Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAnav, A
dc.contributor.authorFriedlingstein, P
dc.contributor.authorKidston, M
dc.contributor.authorBopp, L
dc.contributor.authorCiais, P
dc.contributor.authorCox, P
dc.contributor.authorJones, C
dc.contributor.authorJung, M
dc.contributor.authorMyneni, R
dc.contributor.authorZhu, Z
dc.date.accessioned2016-04-05T14:15:16Z
dc.date.issued2013-09-23
dc.description.abstractThe 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.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipThis work was supported by the European Commission's 7th Framework Programme under Grant Agreements 238366 (GREENCYCLESII) and 282672 (EMBRACE), while Dr. Jones was supported by the Joint DECC/Defra Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Program (GA01101).en_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 26, pp. 6801 - 6843en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00417.1
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/20973
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherAmerican Meteorological Societyen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttp://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00417.1en_GB
dc.rightsThis is the final version of the article. Available from American Meteorological Society via the DOI in this record.en_GB
dc.subjectBiosphere-atmosphere interactionen_GB
dc.subjectModel evaluation/performanceen_GB
dc.subjectModel comparisonen_GB
dc.subjectLand surface modelen_GB
dc.subjectCoupled modelsen_GB
dc.subjectRanking methodsen_GB
dc.titleEvaluating the land and ocean components of the global carbon cycle in the CMIP5 earth system modelsen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2016-04-05T14:15:16Z
dc.identifier.issn0894-8755
dc.descriptionPublisheden_GB
dc.descriptionJournal Articleen_GB
dc.identifier.eissn1520-0442
dc.identifier.journalJournal of Climateen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record