 2
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-307-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-307-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| Highlight paper
| 
27 Mar 2024
Research article | Highlight paper |
| 27 Mar 2024
| 27 Mar 2024
Solar radiation modification challenges decarbonization with renewable solar energy
CECI, Université de Toulouse, CERFACS, CNRS, Toulouse, France
Benjamin M. Sanderson
Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research (CICERO), Oslo, Norway
Roland Séférian
CNRM, Université de Toulouse, Météo-France/CNRS, Toulouse, France
Laurent Terray
CECI, Université de Toulouse, CERFACS, CNRS, Toulouse, France
Related authors
Susanne Baur, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, and Laurent Terray
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2344, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2344, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric Aerosol Injections (SAI) could be used alongside mitigation to reduce global warming. Previous studies suggest that more atmospheric CO2 is taken up when SAI is deployed. Here we look at the entire trajectory of SAI deployment from initialization to after termination and show how the initial carbon uptake benefit and therefore lower negative emission burden is reduced in later stages of SAI where it turns into an additional burden to compensate for reduced natural carbon uptake.
Susanne Baur, Alexander Nauels, Zebedee Nicholls, Benjamin M. Sanderson, and Carl-Friedrich Schleussner
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 367–381, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-367-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-367-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Solar radiation modification (SRM) artificially cools global temperature without acting on the cause of climate change. This study looks at how long SRM would have to be deployed to limit warming to 1.5 °C and how this timeframe is affected by different levels of mitigation, negative emissions and climate uncertainty. None of the three factors alone can guarantee short SRM deployment. Due to their uncertainty at the time of SRM initialization, any deployment risks may be several centuries long.
John Patrick Dunne, Helene T. Hewitt, Julie Arblaster, Frédéric Bonou, Olivier Boucher, Tereza Cavazos, Paul J. Durack, Birgit Hassler, Martin Juckes, Tomoki Miyakawa, Matthew Mizielinski, Vaishali Naik, Zeebedee Nicholls, Eleanor O’Rourke, Robert Pincus, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Isla R. Simpson, and Karl E. Taylor
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3874, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3874, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This manuscript provides the motivation and experimental design for the seventh phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP7) to coordinate community based efforts to answer key and timely climate science questions and facilitate delivery of relevant multi-model simulations for: prediction and projection, characterization, attribution and process understanding; vulnerability, impacts and adaptations analysis; national and international climate assessments; and society at large.
Fang Li, Xiang Song, Sandy P. Harrison, Jennifer R. Marlon, Zhongda Lin, L. Ruby Leung, Jörg Schwinger, Virginie Marécal, Shiyu Wang, Daniel S. Ward, Xiao Dong, Hanna Lee, Lars Nieradzik, Sam S. Rabin, and Roland Séférian
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8751–8771, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8751-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8751-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study provides the first comprehensive assessment of historical fire simulations from 19 Earth system models in phase 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). Most models reproduce global totals, spatial patterns, seasonality, and regional historical changes well but fail to simulate the recent decline in global burned area and underestimate the fire response to climate variability. CMIP6 simulations address three critical issues of phase-5 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.
Benjamin Mark Sanderson, Victor Brovkin, Rosie Fisher, David Hohn, Tatiana Ilyina, Chris Jones, Torben Koenigk, Charles Koven, Hongmei Li, David Lawrence, Peter Lawrence, Spencer Liddicoat, Andrew Macdougall, Nadine Mengis, Zebedee Nicholls, Eleanor O'Rourke, Anastasia Romanou, Marit Sandstad, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Seferian, Lori Sentman, Isla Simpson, Chris Smith, Norman Steinert, Abigail Swann, Jerry Tjiputra, and Tilo Ziehn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3356, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3356, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates how climate models warm in response to simplified carbon emissions trajectories, refining understanding of climate reversibility and commitment. Metrics are defined for warming response to cumulative emissions and for the cessation or ramp-down to net-zero and net-negative levels. Results indicate that previous concentration-driven experiments may have overstated zero emissions commitment due to emissions rates exceeding historical levels.
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 Djeutchouang, Xinyu Dou, Carolina Duran Rojas, Kazutaka Enyo, Wiley Evans, Amanda 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 Jain, Tereza Jarníková, Annika Jersild, Fei Jiang, Zhe Jin, Etsushi Kato, Ralph F. Keeling, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Siv K. Lauvset, Nathalie Lefèvre, Zhu Liu, Junjie Liu, Lei Ma, Shamil Maksyutov, Gregg Marland, Nicolas Mayot, Patrick 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 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 Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-519, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-519, 2024
Preprint under review for ESSD
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2024 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 (1750–2024). 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.
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.
Marit Sandstad, Borgar Aamaas, Ane Nordlie Johansen, Marianne Tronstad Lund, Glen Philip Peters, Bjørn Hallvard Samset, Benjamin Mark Sanderson, and Ragnhild Bieltvedt Skeie
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6589–6625, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6589-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6589-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The CICERO-SCM has existed as a Fortran model since 1999 that calculates the radiative forcing and concentrations from emissions and is an upwelling diffusion energy balance model of the ocean that calculates temperature change. In this paper, we describe an updated version ported to Python and publicly available at https://github.com/ciceroOslo/ciceroscm (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10548720). This version contains functionality for parallel runs and automatic calibration.
Susanne Baur, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, and Laurent Terray
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2344, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2344, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric Aerosol Injections (SAI) could be used alongside mitigation to reduce global warming. Previous studies suggest that more atmospheric CO2 is taken up when SAI is deployed. Here we look at the entire trajectory of SAI deployment from initialization to after termination and show how the initial carbon uptake benefit and therefore lower negative emission burden is reduced in later stages of SAI where it turns into an additional burden to compensate for reduced natural carbon uptake.
Saloua Peatier, Benjamin M. Sanderson, and Laurent Terray
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 987–1014, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-987-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-987-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The calibration of Earth system model parameters is a high-dimensionality problem subject to data, time, and computational constraints. In this study, we propose a practical solution for finding diverse near-optimal solutions. We argue that the effective degrees of freedom in the model performance response to parameter input is relatively small. Comparably performing parameter configurations exist and showcase different trade-offs in model errors, providing insights for model development.
Malte Meinshausen, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Kathleen Beyer, Greg Bodeker, Olivier Boucher, Josep G. Canadell, John S. Daniel, Aïda Diongue-Niang, Fatima Driouech, Erich Fischer, Piers Forster, Michael Grose, Gerrit Hansen, Zeke Hausfather, Tatiana Ilyina, Jarmo S. Kikstra, Joyce Kimutai, Andrew D. King, June-Yi Lee, Chris Lennard, Tabea Lissner, Alexander Nauels, Glen P. Peters, Anna Pirani, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Hans Pörtner, Joeri Rogelj, Maisa Rojas, Joyashree Roy, Bjørn H. Samset, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Sonia Seneviratne, Christopher J. Smith, Sophie Szopa, Adelle Thomas, Diana Urge-Vorsatz, Guus J. M. Velders, Tokuta Yokohata, Tilo Ziehn, and Zebedee Nicholls
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4533–4559, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4533-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4533-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The scientific community is considering new scenarios to succeed RCPs and SSPs for the next generation of Earth system model runs to project future climate change. To contribute to that effort, we reflect on relevant policy and scientific research questions and suggest categories for representative emission pathways. These categories are tailored to the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal, high-risk outcomes in the absence of further climate policy and worlds “that could have been”.
Daniele Visioni, Alan Robock, Jim Haywood, Matthew Henry, Simone Tilmes, Douglas G. MacMartin, Ben Kravitz, Sarah J. Doherty, John Moore, Chris Lennard, Shingo Watanabe, Helene Muri, Ulrike Niemeier, Olivier Boucher, Abu Syed, Temitope S. Egbebiyi, Roland Séférian, and Ilaria Quaglia
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2583–2596, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2583-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2583-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes a new experimental protocol for the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). In it, we describe the details of a new simulation of sunlight reflection using the stratospheric aerosols that climate models are supposed to run, and we explain the reasons behind each choice we made when defining the protocol.
Tomohiro Hajima, Michio Kawamiya, Akihiko Ito, Kaoru Tachiiri, Chris Jones, Vivek Arora, Victor Brovkin, Roland Séférian, Spencer Liddicoat, Pierre Friedlingstein, and Elena Shevliakova
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-188, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-188, 2024
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. We successfully identified problems of global carbon budget in each model. We also found urgent issues that should be solved in the latest generation of models, land use change CO2 emissions.
Ali Asaadi, Jörg Schwinger, Hanna Lee, Jerry Tjiputra, Vivek Arora, Roland Séférian, Spencer Liddicoat, Tomohiro Hajima, Yeray Santana-Falcón, and Chris D. Jones
Biogeosciences, 21, 411–435, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-411-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-411-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Carbon cycle feedback metrics are employed to assess phases of positive and negative CO2 emissions. When emissions become negative, we find that the model disagreement in feedback metrics increases more strongly than expected from the assumption that the uncertainties accumulate linearly with time. The geographical patterns of such metrics over land highlight that differences in response between tropical/subtropical and temperate/boreal ecosystems are a major source of model disagreement.
