GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

feed icon rss

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
Filter
  • 1
    Publication Date: 2021-06-07
    Description: The Last Interglacial period (LIG) is a period with increased summer insolation at high northern latitudes, which results in strong changes in the terrestrial and marine cryosphere. Understanding the mechanisms for this response via climate modelling and comparing the models' representation of climate reconstructions is one of the objectives set up by the Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project for its contribution to the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. Here we analyse the results from 16 climate models in terms of Arctic sea ice. The multi-model mean reduction in minimum sea ice area from the pre industrial period (PI) to the LIG reaches 50 % (multi-model mean LIG area is 3.20×106 km2, compared to 6.46×106 km2 for the PI). On the other hand, there is little change for the maximum sea ice area (which is 15–16×106 km2 for both the PI and the LIG. To evaluate the model results we synthesise LIG sea ice data from marine cores collected in the Arctic Ocean, Nordic Seas and northern North Atlantic. The reconstructions for the northern North Atlantic show year-round ice-free conditions, and most models yield results in agreement with these reconstructions. Model–data disagreement appear for the sites in the Nordic Seas close to Greenland and at the edge of the Arctic Ocean. The northernmost site with good chronology, for which a sea ice concentration larger than 75 % is reconstructed even in summer, discriminates those models which simulate too little sea ice. However, the remaining models appear to simulate too much sea ice over the two sites south of the northernmost one, for which the reconstructed sea ice cover is seasonal. Hence models either underestimate or overestimate sea ice cover for the LIG, and their bias does not appear to be related to their bias for the pre-industrial period. Drivers for the inter-model differences are different phasing of the up and down short-wave anomalies over the Arctic Ocean, which are associated with differences in model albedo; possible cloud property differences, in terms of optical depth; and LIG ocean circulation changes which occur for some, but not all, LIG simulations. Finally, we note that inter-comparisons between the LIG simulations and simulations for future climate with moderate (1 % yr−1) CO2 increase show a relationship between LIG sea ice and sea ice simulated under CO2 increase around the years of doubling CO2. The LIG may therefore yield insight into likely 21st century Arctic sea ice changes using these LIG simulations.
    Repository Name: EPIC Alfred Wegener Institut
    Type: Article , isiRev
    Format: application/pdf
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    Publication Date: 2023-12-19
    Description: 〈jats:p〉Abstract. Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in a changing climate is critical to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe and synthesize data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFOS) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land-use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly, and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) is estimated with global ocean biogeochemistry models and observation-based fCO2 products. The terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) is estimated with dynamic global vegetation models. Additional lines of evidence on land and ocean sinks are provided by atmospheric inversions, atmospheric oxygen measurements, and Earth system models. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and incomplete understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the year 2022, EFOS increased by 0.9 % relative to 2021, with fossil emissions at 9.9±0.5 Gt C yr−1 (10.2±0.5 Gt C yr−1 when the cement carbonation sink is not included), and ELUC was 1.2±0.7 Gt C yr−1, for a total anthropogenic CO2 emission (including the cement carbonation sink) of 11.1±0.8 Gt C yr−1 (40.7±3.2 Gt CO2 yr−1). Also, for 2022, GATM was 4.6±0.2 Gt C yr−1 (2.18±0.1 ppm yr−1; ppm denotes parts per million), SOCEAN was 2.8±0.4 Gt C yr−1, and SLAND was 3.8±0.8 Gt C yr−1, with a BIM of −0.1 Gt C yr−1 (i.e. total estimated sources marginally too low or sinks marginally too high). The global atmospheric CO2 concentration averaged over 2022 reached 417.1±0.1 ppm. Preliminary data for 2023 suggest an increase in EFOS relative to 2022 of +1.1 % (0.0 % to 2.1 %) globally and atmospheric CO2 concentration reaching 419.3 ppm, 51 % above the pre-industrial level (around 278 ppm in 1750). Overall, the mean of and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2022, with a near-zero overall budget imbalance, although discrepancies of up to around 1 Gt C yr−1 persist for the representation of annual to semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. Comparison of estimates from multiple approaches and observations shows the following: (1) a persistent large uncertainty in the estimate of land-use changes emissions, (2) a low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) a discrepancy between the different methods on the strength of the ocean sink over the last decade. This living-data update documents changes in methods and data sets applied to this most recent global carbon budget as well as evolving community understanding of the global carbon cycle. The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2023 (Friedlingstein et al., 2023). 〈/jats:p〉
    Repository Name: EPIC Alfred Wegener Institut
    Type: Article , isiRev
    Format: application/pdf
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    Publication Date: 2024-03-25
    Description: Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in a changing climate is critical to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe and synthesize data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (E-FOS) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (E-LUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land-use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly, and its growth rate (G(ATM)) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (S-OCEAN) is estimated with global ocean biogeochemistry models and observation-based fCO(2) products. The terrestrial CO2 sink (S-LAND) is estimated with dynamic global vegetation models. Additional lines of evidence on land and ocean sinks are provided by atmospheric inversions, atmospheric oxygen measurements, and Earth system models. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (B-IM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and incomplete understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as +/- 1 sigma. For the year 2022, E-FOS increased by 0.9% relative to 2021, with fossil emissions at 9.9 +/- 0.5 GtC yr(-1) (10.2 +/- 0.5 GtC yr(-1) when the cement carbonation sink is not included), and E-LUC was 1.2 +/- 0.7 GtC yr(-1), for a total anthropogenic CO2 emission (including the cement carbonation sink) of 11.1 +/- 0.8 GtC yr(-1) (40.7 +/- 3.2 GtCO(2) yr(-1)). Also, for 2022, G(ATM) was 4.6 +/- 0.2 GtC yr(-1) (2.18 +/- 0.1 ppm yr(-1); ppm denotes parts per million), S-OCEAN was 2.8 +/- 0.4 GtC yr(-1), and S-LAND was 3.8 +/- 0.8 GtC yr(-1), with a B-IM of 0.1 GtC yr(-1) (i.e. total estimated sources marginally too low or sinks marginally too high). The global atmospheric CO2 concentration averaged over 2022 reached 417.1 +/- 0.1 ppm. Preliminary data for 2023 suggest an increase in E-FOS relative to 2022 of +/- 1:1% (0.0% to 2.1 %) globally and atmospheric CO2 concentration reaching 419.3 ppm, 51% above the pre-industrial level (around 278 ppm in 1750). Overall, the mean of and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959-2022, with a near-zero overall budget imbalance, although discrepancies of up to around 1 Gt Cyr(-1) persist for the representation of annual to semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. Comparison of estimates from multiple approaches and observations shows the following: (1) a persistent large uncertainty in the estimate of land-use changes emissions, (2) a low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) a discrepancy between the different methods on the strength of the ocean sink over the last decade. This living-data update documents changes in methods and data sets applied to this most recent global carbon budget as well as evolving community understanding of the global carbon cycle.
    Type: Article , PeerReviewed
    Format: text
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...