Evaluating the land and ocean components of the global carbon cycle in the CMIP5 earth system models
Anav, A; Friedlingstein, P; Kidston, M; et al.Bopp, L; Ciais, P; Cox, P; Jones, C; Jung, M; Myneni, R; Zhu, Z
Date: 23 September 2013
Article
Journal
Journal of Climate
Publisher
American Meteorological Society
Publisher DOI
Abstract
The authors assess the ability of 18 Earth system models to simulate the land and ocean carbon cycle for the present climate. These models will be used in the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth AssessmentReport (AR5) for climate projections, and such evaluation allows identification of the strengths and weaknesses ...
The authors assess the ability of 18 Earth system models to simulate the land and ocean carbon cycle for the present climate. These models will be used in the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth AssessmentReport (AR5) for climate projections, and such evaluation allows identification of the strengths and weaknesses of individual coupled carbon-climate models as well as identification of systematic biases of themodels. Results show thatmodels correctly reproduce the main climatic variables controlling the spatial and temporal characteristics of the carbon cycle. The seasonal evolution of the variables under examination is well captured. However, weaknesses appear when reproducing specific fields: in particular, considering the land carbon cycle, a general overestimation of photosynthesis and leaf area index is found for most of the models, while the ocean evaluation shows that quite a few models underestimate the primary production. The authors also propose climate and carbon cycle performance metrics in order to assess whether there is a set of consistently better models for reproducing the carbon cycle. Averaged seasonal cycles and probability density functions (PDFs) calculated from model simulations are compared with the corresponding seasonal cycles and PDFs from different observed datasets. Although the metrics used in this study allow identification of somemodels as better or worse than the average, the ranking of this study is partially subjective because of the choice of the variables under examination and also can be sensitive to the choice of reference data. In addition, it was found that the model performances show significant regional variations. © 2013 American Meteorological Society.
Mathematics and Statistics
Faculty of Environment, Science and Economy
Item views 0
Full item downloads 0
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Historical (1700-2012) global multi-model estimates of the fire emissions from the Fire Modeling Intercomparison Project (FireMIP)
Li, F; Val Martin, M; Andreae, MO; et al. (European Geosciences Union, 9 October 2019)Fire emissions are a critical component of carbon and nutrient cycles and strongly affect climate and air quality. Dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) with interactive fire modeling provide important estimates for ... -
Modeling Terrorist Attacks: Assessing Statistical Models to Evaluate Domestic and Ideologically International Attacks
Boyd, KA (Taylor & Francis (Routledge), 6 April 2016)Many prior studies have analyzed how country characteristics affect the rate of terrorist violence and there is a growing literature on how group traits influence terrorist violence. The current study expands upon this ... -
From Models-as-Fictions to Models-as-Tools
Currie, A (Michigan Publishing, 1 April 2017)Many accounts of scientific modeling conceive of models as fictions: there are analogies between models and various aesthetic objects, as well as between how scientists interact with models and how authors interact with ...