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.
Christoph Heinze, Thorsten Blenckner, Peter Brown, Friederike Fröb, Anne Morée, Adrian L. New, Cara Nissen, Stefanie Rynders, Isabel Seguro, Yevgeny Aksenov, Yuri Artioli, Timothée Bourgeois, Friedrich Burger, Jonathan Buzan, B. B. Cael, Veli Çağlar Yumruktepe, Melissa Chierici, Christopher Danek, Ulf Dieckmann, Agneta Fransson, Thomas Frölicher, Giovanni Galli, Marion Gehlen, Aridane G. González, Melchor Gonzalez-Davila, Nicolas Gruber, Örjan Gustafsson, Judith Hauck, Mikko Heino, Stephanie Henson, Jenny Hieronymus, I. Emma Huertas, Fatma Jebri, Aurich Jeltsch-Thömmes, Fortunat Joos, Jaideep Joshi, Stephen Kelly, Nandini Menon, Precious Mongwe, Laurent Oziel, Sólveig Ólafsdottir, Julien Palmieri, Fiz F. Pérez, Rajamohanan Pillai Ranith, Juliano Ramanantsoa, Tilla Roy, Dagmara Rusiecka, J. Magdalena Santana Casiano, Yeray Santana-Falcón, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Miriam Seifert, Anna Shchiptsova, Bablu Sinha, Christopher Somes, Reiner Steinfeldt, Dandan Tao, Jerry Tjiputra, Adam Ulfsbo, Christoph Völker, Tsuyoshi Wakamatsu, and Ying Ye
Biogeosciences Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2023-182, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2023-182, 2023
Preprint under review for BG
Short summary
Short summary
For assessing the consequences of human-induced climate change for the marine realm, it is necessary to not only look at gradual changes but also at abrupt changes of environmental conditions. We summarise abrupt changes in ocean warming, acidification, and oxygen concentration as the key environmental factors for ecosystems. Taking these abrupt changes into account requires greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced to a larger extent than previously thought to limit respective damage.
Steve Delhaye, Rym Msadek, Thierry Fichefet, François Massonnet, and Laurent Terray
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1748, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1748, 2023
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
The climate impact of Arctic sea ice loss may depend on the region of sea ice loss and the methodology used to study this impact. This study uses two approaches across seven climate models to investigate the winter atmospheric circulation response to regional sea ice loss. Our findings indicate a consistent atmospheric circulation response to pan-Arctic sea ice loss in most models and across both approaches. In contrast, more uncertainty emerges in the responses linked to regional sea ice loss.
Sarah Berthet, Julien Jouanno, Roland Séférian, Marion Gehlen, and William Llovel
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 399–412, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-399-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-399-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Phytoplankton absorbs the solar radiation entering the ocean surface and contributes to keeping the associated energy in surface waters. This natural effect is either not represented in the ocean component of climate models or its representation is simplified. An incomplete representation of this biophysical interaction affects the way climate models simulate ocean warming, which leads to uncertainties in projections of oceanic emissions of an important greenhouse gas (nitrous oxide).
Alban Planchat, Lester Kwiatkowski, Laurent Bopp, Olivier Torres, James R. Christian, Momme Butenschön, Tomas Lovato, Roland Séférian, Matthew A. Chamberlain, Olivier Aumont, Michio Watanabe, Akitomo Yamamoto, Andrew Yool, Tatiana Ilyina, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Kristen M. Krumhardt, Jörg Schwinger, Jerry Tjiputra, John P. Dunne, and Charles Stock
Biogeosciences, 20, 1195–1257, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-1195-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-1195-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Ocean alkalinity is critical to the uptake of atmospheric carbon and acidification in surface waters. We review the representation of alkalinity and the associated calcium carbonate cycle in Earth system models. While many parameterizations remain present in the latest generation of models, there is a general improvement in the simulated alkalinity distribution. This improvement is related to an increase in the export of biotic calcium carbonate, which closer resembles observations.
Susanne Baur, Alexander Nauels, Zebedee Nicholls, Benjamin M. Sanderson, and Carl-Friedrich Schleussner
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 367–381, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-367-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-367-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Solar radiation modification (SRM) artificially cools global temperature without acting on the cause of climate change. This study looks at how long SRM would have to be deployed to limit warming to 1.5 °C and how this timeframe is affected by different levels of mitigation, negative emissions and climate uncertainty. None of the three factors alone can guarantee short SRM deployment. Due to their uncertainty at the time of SRM initialization, any deployment risks may be several centuries long.
Yangxin Chen, Duoying Ji, Qian Zhang, John C. Moore, Olivier Boucher, Andy Jones, Thibaut Lurton, Michael J. Mills, Ulrike Niemeier, Roland Séférian, and Simone Tilmes
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 55–79, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-55-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-55-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Solar geoengineering has been proposed as a way of counteracting the warming effects of increasing greenhouse gases by reflecting solar radiation. This work shows that solar geoengineering can slow down the northern-high-latitude permafrost degradation but cannot preserve the permafrost ecosystem as that under a climate of the same warming level without solar geoengineering.
Benjamin M. Sanderson and Maria Rugenstein
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1715–1736, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1715-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1715-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is a measure of how much long-term warming should be expected in response to a change in greenhouse gas concentrations. It is generally calculated in climate models by extrapolating global average temperatures to a point of where the planet is no longer a net absorber of energy. Here we show that some climate models experience energy leaks which change as the planet warms, undermining the standard approach and biasing some existing model estimates of ECS.
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.
Aurélien Ribes, Julien Boé, Saïd Qasmi, Brigitte Dubuisson, Hervé Douville, and Laurent Terray
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1397–1415, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1397-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1397-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We use a novel statistical method to combine climate simulations and observations, and we deliver an updated assessment of past and future warming over France. As a key result, we find that the warming over that region was underestimated in previous multi-model ensembles by up to 50 %. We also assess the contribution of greenhouse gases, aerosols, and other factors to the observed warming, as well as the impact on the seasonal temperature cycle, and we discuss implications for climate services.
Laurent Bopp, Olivier Aumont, Lester Kwiatkowski, Corentin Clerc, Léonard Dupont, Christian Ethé, Thomas Gorgues, Roland Séférian, and Alessandro Tagliabue
Biogeosciences, 19, 4267–4285, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-4267-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-4267-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The impact of anthropogenic climate change on the biological production of phytoplankton in the ocean is a cause for concern because its evolution could affect the response of marine ecosystems to climate change. Here, we identify biological N fixation and its response to future climate change as a key process in shaping the future evolution of marine phytoplankton production. Our results show that further study of how this nitrogen fixation responds to environmental change is essential.
Pradeebane Vaittinada Ayar, Laurent Bopp, Jim R. Christian, Tatiana Ilyina, John P. Krasting, Roland Séférian, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Michio Watanabe, Andrew Yool, and Jerry Tjiputra
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1097–1118, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1097-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1097-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The El Niño–Southern Oscillation is the main driver for the natural variability of global atmospheric CO2. It modulates the CO2 fluxes in the tropical Pacific with anomalous CO2 influx during El Niño and outflux during La Niña. This relationship is projected to reverse by half of Earth system models studied here under the business-as-usual scenario. This study shows models that simulate a positive bias in surface carbonate concentrations simulate a shift in the ENSO–CO2 flux relationship.
Charles D. Koven, Vivek K. Arora, Patricia Cadule, Rosie A. Fisher, Chris D. Jones, David M. Lawrence, Jared Lewis, Keith Lindsay, Sabine Mathesius, Malte Meinshausen, Michael Mills, Zebedee Nicholls, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Neil C. Swart, William R. Wieder, and Kirsten Zickfeld
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 885–909, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-885-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-885-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We explore the long-term dynamics of Earth's climate and carbon cycles under a pair of contrasting scenarios to the year 2300 using six models that include both climate and carbon cycle dynamics. One scenario assumes very high emissions, while the second assumes a peak in emissions, followed by rapid declines to net negative emissions. We show that the models generally agree that warming is roughly proportional to carbon emissions but that many other aspects of the model projections differ.
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.
Irina Melnikova, Olivier Boucher, Patricia Cadule, Katsumasa Tanaka, Thomas Gasser, Tomohiro Hajima, Yann Quilcaille, Hideo Shiogama, Roland Séférian, Kaoru Tachiiri, Nicolas Vuichard, Tokuta Yokohata, and Philippe Ciais
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 779–794, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-779-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-779-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The deployment of bioenergy crops for capturing carbon from the atmosphere facilitates global warming mitigation via generating negative CO2 emissions. Here, we explored the consequences of large-scale energy crops deployment on the land carbon cycle. The land-use change for energy crops leads to carbon emissions and loss of future potential increase in carbon uptake by natural ecosystems. This impact should be taken into account by the modeling teams and accounted for in mitigation policies.
Simone Tilmes, Daniele Visioni, Andy Jones, James Haywood, Roland Séférian, Pierre Nabat, Olivier Boucher, Ewa Monica Bednarz, and Ulrike Niemeier
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 4557–4579, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-4557-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-4557-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This study assesses the impacts of climate interventions, using stratospheric sulfate aerosol and solar dimming on stratospheric ozone, based on three Earth system models with interactive stratospheric chemistry. The climate interventions have been applied to a high emission (baseline) scenario in order to reach global surface temperatures of a medium emission scenario. We find significant increases and decreases in total column ozone, depending on regions and seasons.
