Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/esdd-5-991-2014
https://doi.org/10.5194/esdd-5-991-2014
29 Aug 2014
 | 29 Aug 2014
Status: this preprint was under review for the journal ESD but the revision was not accepted.

Differences in carbon cycle and temperature projections from emission- and concentration-driven earth system model simulations

P. Shao, X. Zeng, and X. Zeng

Abstract. The influence of prognostic and prescribed atmospheric CO2 concentrations ([CO2]) on the carbon uptake and temperature is investigated using all eight Earth System Models (ESMs) with relevant output variables from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5). Under the RCP8.5 scenario, the projected [CO2] differences in 2100 vary from −19.7 to +207.3 ppm in emission-driven ESMs. Incorporation of the interactive concentrations also increases the range of global warming, computed as the 20 year average difference between 2081–2100 and 1850–1869/1861–1880, by 49% from 2.36 K (i.e. ranging from 3.11 to 5.47 K) in the concentration-driven simulations to 3.51 K in the emission-driven simulations. The observed seasonal amplitude of global [CO2] from 1980–2011 is about 1.2–5.3 times as large as those from the eight emission-driven ESMs, while the [CO2] seasonality is simply neglected in concentration-driven ESMs, suggesting the urgent need of ESM improvements in this area. The temperature-concentration feedback parameter α is more sensitive to [CO2] (e.g. during 1980–2005 versus 2075–2100) than how [CO2] is handled (i.e. prognostic versus prescribed). This sensitivity can be substantially reduced by using a more appropriate parameter α' computed from the linear regression of temperature change versus that of the logarithm of [CO2]. However, the inter-model relative variations of both α and α' remain large, suggesting the need of more detailed studies to understand and hopefully reduce these discrepancies.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.
P. Shao, X. Zeng, and X. Zeng
 
Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
 
Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
P. Shao, X. Zeng, and X. Zeng
P. Shao, X. Zeng, and X. Zeng

Viewed

Total article views: 1,554 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
1,098 360 96 1,554 93 121
  • HTML: 1,098
  • PDF: 360
  • XML: 96
  • Total: 1,554
  • BibTeX: 93
  • EndNote: 121
Views and downloads (calculated since 29 Aug 2014)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 29 Aug 2014)

Cited

Saved

Latest update: 15 Jun 2024
Download
Altmetrics