the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Projected changes in land carbon store over the 21st century: what contributions from land-use change and atmospheric nitrogen deposition?
Jaime Andres Riano Sanchez
Philippe Peylin
Abstract. Earth System Models (ESM) represent the time evolution of the biophysical (energy, water cycles) and biogeochemical (carbon cycle) components of the Earth. When used for near-future projections in the context of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), they use as forcings the evolution of greenhouse gas and other pollutant concentrations and land-use changes simulated by an ensemble of Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) for a combination of socio-economic pathways and mitigation targets (SSPs). More precisely, only one IAM output is used as representative of a single SSP while the inter-IAM spread is large for ammonia emissions and land-use changes, for instance. This makes the comparison of key ESM diagnostics among SSPs significantly noisy, without the capacity of disentangling SSP-driven and IAM-driven factors. In this paper, we quantify the projected change in land carbon store (CLCS) for the different SSPs with an advanced version of a land surface model embedded into IPSL-CM6 ESM. Through a set of land-only factorial simulations, we specifically aim at estimating the CLCS uncertainties associated with land-use change and nitrogen deposition trajectories. We showed that the spread of the simulated change in global land carbon store induced by the uncertainty on land-use changes is slightly larger than the one associated with the uncertainty on atmospheric CO2. Globally, uncertainty associated with N depositions is responsible for a spread in CLCS lower by a factor three, than the one driven by atmospheric CO2 or land-use changes. Our study calls for making available additional IAM scenarios for each SSP to be used in the next CMIP exercise, in order to specifically assess the IAM-related uncertainty impacts on the carbon cycle and the climate system.
- Preprint
(3181 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Jaime Andres Riano Sanchez et al.
Status: open (until 31 Dec 2023)
-
RC1: 'Comment on esd-2023-31', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Dec 2023
reply
In the manuscript “Projected changes in land carbon store over the 21st century: what contributions from land-use change and atmospheric nitrogen deposition?”, the authors evaluated the changes of CLCS projections in SSPs, focusing the uncertainties from land use change and nitrogen deposition. The authors concluded that the projection spread contributed by land use change spread is larger than from CO2 spread, and the nitrogen deposition has relatively smaller contribution. This conclusion is important and has significant implications for understanding the projections of the Earth system models. However, I think the presentation of this manuscript need to be improved and a few concerns need to be addressed before publishing.
The main concern I have is about the land use change and N deposition spread. The authors “used the selected SSP markers spread as a proxy for the inter-IAM spread”. Although the authors compared the two spreads, and showed them to have similar magnitude. There is still possibility that the differences of vegetation types are systematically different among SSP markers and IAMs. i.e. the SSP markers spread could come from the scenario differences while inter-IAM spread for the same scenario is from model differences. The same vegetation type distributed in different regions (e.g. tropical and boreal forests) may have different C source/sink. Therefore, besides the global analyses, it is necessary to check where the differences are in SSP markers spread and inter-IAM spread.
Also, I think the authors need to carefully use the term “uncertainty”. In my opinion, the forcings are from different scenarios and the differences due to the forcings are thus not something “uncertain” but some “certain” signal. The use of “spread” is also somehow inaccurate as we usually use the term for “model spread”. I prefer to explain the results as scenario difference rather than “uncertainty”.
My second concern is that this study is based on a single model ORCHIDEE-v3. Given the large differences among land surface models, I wonder how robust the results are. I am not asking to add new simulations, but discussing this uncertainty is helpful. The authors may compare ORCHIDEE-v3 and other models’ performances in the TENDY land use change experiments to estimate the robustness of this study.
Finally, I suggest the authors to divide Section 3 into subsections, so the readers can better follow and capture the key points.
Line 57: non-makers -> non-markers
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2023-31-RC1
Jaime Andres Riano Sanchez et al.
Jaime Andres Riano Sanchez et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
74 | 16 | 3 | 93 | 1 | 1 |
- HTML: 74
- PDF: 16
- XML: 3
- Total: 93
- BibTeX: 1
- EndNote: 1
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1