Andy Jones, Jim M. Haywood, Adam A. Scaife, Olivier Boucher, Matthew Henry, Ben Kravitz, Thibaut Lurton, Pierre Nabat, Ulrike Niemeier, Roland Séférian, Simone Tilmes, and Daniele Visioni
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 2999–3016, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2999-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2999-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Simulations by six Earth-system models of geoengineering by introducing sulfuric acid aerosols into the tropical stratosphere are compared. A robust impact on the northern wintertime North Atlantic Oscillation is found, exacerbating precipitation reduction over parts of southern Europe. In contrast, the models show no consistency with regard to impacts on the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation, although results do indicate a risk that the oscillation could become locked into a permanent westerly phase.
Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Louis-Philippe Caron, Saskia Loosveldt Tomas, Javier Vegas-Regidor, Oliver Gutjahr, Marie-Pierre Moine, Dian Putrasahan, Christopher D. Roberts, Malcolm J. Roberts, Retish Senan, Laurent Terray, Etienne Tourigny, and Pier Luigi Vidale
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 269–289, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-269-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-269-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Climate models do not fully reproduce observations: they show differences (biases) in regional temperature, precipitation, or cloud cover. Reducing model biases is important to increase our confidence in their ability to reproduce present and future climate changes. Model realism is set by its resolution: the finer it is, the more physical processes and interactions it can resolve. We here show that increasing resolution of up to ~ 25 km can help reduce model biases but not remove them entirely.
Laurent Terray
Weather Clim. Dynam., 2, 971–989, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-971-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-971-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Attribution of the causes of extreme temperature events has become active research due to the wide-ranging impacts of recent heat waves and cold spells. Here we show that a purely observational approach based on atmospheric circulation analogues and resampling provides a robust quantification of the various dynamic and thermodynamic contributions to specific extreme temperature events. The approach can easily be integrated in the toolbox of any real-time extreme event attribution system.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Angeline G. Pendergrass, Charles D. Koven, Florent Brient, Ben B. B. Booth, Rosie A. Fisher, and Reto Knutti
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 899–918, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-899-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-899-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Emergent constraints promise a pathway to the reduction in climate projection uncertainties by exploiting ensemble relationships between observable quantities and unknown climate response parameters. This study considers the robustness of these relationships in light of biases and common simplifications that may be present in the original ensemble of climate simulations. We propose a classification scheme for constraints and a number of practical case studies.
Camille Besombes, Olivier Pannekoucke, Corentin Lapeyre, Benjamin Sanderson, and Olivier Thual
Nonlin. Processes Geophys., 28, 347–370, https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-28-347-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-28-347-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This paper investigates the potential of a type of deep generative neural network to produce realistic weather situations when trained from the climate of a general circulation model. The generator represents the climate in a compact latent space. It is able to reproduce many aspects of the targeted multivariate distribution. Some properties of our method open new perspectives such as the exploration of the extremes close to a given state or how to connect two realistic weather states.
Daniele Visioni, Douglas G. MacMartin, Ben Kravitz, Olivier Boucher, Andy Jones, Thibaut Lurton, Michou Martine, Michael J. Mills, Pierre Nabat, Ulrike Niemeier, Roland Séférian, and Simone Tilmes
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 10039–10063, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-10039-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-10039-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
A new set of simulations is used to investigate commonalities, differences and sources of uncertainty when simulating the injection of SO2 in the stratosphere in order to mitigate the effects of climate change (solar geoengineering). The models differ in how they simulate the aerosols and how they spread around the stratosphere, resulting in differences in projected regional impacts. Overall, however, the models agree that aerosols have the potential to mitigate the warming produced by GHGs.
Xavier Fettweis, Stefan Hofer, Roland Séférian, Charles Amory, Alison Delhasse, Sébastien Doutreloup, Christoph Kittel, Charlotte Lang, Joris Van Bever, Florent Veillon, and Peter Irvine
The Cryosphere, 15, 3013–3019, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-3013-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-3013-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Without any reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions, the Greenland ice sheet surface mass loss can be brought in line with a medium-mitigation emissions scenario by reducing the solar downward flux at the top of the atmosphere by 1.5 %. In addition to reducing global warming, these solar geoengineering measures also dampen the well-known positive melt–albedo feedback over the ice sheet by 6 %. However, only stronger reductions in solar radiation could maintain a stable ice sheet in 2100.
Josué Bock, Martine Michou, Pierre Nabat, Manabu Abe, Jane P. Mulcahy, Dirk J. L. Olivié, Jörg Schwinger, Parvadha Suntharalingam, Jerry Tjiputra, Marco van Hulten, Michio Watanabe, Andrew Yool, and Roland Séférian
Biogeosciences, 18, 3823–3860, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-3823-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-3823-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
In this study we analyse surface ocean dimethylsulfide (DMS) concentration and flux to the atmosphere from four CMIP6 Earth system models over the historical and ssp585 simulations.
Our analysis of contemporary (1980–2009) climatologies shows that models better reproduce observations in mid to high latitudes. The models disagree on the sign of the trend of the global DMS flux from 1980 onwards. The models agree on a positive trend of DMS over polar latitudes following sea-ice retreat dynamics.
Ben Kravitz, Douglas G. MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, Olivier Boucher, Jason N. S. Cole, Jim Haywood, Andy Jones, Thibaut Lurton, Pierre Nabat, Ulrike Niemeier, Alan Robock, Roland Séférian, and Simone Tilmes
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 4231–4247, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-4231-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-4231-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates multi-model response to idealized geoengineering (high CO2 with solar reduction) across two different generations of climate models. We find that, with the exception of a few cases, the results are unchanged between the different generations. This gives us confidence that broad conclusions about the response to idealized geoengineering are robust.
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.
Gillian Thornhill, William Collins, Dirk Olivié, Ragnhild B. Skeie, Alex Archibald, Susanne Bauer, Ramiro Checa-Garcia, Stephanie Fiedler, Gerd Folberth, Ada Gjermundsen, Larry Horowitz, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Martine Michou, Jane Mulcahy, Pierre Nabat, Vaishali Naik, Fiona M. O'Connor, Fabien Paulot, Michael Schulz, Catherine E. Scott, Roland Séférian, Chris Smith, Toshihiko Takemura, Simone Tilmes, Kostas Tsigaridis, and James Weber
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 1105–1126, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1105-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1105-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We find that increased temperatures affect aerosols and reactive gases by changing natural emissions and their rates of removal from the atmosphere. Changing the composition of these species in the atmosphere affects the radiative budget of the climate system and therefore amplifies or dampens the climate response of climate models of the Earth system. This study found that the largest effect is a dampening of climate change as warmer temperatures increase the emissions of cooling aerosols.
Katherine Dagon, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Rosie A. Fisher, and David M. Lawrence
Adv. Stat. Clim. Meteorol. Oceanogr., 6, 223–244, https://doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-6-223-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-6-223-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Uncertainties in land model projections are important to understand in order to build confidence in Earth system modeling. In this paper, we introduce a framework for estimating uncertain land model parameters with machine learning. This method increases the computational efficiency of this process relative to traditional hand tuning approaches and provides objective methods to assess the results. We further identify key processes and parameters that are important for accurate land modeling.
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.
Lena R. Boysen, Victor Brovkin, Julia Pongratz, David M. Lawrence, Peter Lawrence, Nicolas Vuichard, Philippe Peylin, Spencer Liddicoat, Tomohiro Hajima, Yanwu Zhang, Matthias Rocher, Christine Delire, Roland Séférian, Vivek K. Arora, Lars Nieradzik, Peter Anthoni, Wim Thiery, Marysa M. Laguë, Deborah Lawrence, and Min-Hui Lo
Biogeosciences, 17, 5615–5638, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-5615-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-5615-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We find a biogeophysically induced global cooling with strong carbon losses in a 20 million square kilometre idealized deforestation experiment performed by nine CMIP6 Earth system models. It takes many decades for the temperature signal to emerge, with non-local effects playing an important role. Despite a consistent experimental setup, models diverge substantially in their climate responses. This study offers unprecedented insights for understanding land use change effects in CMIP6 models.
Vivek K. Arora, Anna Katavouta, Richard G. Williams, Chris D. Jones, Victor Brovkin, Pierre Friedlingstein, Jörg Schwinger, Laurent Bopp, Olivier Boucher, Patricia Cadule, Matthew A. Chamberlain, James R. Christian, Christine Delire, Rosie A. Fisher, Tomohiro Hajima, Tatiana Ilyina, Emilie Joetzjer, Michio Kawamiya, Charles D. Koven, John P. Krasting, Rachel M. Law, David M. Lawrence, Andrew Lenton, Keith Lindsay, Julia Pongratz, Thomas Raddatz, Roland Séférian, Kaoru Tachiiri, Jerry F. Tjiputra, Andy Wiltshire, Tongwen Wu, and Tilo Ziehn
Biogeosciences, 17, 4173–4222, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-4173-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-4173-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Since the preindustrial period, land and ocean have taken up about half of the carbon emitted into the atmosphere by humans. Comparison of different earth system models with the carbon cycle allows us to assess how carbon uptake by land and ocean differs among models. This yields an estimate of uncertainty in our understanding of how land and ocean respond to increasing atmospheric CO2. This paper summarizes results from two such model intercomparison projects that use an idealized scenario.
Benjamin Sanderson
Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 721–735, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-721-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-721-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Here, we assess the degree to which the idealized responses to transient forcing increase and step change forcing increase relate to warming under future scenarios. We find a possible explanation for the poor performance of transient metrics (relative to equilibrium response) as a metric of high-emission future warming in terms of their sensitivity to non-equilibrated initial conditions, and propose alternative metrics which better describe warming under high mitigation scenarios.
Lester Kwiatkowski, Olivier Torres, Laurent Bopp, Olivier Aumont, Matthew Chamberlain, James R. Christian, John P. Dunne, Marion Gehlen, Tatiana Ilyina, Jasmin G. John, Andrew Lenton, Hongmei Li, Nicole S. Lovenduski, James C. Orr, Julien Palmieri, Yeray Santana-Falcón, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Charles A. Stock, Alessandro Tagliabue, Yohei Takano, Jerry Tjiputra, Katsuya Toyama, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Michio Watanabe, Akitomo Yamamoto, Andrew Yool, and Tilo Ziehn
Biogeosciences, 17, 3439–3470, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-3439-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-3439-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We assess 21st century projections of marine biogeochemistry in the CMIP6 Earth system models. These models represent the most up-to-date understanding of climate change. The models generally project greater surface ocean warming, acidification, subsurface deoxygenation, and euphotic nitrate reductions but lesser primary production declines than the previous generation of models. This has major implications for the impact of anthropogenic climate change on marine ecosystems.
Benjamin Sanderson
Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 563–577, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-563-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-563-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Levels of future temperature change are often used interchangeably with carbon budget allowances in climate policy, a relatively robust relationship on the timescale of this century. However, recent advances in understanding underline that continued warming after net-zero emissions have been achieved cannot be ruled out by observations of warming to date. We consider here how such behavior could be constrained and how policy can be framed in the context of these uncertainties.
Andrew H. MacDougall, Thomas L. Frölicher, Chris D. Jones, Joeri Rogelj, H. Damon Matthews, Kirsten Zickfeld, Vivek K. Arora, Noah J. Barrett, Victor Brovkin, Friedrich A. Burger, Micheal Eby, Alexey V. Eliseev, Tomohiro Hajima, Philip B. Holden, Aurich Jeltsch-Thömmes, Charles Koven, Nadine Mengis, Laurie Menviel, Martine Michou, Igor I. Mokhov, Akira Oka, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Gary Shaffer, Andrei Sokolov, Kaoru Tachiiri, Jerry Tjiputra, Andrew Wiltshire, and Tilo Ziehn
Biogeosciences, 17, 2987–3016, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-2987-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-2987-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The Zero Emissions Commitment (ZEC) is the change in global temperature expected to occur following the complete cessation of CO2 emissions. Here we use 18 climate models to assess the value of ZEC. For our experiment we find that ZEC 50 years after emissions cease is between −0.36 to +0.29 °C. The most likely value of ZEC is assessed to be close to zero. However, substantial continued warming for decades or centuries following cessation of CO2 emission cannot be ruled out.
Reinhard Schiemann, Panos Athanasiadis, David Barriopedro, Francisco Doblas-Reyes, Katja Lohmann, Malcolm J. Roberts, Dmitry V. Sein, Christopher D. Roberts, Laurent Terray, and Pier Luigi Vidale
Weather Clim. Dynam., 1, 277–292, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-1-277-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-1-277-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
In blocking situations the westerly atmospheric flow in the midlatitudes is blocked by near-stationary high-pressure systems. Blocking can be associated with extremes such as cold spells and heat waves. Climate models are known to underestimate blocking occurrence. Here, we assess the latest generation of models and find improvements in simulated blocking, partly due to increases in model resolution. These new models are therefore more suitable for studying climate extremes related to blocking.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Matthew W. Jones, Michael O'Sullivan, Robbie M. Andrew, Judith Hauck, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Stephen Sitch, Corinne Le Quéré, Dorothee C. E. Bakker, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Peter Anthoni, Leticia Barbero, Ana Bastos, Vladislav Bastrikov, Meike Becker, Laurent Bopp, Erik Buitenhuis, Naveen Chandra, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Kim I. Currie, Richard A. Feely, Marion Gehlen, Dennis Gilfillan, Thanos Gkritzalis, Daniel S. Goll, Nicolas Gruber, Sören Gutekunst, Ian Harris, Vanessa Haverd, Richard A. Houghton, George Hurtt, Tatiana Ilyina, Atul K. Jain, Emilie Joetzjer, Jed O. Kaplan, Etsushi Kato, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Peter Landschützer, Siv K. Lauvset, Nathalie Lefèvre, Andrew Lenton, Sebastian Lienert, Danica Lombardozzi, Gregg Marland, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, Nicolas Metzl, David R. Munro, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Craig Neill, Abdirahman M. Omar, Tsuneo Ono, Anna Peregon, Denis Pierrot, Benjamin Poulter, Gregor Rehder, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Roland Séférian, Jörg Schwinger, Naomi Smith, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Francesco N. Tubiello, Guido R. van der Werf, Andrew J. Wiltshire, and Sönke Zaehle
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 11, 1783–1838, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-1783-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-1783-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2019 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.
Chris D. Jones, Thomas L. Frölicher, Charles Koven, Andrew H. MacDougall, H. Damon Matthews, Kirsten Zickfeld, Joeri Rogelj, Katarzyna B. Tokarska, Nathan P. Gillett, Tatiana Ilyina, Malte Meinshausen, Nadine Mengis, Roland Séférian, Michael Eby, and Friedrich A. Burger
Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 4375–4385, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4375-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4375-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
Global warming is simply related to the total emission of CO2 allowing us to define a carbon budget. However, information on the Zero Emissions Commitment is a key missing link to assess remaining carbon budgets to achieve the climate targets of the Paris Agreement. It was therefore decided that a small targeted MIP activity to fill this knowledge gap would be extremely valuable. This article formalises the experimental design alongside the other CMIP6 documentation papers.
Ludivine Conte, Sophie Szopa, Roland Séférian, and Laurent Bopp
Biogeosciences, 16, 881–902, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-881-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-881-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
The ocean is a source of atmospheric carbon monoxide, a key component for the oxidizing capacity of the atmosphere. We use a global ocean biogeochemistry model to dynamically assess the oceanic CO budget and its emission to the atmosphere at the global scale. The total emissions of CO to the atmosphere are 4.0 Tg C yr−1. The oceanic CO emission maps produced are relevant for use by atmospheric chemical models, especially to study the oxidizing capacity of the atmosphere above the remote ocean.
Corinne Le Quéré, Robbie M. Andrew, Pierre Friedlingstein, Stephen Sitch, Judith Hauck, Julia Pongratz, Penelope A. Pickers, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Glen P. Peters, Josep G. Canadell, Almut Arneth, Vivek K. Arora, Leticia Barbero, Ana Bastos, Laurent Bopp, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Philippe Ciais, Scott C. Doney, Thanos Gkritzalis, Daniel S. Goll, Ian Harris, Vanessa Haverd, Forrest M. Hoffman, Mario Hoppema, Richard A. Houghton, George Hurtt, Tatiana Ilyina, Atul K. Jain, Truls Johannessen, Chris D. Jones, Etsushi Kato, Ralph F. Keeling, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Peter Landschützer, Nathalie Lefèvre, Sebastian Lienert, Zhu Liu, Danica Lombardozzi, Nicolas Metzl, David R. Munro, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Shin-ichiro Nakaoka, Craig Neill, Are Olsen, Tsueno Ono, Prabir Patra, Anna Peregon, Wouter Peters, Philippe Peylin, Benjamin Pfeil, Denis Pierrot, Benjamin Poulter, Gregor Rehder, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Matthias Rocher, Christian Rödenbeck, Ute Schuster, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Ingunn Skjelvan, Tobias Steinhoff, Adrienne Sutton, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Francesco N. Tubiello, Ingrid T. van der Laan-Luijkx, Guido R. van der Werf, Nicolas Viovy, Anthony P. Walker, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Rebecca Wright, Sönke Zaehle, and Bo Zheng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 2141–2194, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-2141-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-2141-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2018 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.
Michael Wehner, Dáithí Stone, Dann Mitchell, Hideo Shiogama, Erich Fischer, Lise S. Graff, Viatcheslav V. Kharin, Ludwig Lierhammer, Benjamin Sanderson, and Harinarayan Krishnan
Earth Syst. Dynam., 9, 299–311, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-299-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-299-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change challenged the scientific community to describe the impacts of stabilizing the global temperature at its 21st Conference of Parties. A specific target of 1.5 °C above preindustrial levels had not been seriously considered by the climate modeling community prior to the Paris Agreement. This paper analyzes heat waves in simulations designed for this target. We find there are reductions in extreme temperature compared to a 2 °C target.
Corinne Le Quéré, Robbie M. Andrew, Pierre Friedlingstein, Stephen Sitch, Julia Pongratz, Andrew C. Manning, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Glen P. Peters, Josep G. Canadell, Robert B. Jackson, Thomas A. Boden, Pieter P. Tans, Oliver D. Andrews, Vivek K. Arora, Dorothee C. E. Bakker, Leticia Barbero, Meike Becker, Richard A. Betts, Laurent Bopp, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Philippe Ciais, Catherine E. Cosca, Jessica Cross, Kim Currie, Thomas Gasser, Ian Harris, Judith Hauck, Vanessa Haverd, Richard A. Houghton, Christopher W. Hunt, George Hurtt, Tatiana Ilyina, Atul K. Jain, Etsushi Kato, Markus Kautz, Ralph F. Keeling, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Arne Körtzinger, Peter Landschützer, Nathalie Lefèvre, Andrew Lenton, Sebastian Lienert, Ivan Lima, Danica Lombardozzi, Nicolas Metzl, Frank Millero, Pedro M. S. Monteiro, David R. Munro, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Shin-ichiro Nakaoka, Yukihiro Nojiri, X. Antonio Padin, Anna Peregon, Benjamin Pfeil, Denis Pierrot, Benjamin Poulter, Gregor Rehder, Janet Reimer, Christian Rödenbeck, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Ingunn Skjelvan, Benjamin D. Stocker, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Francesco N. Tubiello, Ingrid T. van der Laan-Luijkx, Guido R. van der Werf, Steven van Heuven, Nicolas Viovy, Nicolas Vuichard, Anthony P. Walker, Andrew J. Watson, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Sönke Zaehle, and Dan Zhu
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 405–448, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-405-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-405-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2017 describes data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. It is the 12th annual update and the 6th published in this journal.
Nadja Herger, Gab Abramowitz, Reto Knutti, Oliver Angélil, Karsten Lehmann, and Benjamin M. Sanderson
Earth Syst. Dynam., 9, 135–151, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-135-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-135-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Users presented with large multi-model ensembles commonly use the equally weighted model mean as a best estimate, ignoring the issue of near replication of some climate models. We present an efficient and flexible tool that finds a subset of models with improved mean performance compared to the multi-model mean while at the same time maintaining the spread and addressing the problem of model interdependence. Out-of-sample skill and reliability are demonstrated using model-as-truth experiments.
Roland Séférian, Sunghye Baek, Olivier Boucher, Jean-Louis Dufresne, Bertrand Decharme, David Saint-Martin, and Romain Roehrig
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 321–338, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-321-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-321-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents a new interactive scheme for ocean surface albedo suited for the current generation of Earth system models. This scheme computes the ocean surface albedo accounting for the spectral dependence (across a range of wavelengths between 200 and 4000 nm), the characteristics of incident solar radiation (direct of diffuse), the effects of surface winds, chlorophyll content and whitecaps in addition to the canonical solar zenith angle dependence.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Yangyang Xu, Claudia Tebaldi, Michael Wehner, Brian O'Neill, Alexandra Jahn, Angeline G. Pendergrass, Flavio Lehner, Warren G. Strand, Lei Lin, Reto Knutti, and Jean Francois Lamarque
Earth Syst. Dynam., 8, 827–847, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-827-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-827-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
We present the results of a set of climate simulations designed to simulate futures in which the Earth's temperature is stabilized at the levels referred to in the 2015 Paris Agreement. We consider the necessary future emissions reductions and the aspects of extreme weather which differ significantly between the 2 and 1.5 °C climate in the simulations.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Michael Wehner, and Reto Knutti
Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 2379–2395, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2379-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2379-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
How should climate model simulations be combined to produce an overall assessment that reflects both their performance and their interdependencies? This paper presents a strategy for weighting climate model output such that models that are replicated or models that perform poorly in a chosen set of metrics are appropriately weighted. We perform sensitivity tests to show how the method results depend on variables and parameter values.
Adrien Napoly, Aaron Boone, Patrick Samuelsson, Stefan Gollvik, Eric Martin, Roland Seferian, Dominique Carrer, Bertrand Decharme, and Lionel Jarlan
Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1621–1644, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1621-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1621-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
This paper is the second part of a new parameterization for canopy representation that has been developed in the Interactions between the Surface Biosphere Atmosphere model (ISBA). A module for the explicit representation of the litter bellow forest canopies has been added. Then, the first evaluation of these new developments is performed at local scale among three well-instrumented sites and then at the global scale using the FLUXNET network.
Laurent Bessières, Stéphanie Leroux, Jean-Michel Brankart, Jean-Marc Molines, Marie-Pierre Moine, Pierre-Antoine Bouttier, Thierry Penduff, Laurent Terray, Bernard Barnier, and Guillaume Sérazin
Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1091–1106, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1091-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1091-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
A new, probabilistic version of an ocean modelling system has been implemented in order to simulate the chaotic and the atmospherically forced contributions to the ocean variability. For that purpose, a large ensemble of global hindcasts has been performed. Results illustrate the importance of the oceanic chaos on climate-related oceanic indices, and the relevance of such probabilistic ocean modelling approaches to anticipating the behaviour of the next generation of coupled climate models.
Allison H. Baker, Dorit M. Hammerling, Sheri A. Mickelson, Haiying Xu, Martin B. Stolpe, Phillipe Naveau, Ben Sanderson, Imme Ebert-Uphoff, Savini Samarasinghe, Francesco De Simone, Francesco Carbone, Christian N. Gencarelli, John M. Dennis, Jennifer E. Kay, and Peter Lindstrom
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 4381–4403, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-4381-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-4381-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
We apply lossy data compression to output from the Community Earth System Model Large Ensemble Community Project. We challenge climate scientists to examine features of the data relevant to their interests and identify which of the ensemble members have been compressed, and we perform direct comparisons on features critical to climate science. We find that applying lossy data compression to climate model data effectively reduces data volumes with minimal effect on scientific results.
Corinne Le Quéré, Robbie M. Andrew, Josep G. Canadell, Stephen Sitch, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Glen P. Peters, Andrew C. Manning, Thomas A. Boden, Pieter P. Tans, Richard A. Houghton, Ralph F. Keeling, Simone Alin, Oliver D. Andrews, Peter Anthoni, Leticia Barbero, Laurent Bopp, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Philippe Ciais, Kim Currie, Christine Delire, Scott C. Doney, Pierre Friedlingstein, Thanos Gkritzalis, Ian Harris, Judith Hauck, Vanessa Haverd, Mario Hoppema, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Atul K. Jain, Etsushi Kato, Arne Körtzinger, Peter Landschützer, Nathalie Lefèvre, Andrew Lenton, Sebastian Lienert, Danica Lombardozzi, Joe R. Melton, Nicolas Metzl, Frank Millero, Pedro M. S. Monteiro, David R. Munro, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Shin-ichiro Nakaoka, Kevin O'Brien, Are Olsen, Abdirahman M. Omar, Tsuneo Ono, Denis Pierrot, Benjamin Poulter, Christian Rödenbeck, Joe Salisbury, Ute Schuster, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Ingunn Skjelvan, Benjamin D. Stocker, Adrienne J. Sutton, Taro Takahashi, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Ingrid T. van der Laan-Luijkx, Guido R. van der Werf, Nicolas Viovy, Anthony P. Walker, Andrew J. Wiltshire, and Sönke Zaehle
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 8, 605–649, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-8-605-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-8-605-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2016 is the 11th annual update of emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land, and ocean. This data synthesis brings together measurements, statistical information, and analyses of model results in order to provide an assessment of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties for years 1959 to 2015, with a projection for year 2016.
Brian C. O'Neill, Claudia Tebaldi, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Veronika Eyring, Pierre Friedlingstein, George Hurtt, Reto Knutti, Elmar Kriegler, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Jason Lowe, Gerald A. Meehl, Richard Moss, Keywan Riahi, and Benjamin M. Sanderson
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3461–3482, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3461-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3461-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) will provide multi-model climate projections based on alternative scenarios of future emissions and land use changes produced with integrated assessment models. The design consists of eight alternative 21st century scenarios plus one large initial condition ensemble and a set of long-term extensions. Climate model projections will facilitate integrated studies of climate change as well as address targeted scientific questions.
Charlotte Laufkötter, Meike Vogt, Nicolas Gruber, Olivier Aumont, Laurent Bopp, Scott C. Doney, John P. Dunne, Judith Hauck, Jasmin G. John, Ivan D. Lima, Roland Seferian, and Christoph Völker
Biogeosciences, 13, 4023–4047, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-4023-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-4023-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
We compare future projections in marine export production, generated by four ecosystem models under IPCC's high-emission scenario RCP8.5. While all models project decreases in export, they differ strongly regarding the drivers. The formation of sinking particles of organic matter is the most uncertain process with models not agreeing on either magnitude or the direction of change. Changes in diatom concentration are a strong driver for export in some models but of low significance in others.
Roland Séférian, Marion Gehlen, Laurent Bopp, Laure Resplandy, James C. Orr, Olivier Marti, John P. Dunne, James R. Christian, Scott C. Doney, Tatiana Ilyina, Keith Lindsay, Paul R. Halloran, Christoph Heinze, Joachim Segschneider, Jerry Tjiputra, Olivier Aumont, and Anastasia Romanou
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1827–1851, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1827-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1827-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
This paper explores how the large diversity in spin-up protocols used for ocean biogeochemistry in CMIP5 models contributed to inter-model differences in modeled fields. We show that a link between spin-up duration and skill-score metrics emerges from both individual IPSL-CM5A-LR's results and an ensemble of CMIP5 models. Our study suggests that differences in spin-up protocols constitute a source of inter-model uncertainty which would require more attention in future intercomparison exercises.
Roland Séférian, Christine Delire, Bertrand Decharme, Aurore Voldoire, David Salas y Melia, Matthieu Chevallier, David Saint-Martin, Olivier Aumont, Jean-Christophe Calvet, Dominique Carrer, Hervé Douville, Laurent Franchistéguy, Emilie Joetzjer, and Séphane Sénési
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1423–1453, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1423-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1423-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents the first IPCC-class Earth system model developed at Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques (CNRM-ESM1). We detail how the various carbon reservoirs were initialized and analyze the behavior of the carbon cycle and its prominent physical drivers, comparing model results to the most up-to-date climate and carbon cycle dataset over the latest decades.
C. Laufkötter, M. Vogt, N. Gruber, M. Aita-Noguchi, O. Aumont, L. Bopp, E. Buitenhuis, S. C. Doney, J. Dunne, T. Hashioka, J. Hauck, T. Hirata, J. John, C. Le Quéré, I. D. Lima, H. Nakano, R. Seferian, I. Totterdell, M. Vichi, and C. Völker
Biogeosciences, 12, 6955–6984, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-6955-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-6955-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
We analyze changes in marine net primary production (NPP) and its drivers for the 21st century in 9 marine ecosystem models under the RCP8.5 scenario. NPP decreases in 5 models and increases in 1 model; 3 models show no significant trend. The main drivers include stronger nutrient limitation, but in many models warming-induced increases in phytoplankton growth outbalance the nutrient effect. Temperature-driven increases in grazing and other loss processes cause a net decrease in biomass and NPP.
C. Le Quéré, R. Moriarty, R. M. Andrew, J. G. Canadell, S. Sitch, J. I. Korsbakken, P. Friedlingstein, G. P. Peters, R. J. Andres, T. A. Boden, R. A. Houghton, J. I. House, R. F. Keeling, P. Tans, A. Arneth, D. C. E. Bakker, L. Barbero, L. Bopp, J. Chang, F. Chevallier, L. P. Chini, P. Ciais, M. Fader, R. A. Feely, T. Gkritzalis, I. Harris, J. Hauck, T. Ilyina, A. K. Jain, E. Kato, V. Kitidis, K. Klein Goldewijk, C. Koven, P. Landschützer, S. K. Lauvset, N. Lefèvre, A. Lenton, I. D. Lima, N. Metzl, F. Millero, D. R. Munro, A. Murata, J. E. M. S. Nabel, S. Nakaoka, Y. Nojiri, K. O'Brien, A. Olsen, T. Ono, F. F. Pérez, B. Pfeil, D. Pierrot, B. Poulter, G. Rehder, C. Rödenbeck, S. Saito, U. Schuster, J. Schwinger, R. Séférian, T. Steinhoff, B. D. Stocker, A. J. Sutton, T. Takahashi, B. Tilbrook, I. T. van der Laan-Luijkx, G. R. van der Werf, S. van Heuven, D. Vandemark, N. Viovy, A. Wiltshire, S. Zaehle, and N. Zeng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 7, 349–396, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-7-349-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-7-349-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere is important to understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. We describe data sets and a methodology to quantify all major components of the global carbon budget, including their uncertainties, based on a range of data and models and their interpretation by a broad scientific community.
C. Le Quéré, R. Moriarty, R. M. Andrew, G. P. Peters, P. Ciais, P. Friedlingstein, S. D. Jones, S. Sitch, P. Tans, A. Arneth, T. A. Boden, L. Bopp, Y. Bozec, J. G. Canadell, L. P. Chini, F. Chevallier, C. E. Cosca, I. Harris, M. Hoppema, R. A. Houghton, J. I. House, A. K. Jain, T. Johannessen, E. Kato, R. F. Keeling, V. Kitidis, K. Klein Goldewijk, C. Koven, C. S. Landa, P. Landschützer, A. Lenton, I. D. Lima, G. Marland, J. T. Mathis, N. Metzl, Y. Nojiri, A. Olsen, T. Ono, S. Peng, W. Peters, B. Pfeil, B. Poulter, M. R. Raupach, P. Regnier, C. Rödenbeck, S. Saito, J. E. Salisbury, U. Schuster, J. Schwinger, R. Séférian, J. Segschneider, T. Steinhoff, B. D. Stocker, A. J. Sutton, T. Takahashi, B. Tilbrook, G. R. van der Werf, N. Viovy, Y.-P. Wang, R. Wanninkhof, A. Wiltshire, and N. Zeng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 7, 47–85, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-7-47-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-7-47-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from human activities (burning fossil fuels and cement production, deforestation and other land-use change) are set to rise again in 2014.
This study (updated yearly) makes an accurate assessment of anthropogenic CO2 emissions and their redistribution between the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in order to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change.
M. Gehlen, R. Séférian, D. O. B. Jones, T. Roy, R. Roth, J. Barry, L. Bopp, S. C. Doney, J. P. Dunne, C. Heinze, F. Joos, J. C. Orr, L. Resplandy, J. Segschneider, and J. Tjiputra
Biogeosciences, 11, 6955–6967, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-6955-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-6955-2014, 2014
Short summary
Short summary
This study evaluates potential impacts of pH reductions on North Atlantic deep-sea ecosystems in response to latest IPCC scenarios.Multi-model projections of pH changes over the seafloor are analysed with reference to a critical threshold based on palaeo-oceanographic studies, contemporary observations and model results. By 2100 under the most severe IPCC CO2 scenario, pH reductions occur over ~23% of deep-sea canyons and ~8% of seamounts – including seamounts proposed as marine protected areas.
R. Séférian, L. Bopp, D. Swingedouw, and J. Servonnat
Earth Syst. Dynam., 4, 109–127, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-4-109-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-4-109-2013, 2013
Related subject area
Topics: Climate change | Interactions: Human/Earth system interactions | Methods: Earth system and climate modeling
Early warnings of the transition to a superrotating atmospheric state
Consistent increase in East Asian Summer Monsoon rainfall and its variability under climate change over China in CMIP6
Fire weather compromises forestation-reliant climate mitigation pathways
Global cropland expansion enhances cropping potential and reduces its inequality among countries
The Indonesian Throughflow circulation under solar geoengineering
ESD Ideas: Arctic amplification's contribution to breaches of the Paris Agreement
Mark S. Williamson and Timothy M. Lenton
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1483–1508, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1483-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1483-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate models have transitioned to a superrotating atmospheric state under a broad range of warm climates. Such a transition would change global weather patterns should it occur. Here we simulate this transition using an idealized climate model and look for any early warnings of the superrotating state before it happens. We find several early warning indicators that we attribute to an oscillating pattern in the windfield fluctuations.
Anja Katzenberger and Anders Levermann
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1137–1151, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1137-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1137-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
A fifth of the world's population lives in eastern China, whose climate is dominated by the East Asian Summer Monsoon (EASM). Therefore, it is important to know how the EASM will change under global warming. Here, we use the data of 34 climate models of the latest generation to understand how the EASM will change throughout the 21st century. The models project that the EASM will intensify and that variability between years will increase associated with an increase in extremely wet seasons.
Felix Jäger, Jonas Schwaab, Yann Quilcaille, Michael Windisch, Jonathan Doelman, Stefan Frank, Mykola Gusti, Petr Havlik, Florian Humpenöder, Andrey Lessa Derci Augustynczik, Christoph Müller, Kanishka Balu Narayan, Ryan Sebastian Padrón, Alexander Popp, Detlef van Vuuren, Michael Wögerer, and Sonia Isabelle Seneviratne
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1055–1071, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1055-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1055-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate change mitigation strategies developed with socioeconomic models rely on the widespread (re)planting of trees to limit global warming below 2°. However, most of these models neglect climate-driven shifts in forest damage like fires. By assessing existing mitigation scenarios, we show the exposure of projected forestation areas to fire-promoting weather conditions. Our study highlights the problem of ignoring climate-driven shifts in forest damage and ways to address it.
Xiaoxuan Liu, Peng Zhu, Shu Liu, Le Yu, Yong Wang, Zhenrong Du, Dailiang Peng, Ece Aksoy, Hui Lu, and Peng Gong
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 817–828, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-817-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-817-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
An increase of 28 % in cropland expansion since 10 000 BCE has led to a 1.2 % enhancement in the global cropping potential, with varying efficiencies across regions. The continuous expansion has altered the support for population growth and has had impacts on climate and biodiversity, highlighting the effects of climate change. It also points out the limitations of previous studies.
Chencheng Shen, John C. Moore, Heri Kuswanto, and Liyun Zhao
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 1317–1332, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-1317-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-1317-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Indonesia Throughflow is an important pathway connecting the Pacific and Indian oceans and is part of a wind-driven circulation that is expected to reduce under greenhouse gas forcing. Solar dimming and sulfate aerosol injection geoengineering may reverse this effect. But stratospheric sulfate aerosols affect winds more than simply ``shading the sun''; they cause a reduction in water transport similar to that we simulate for a scenario with unabated greenhouse gas emissions.
Alistair Duffey, Robbie Mallett, Peter J. Irvine, Michel Tsamados, and Julienne Stroeve
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 1165–1169, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-1165-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-1165-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Arctic is warming several times faster than the rest of the planet. Here, we use climate model projections to quantify for the first time how this faster warming in the Arctic impacts the timing of crossing the 1.5 °C and 2 °C thresholds defined in the Paris Agreement. We show that under plausible emissions scenarios that fail to meet the Paris 1.5 °C target, a hypothetical world without faster warming in the Arctic would breach that 1.5 °C target around 5 years later.
Cited articles
Angel, R.: Feasibility of cooling the Earth with a cloud of small spacecraft near the inner Lagrange point (L1), P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 103, 17184–17189, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0608163103, 2006.
Bartók, B., Wild, M., Folini, D., Lüthi, D., Kotlarski, S., Schär, C., Vautard, R., Jerez, S., and Imecs, Z.: Projected changes in surface solar radiation in CMIP5 global climate models and in EURO-CORDEX regional climate models for Europe, Clim. Dynam., 49, 2665–2683, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-016-3471-2, 2017.
Baur, S.: Data and code for journal article Solar Radiation Modification challenges decarbonisation with renewable solar energy, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10658589, 2024.
Baur, S., Nauels, A., Nicholls, Z., Sanderson, B. M., and Schleussner, C.-F.: The deployment length of solar radiation modification: an interplay of mitigation, net-negative emissions and climate uncertainty, Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 367–381, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-367-2023, 2023.
Bazyomo, S. D. Y. B., Agnidé Lawin, E., Coulibaly, O., and Ouedraogo, A.: Forecasted Changes in West Africa Photovoltaic Energy Output by 2045, Climate, 4, 53, https://doi.org/10.3390/cli4040053, 2016.
Belaia, M., Moreno-Cruz, J. B., and Keith, D. W.: Optimal climate policy in 3D: mitigation, carbon removal, and solar geoengineering, Clim. Change Econ., 12, 2150008, https://doi.org/10.1142/S2010007821500081, 2021.
Bellamy, R., Chilvers, J., and Vaughan, N. E.: Deliberative Mapping of options for tackling climate change: Citizens and specialists “open up” appraisal of geoengineering, Public Underst. Sci., 25, 269–286, https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514548628, 2016.
Boucher, O., Randall, D., Artaxo, P., Bretherton, C., Feingold, G., Forster, P., Kerminen, V. M., Kondo, Y., Liao, H., Lohmann, U., Rasch, P., Satheesh, S. K., Sherwood, S., Stevens, B., and Zhang, X. Y.: Clouds and aerosols, in: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Working Group I Contribution 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, 571–658, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.016, 2013.
Budyko, M. I.: The future climate. Eos Trans, American Geophysical Union, 53, 868–874, https://doi.org/10.1029/EO053i010p00868, 1978.
Burns, E. T., Flegal, J. A., Keith, D. W., Mahajan, A., Tingley, D., and Wagner, G.: What do people think when they think about solar geoengineering? A review of empirical social science literature, and prospects for future research, Earth's Future, 4, 536–542, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000461, 2016.
Chu, C.-T. and Hawkes, A. D.: A geographic information system-based global variable renewable potential assessment using spatially resolved simulation, Energy, 193, 116630, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116630, 2020.
Clarke, L., Wei, Y.-M., De La Vega Navarro, A., Garg, A., Hahmann, A. N., Khennas, S., Azevedo, I. M. L., Löschel, A., Singh, A. K., Steg, L., Strbac, G., and Wada, K.: Energy Systems, in: IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Shukla, P. R., Skea, J., Slade, R., Al Khourdajie, A., van Diemen, R., McCollum, D., Pathak, M., Some, S., Vyas, P., Fradera, R., Belkacemi, M., Hasija, A., Lisboa, G., Luz, S., and Malley, J., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.008, 2022.
Crook, J. A., Jones, L. A., Forster, P. M., and Crook, R.: Climate change impacts on future photovoltaic and concentrated solar power energy output, Energ. Environ. Sci., 4, 3101–3109, https://doi.org/10.1039/c1ee01495a, 2011.
Crutzen, P. J.: Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma?, Climatic Change, 77, 211–220, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9101-y, 2006.
Cziczo, D. J., Wolf, M. J., Gasparini, B., Münch, S., and Lohmann, U.: Unanticipated Side Effects of Stratospheric Albedo Modification Proposals Due to Aerosol Composition and Phase, Sci. Rep., 9, 18825, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-53595-3, 2019.
de Vries, B. J. M., van Vuuren, D. P., and Hoogwijk, M. M.: Renewable energy sources: Their global potential for the first-half of the 21st century at a global level: An integrated approach, Energ. Policy, 35, 2590–2610, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.09.002, 2007.
Doelman, J. C., Stehfest, E., Tabeau, A., Van Meijl, H., Lassaletta, L., Gernaat, D. E. H. J., Hermans, K., Harmsen, M., Daioglou, V., Biemans, H., Van Der Sluis, S., and Van Vuuren, D. P.: Exploring SSP land-use dynamics using the IMAGE model: Regional and gridded scenarios of land-use change and land-based climate change mitigation, Glob. Environ. Change, 48, 119–135, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.11.014, 2018.
Dubey, S., Sarvaiya, J. N., and Seshadri, B.: Temperature Dependent Photovoltaic (PV) Efficiency and Its Effect on PV Production in the World – A Review, Energy Proced., 33, 311–321, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.05.072, 2013.
Dutta, R., Chanda, K., and Maity, R.: Future of solar energy potential in a changing climate across the world: A CMIP6 multi-model ensemble analysis, Renew. Energ., 188, 819–829, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.02.023, 2022.
Feron, S., Cordero, R. R., Damiani, A., and Jackson, R.: Climate change extremes and photovoltaic power output, Nat. Sustain., 4, 270–276, https://doi-org.insu.bib.cnrs.fr/10.1038/s41893-020-00643-w, 2021.
Fraunhofer ISE: Photovoltaics report, Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/publications/studies/Photovoltaics-Report.pdf (last access: 10 June 2023), 2023.
Gernaat, D. E. H. J., de Boer, H. S., Daioglou, V., Yalew, S. G., Müller, C., and van Vuuren, D. P.: Climate change impacts on renewable energy supply, Nat. Clim. Change, 11, 119–125, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00949-9, 2021.
Hernandez, R. R., Hoffacker, M. K., Murphy-Mariscal, M. L., Wu, G. C., and Allen, M. F.: Solar energy development impacts on land cover change and protected areas, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 112, 13579–13584, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517656112, 2015.
Hoogwijk, M. M.: On the global and regional potential of renewable energy sources = Over het mondiale en regionale potentieel van hernieuwbare energiebronnen, Universiteit Utrecht, Faculteit Scheikunde, Utrecht, ISBN: 9789039336403, 2004.
Huber, I., Bugliaro, L., Ponater, M., Garny, H., Emde, C., and Mayer, B.: Do climate models project changes in solar resources?, Sol. Energy, 129, 65–84, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2015.12.016, 2016.
Irvine, P. J., Kravitz, B., Lawrence, M. G., and Muri, H.: An overview of the Earth system science of solar geoengineering, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews, Climate Change, 7, 815–833, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.423, 2016.
Iturbide, M., Gutiérrez, J. M., Alves, L. M., Bedia, J., Cerezo-Mota, R., Cimadevilla, E., Cofiño, A. S., Di Luca, A., Faria, S. H., Gorodetskaya, I. V., Hauser, M., Herrera, S., Hennessy, K., Hewitt, H. T., Jones, R. G., Krakovska, S., Manzanas, R., Martínez-Castro, D., Narisma, G. T., Nurhati, I. S., Pinto, I., Seneviratne, S. I., van den Hurk, B., and Vera, C. S.: An update of IPCC climate reference regions for subcontinental analysis of climate model data: definition and aggregated datasets, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 2959–2970, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2959-2020, 2020.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change): Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation, edited by: Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Seyboth, K., Matschoss, P., Kadner, S., Zwickel, T., Eickemeier, P., Hansen, G., Schloemer, S., von Stechow, C., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 0–1075, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139151153, 2011.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change): Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Shukla, P. R., Skea, J., Slade, R., Al Khourdajie, A., van Diemen, R., McCollum, D., Pathak, M., Some, S., Vyas, P., Fradera, R., Belkacemi, M., Hasija, A., Lisboa, G., Luz, S., and Malley, J., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926, 2022.
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature): The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA), https://www.protectedplanet.net/en/themaPc-areas/wdpa?tab=WDPA (last access: 13 March 2023), 2023.
Jackson, L. S., Crook, J. A., Jarvis, A., Leedal, D., Ridgwell, A., Vaughan, N., and Forster, P. M.: Assessing the controllability of Arctic sea ice extent by sulfate aerosol geoengineering, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 1223–1231, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL062240, 2015.
Jerez, S., Tobin, I., Vautard, R., Montávez, J. P., López-Romero, J. M., Thais, F., Bartok, B., Christensen, O. B., Colette, A., Déqué, M., Nikulin, G., Kotlarski, S., Van Meijgaard, E., Teichmann, C., and Wild, M.: The impact of climate change on photovoltaic power generation in Europe, Nat. Commun., 6, 10014, https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10014, 2015.
Keith, D. W.: Geoengineering the climate: History and Prospect, Annu. Rev. Energy Environ., 25, 245–84, 2000.
Khan, M. S., Ramli, M. A. M., Sindi, H. F., Hidayat, T., and Bouchekara, H. R. E. H.: Estimation of Solar Radiation on a PV Panel Surface with an Optimal Tilt Angle Using Electric Charged Particles Optimization, Electronics, 11, 2056, https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11132056, 2022.
Köberle, A. C., Gernaat, D. E. H. J., and van Vuuren, D. P.: Assessing current and future techno-economic potential of concentrated solar power and photovoltaic electricity generation, Energy, 89, 739–756, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.05.145, 2015.
Kravitz, B., Robock, A., Tilmes, S., Boucher, O., English, J. M., Irvine, P. J., Jones, A., Lawrence, M. G., MacCracken, M., Muri, H., Moore, J. C., Niemeier, U., Phipps, S. J., Sillmann, J., Storelvmo, T., Wang, H., and Watanabe, S.: The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (GeoMIP6): Simulation design and preliminary results, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 3379–3392, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3379-2015, 2015.
Kuebbeler, M., Lohmann, U., and Feichter, J.: Effects of stratospheric sulfate aerosol geo-engineering on cirrus clouds: effects of geo-engineering on cirrus, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L23803, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL053797, 2012.
Latham, J.: Control of global warming, Nature, 347, 339–340, 1990.
Mahdavi, A., Farhadi, M., Gorji-Bandpy, M., and Mahmoudi, A.: A review of passive cooling of photovoltaic devices, Cleaner Eng. Technol., 11, 100579, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2022.100579, 2022.
McLaren, D.: Mitigation deterrence and the “moral hazard” of solar radiation management, Earth's Future, 4, 596–602, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000445, 2016.
Merk, C., Pönitzsch, G., and Rehdanz, K.: Knowledge about aerosol injection does not reduce individual mitigation efforts, Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 054009, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/5/054009, 2016.
Mitchell, D. L. and Finnegan, W.: Modification of cirrus clouds to reduce global warming, Environ. Res. Lett., 4, 045102, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045102, 2009.
Moreno-Cruz, J.: Mitigation and the geoengineering threat, Resour. Energ. Econ., 41, 248–263, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2015.06.001, 2015.
Murphy, D. M.: Effect of Stratospheric Aerosols on Direct Sunlight and Implications for Concentrating Solar Power, Environ. Sci. Technol., 43, 2784–2786, https://doi.org/10.1021/es802206b, 2009.
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory): Best Research-Cell Efficiency Chart, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, https://www.nrel.gov/pv/cell-efficiency.html (last access: August 2023), 2023.
O'Neill, B. C., Tebaldi, C., Van Vuuren, D. P., Eyring, V., Friedlingstein, P., Hurtt, G., Knutti, R., Kriegler, E., Lamarque, J.-F., Lowe, J., Meehl, G. A., Moss, R., Riahi, K., and Sanderson, B. M.: The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3461–3482, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3461-2016, 2016.
Parretta, A., Yakubu, H., Ferrazza, F., Altermatt, P. P., Green, M. A., and Zhao, J.: Optical loss of photovoltaic modules under diffuse light, Sol. Energ. Mat. Sol. C., 75, 497–505, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-0248(02)00199-X, 2003.
Radziemska, E.: The effect of temperature on the power drop in crystalline silicon solar cells, Renew. Energ., 28, 1–12, 2003.
Rahman, M. M., Hasanuzzaman, M., and Rahim, N. A.: Effects of various parameters on PV-module power and efficiency, Energ. Convers. Manage., 103, 348–358, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.06.067, 2015.
Robock, A.: 20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea, B. Atom. Sci., 64, 14–59, https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2008.11461140, 2008.
Robock, A., Marquardt, A., Kravitz, B., and Stenchikov, G.: Benefits, risks, and costs of stratospheric geoengineering, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL039209, 2009.
Sawadogo, W., Reboita, M. S., Faye, A., da Rocha, R. P., Odoulami, R. C., Olusegun, C. F., Adeniyi, M. O., Abiodun, B. J., Sylla, M. B., Diallo, I., Coppola, E., and Giorgi, F.: Current and future potential of solar and wind energy over Africa using the RegCM4 CORDEX-CORE ensemble, Clim. Dynam., 57, 1647–1672, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-020-05377-1, 2021.
Schaeffer, R., Szklo, A. S., Pereira de Lucena, A. F., Moreira Cesar Borba, B. S., Pupo Nogueira, L. P., Fleming, F. P., Troccoli, A., Harrison, M., and Boulahya, M. S.: Energy sector vulnerability to climate change: A review, Energy, 38, 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.11.056, 2012.
Scheele, R. C. and Fiedler, S.: What drives historical and future changes in photovoltaic power production from the perspective of global warming?, Environ. Res. Lett., 19, 014030, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ad10d6, 2023.
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 Syst., 11, 4182–4227, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001791, 2019.
Smith, C. J., Crook, J. A., Crook, R., Jackson, L. S., Osprey, S. M., and Forster, P. M.: Impacts of stratospheric sulfate geoengineering on global solar photovoltaic and concentrating solar power resource, J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol., 56, 1483–1497, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-16-0298.1, 2017.
Stehfest, E., Van Vuuren, D., Kram, T., Bouwman, L., Alkemade, R., Bakkenes, M., Biemans, H., Bouwman, A., Den Elzen, M., Janse, J., Lucas, P., Van Minnen, J., Müller, C., and Prins, A.: Integrated Assessment of Global Environmental Change with IMAGE 3.0. Model Description and Policy Applications, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (The Hague), ISBN: 978-94-91506-71-0, 2014.
Tilmes, S., Mills, M. J., Niemeier, U., Schmidt, H., Robock, A., Kravitz, B., Lamarque, J.-F., Pitari, G., and English, J. M.: A new Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) experiment designed for climate and chemistry models, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 43–49, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-43-2015, 2015.
Tobin, I., Greuell, W., Jerez, S., Ludwig, F., Vautard, R., Van Vliet, M. T. H., and Breón, F. M.: Vulnerabilities and resilience of European power generation to 1.5 °C, 2 °C and 3 °C warming, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 044024, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aab211, 2018.
Trieb, F., Schillings, C., O'Sullivan, M., Pregger, T., and Hoyer-Klick, C.: Global Potential of Concentrating Solar Power, 11, SolarPaces Conference Berlin, September 2009, 2009.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme): Emissions Gap Report 2022: The Closing Window – Climate crisis calls for rapid transformation of societies, Nairobi, https://www.unep.org/emissions-gap-report-2022 (last access: 17 September 2023), 2022.
Visioni, D., Pitari, G., Di Genova, G., Tilmes, S., and Cionni, I.: Upper tropospheric ice sensitivity to sulfate geoengineering, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 14867–14887, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-14867-2018, 2018.
Visioni, D., MacMartin, D. G., and Kravitz, B.: Is Turning Down the Sun a Good Proxy for Stratospheric Sulfate Geoengineering?, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126, e2020JD033952, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033952, 2021.
Wibeck, V., Hansson, A., and Anshelm, J.: Questioning the technological fix to climate change – Lay sense-making of geoengineering in Sweden, Energ. Res. Soc. Sci., 7, 23–30, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.03.001, 2015.
Wild, M., Folini, D., Henschel, F., Fischer, N., and Müller, B.: Projections of long-term changes in solar radiation based on CMIP5 climate models and their influence on energy yields of photovoltaic systems, Sol. Energy, 116, 12–24, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2015.03.039, 2015.
Zou, L., Wang, L., Li, J., Lu, Y., Gong, W., and Niu, Y.: Global surface solar radiation and photovoltaic power from Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 climate models, J. Clean. Prod., 224, 304–324, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.268, 2019.
Chief editor
There are not a lot of studies about the effects of SRM on renewable energy and how those interactions might contribute to strategies to offset climate change.
There are not a lot of studies about the effects of SRM on renewable energy and how those...
Short summary
Most solar radiation modification (SRM) simulations assume no physical coupling between mitigation and SRM. We analyze the impact of SRM on photovoltaic (PV) and concentrated solar power (CSP) and find that almost all regions have reduced PV and CSP potential compared to a mitigated or unmitigated scenario, especially in the middle and high latitudes. This suggests that SRM could pose challenges for meeting energy demands with solar renewable resources.
Most solar radiation modification (SRM) simulations assume no physical coupling between...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint