Quantifying uncertainties of permafrost carbon–climate feedbacks

The land surface models JULES (Joint UK Land Environment Simulator, two versions) and ORCHIDEE-MICT (Organizing Carbon and Hydrology in Dynamic Ecosystems), each with a revised representation of permafrost carbon, were coupled to the Integrated Model Of Global Effects of climatic aNomalies (IMOGEN)...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Biogeosciences
Main Authors: Burke, Eleanor J., Ekici, Altug, Huang, Ye, Chadburn, Sarah E., Huntingford, Chris, Ciais, Philippe, Friedlingstein, Pierre, Peng, Shushi, Krinner, Gerhard
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: EGU 2017
Subjects:
Online Access:http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/518054/
https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/518054/1/N518054JA.pdf
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-3051-2017
id ftnerc:oai:nora.nerc.ac.uk:518054
record_format openpolar
spelling ftnerc:oai:nora.nerc.ac.uk:518054 2023-05-15T17:55:41+02:00 Quantifying uncertainties of permafrost carbon–climate feedbacks Burke, Eleanor J. Ekici, Altug Huang, Ye Chadburn, Sarah E. Huntingford, Chris Ciais, Philippe Friedlingstein, Pierre Peng, Shushi Krinner, Gerhard 2017-06 text http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/518054/ https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/518054/1/N518054JA.pdf https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-3051-2017 en eng EGU https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/518054/1/N518054JA.pdf Burke, Eleanor J.; Ekici, Altug; Huang, Ye; Chadburn, Sarah E.; Huntingford, Chris; Ciais, Philippe; Friedlingstein, Pierre; Peng, Shushi; Krinner, Gerhard. 2017 Quantifying uncertainties of permafrost carbon–climate feedbacks. Biogeosciences, 14 (12). 3051-3066. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-3051-2017 <https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-3051-2017> cc_by CC-BY Meteorology and Climatology Atmospheric Sciences Publication - Article PeerReviewed 2017 ftnerc https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-3051-2017 2023-02-04T19:45:27Z The land surface models JULES (Joint UK Land Environment Simulator, two versions) and ORCHIDEE-MICT (Organizing Carbon and Hydrology in Dynamic Ecosystems), each with a revised representation of permafrost carbon, were coupled to the Integrated Model Of Global Effects of climatic aNomalies (IMOGEN) intermediate-complexity climate and ocean carbon uptake model. IMOGEN calculates atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and local monthly surface climate for a given emission scenario with the land–atmosphere CO2 flux exchange from either JULES or ORCHIDEE-MICT. These simulations include feedbacks associated with permafrost carbon changes in a warming world. Both IMOGEN–JULES and IMOGEN–ORCHIDEE-MICT were forced by historical and three alternative future-CO2-emission scenarios. Those simulations were performed for different climate sensitivities and regional climate change patterns based on 22 different Earth system models (ESMs) used for CMIP3 (phase 3 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project), allowing us to explore climate uncertainties in the context of permafrost carbon–climate feedbacks. Three future emission scenarios consistent with three representative concentration pathways were used: RCP2.6, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5. Paired simulations with and without frozen carbon processes were required to quantify the impact of the permafrost carbon feedback on climate change. The additional warming from the permafrost carbon feedback is between 0.2 and 12 % of the change in the global mean temperature (ΔT) by the year 2100 and 0.5 and 17 % of ΔT by 2300, with these ranges reflecting differences in land surface models, climate models and emissions pathway. As a percentage of ΔT, the permafrost carbon feedback has a greater impact on the low-emissions scenario (RCP2.6) than on the higher-emissions scenarios, suggesting that permafrost carbon should be taken into account when evaluating scenarios of heavy mitigation and stabilization. Structural differences between the land surface models (particularly the representation of the ... Article in Journal/Newspaper permafrost Natural Environment Research Council: NERC Open Research Archive Jules ENVELOPE(140.917,140.917,-66.742,-66.742) Biogeosciences 14 12 3051 3066
institution Open Polar
collection Natural Environment Research Council: NERC Open Research Archive
op_collection_id ftnerc
language English
topic Meteorology and Climatology
Atmospheric Sciences
spellingShingle Meteorology and Climatology
Atmospheric Sciences
Burke, Eleanor J.
Ekici, Altug
Huang, Ye
Chadburn, Sarah E.
Huntingford, Chris
Ciais, Philippe
Friedlingstein, Pierre
Peng, Shushi
Krinner, Gerhard
Quantifying uncertainties of permafrost carbon–climate feedbacks
topic_facet Meteorology and Climatology
Atmospheric Sciences
description The land surface models JULES (Joint UK Land Environment Simulator, two versions) and ORCHIDEE-MICT (Organizing Carbon and Hydrology in Dynamic Ecosystems), each with a revised representation of permafrost carbon, were coupled to the Integrated Model Of Global Effects of climatic aNomalies (IMOGEN) intermediate-complexity climate and ocean carbon uptake model. IMOGEN calculates atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and local monthly surface climate for a given emission scenario with the land–atmosphere CO2 flux exchange from either JULES or ORCHIDEE-MICT. These simulations include feedbacks associated with permafrost carbon changes in a warming world. Both IMOGEN–JULES and IMOGEN–ORCHIDEE-MICT were forced by historical and three alternative future-CO2-emission scenarios. Those simulations were performed for different climate sensitivities and regional climate change patterns based on 22 different Earth system models (ESMs) used for CMIP3 (phase 3 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project), allowing us to explore climate uncertainties in the context of permafrost carbon–climate feedbacks. Three future emission scenarios consistent with three representative concentration pathways were used: RCP2.6, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5. Paired simulations with and without frozen carbon processes were required to quantify the impact of the permafrost carbon feedback on climate change. The additional warming from the permafrost carbon feedback is between 0.2 and 12 % of the change in the global mean temperature (ΔT) by the year 2100 and 0.5 and 17 % of ΔT by 2300, with these ranges reflecting differences in land surface models, climate models and emissions pathway. As a percentage of ΔT, the permafrost carbon feedback has a greater impact on the low-emissions scenario (RCP2.6) than on the higher-emissions scenarios, suggesting that permafrost carbon should be taken into account when evaluating scenarios of heavy mitigation and stabilization. Structural differences between the land surface models (particularly the representation of the ...
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Burke, Eleanor J.
Ekici, Altug
Huang, Ye
Chadburn, Sarah E.
Huntingford, Chris
Ciais, Philippe
Friedlingstein, Pierre
Peng, Shushi
Krinner, Gerhard
author_facet Burke, Eleanor J.
Ekici, Altug
Huang, Ye
Chadburn, Sarah E.
Huntingford, Chris
Ciais, Philippe
Friedlingstein, Pierre
Peng, Shushi
Krinner, Gerhard
author_sort Burke, Eleanor J.
title Quantifying uncertainties of permafrost carbon–climate feedbacks
title_short Quantifying uncertainties of permafrost carbon–climate feedbacks
title_full Quantifying uncertainties of permafrost carbon–climate feedbacks
title_fullStr Quantifying uncertainties of permafrost carbon–climate feedbacks
title_full_unstemmed Quantifying uncertainties of permafrost carbon–climate feedbacks
title_sort quantifying uncertainties of permafrost carbon–climate feedbacks
publisher EGU
publishDate 2017
url http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/518054/
https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/518054/1/N518054JA.pdf
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-3051-2017
long_lat ENVELOPE(140.917,140.917,-66.742,-66.742)
geographic Jules
geographic_facet Jules
genre permafrost
genre_facet permafrost
op_relation https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/518054/1/N518054JA.pdf
Burke, Eleanor J.; Ekici, Altug; Huang, Ye; Chadburn, Sarah E.; Huntingford, Chris; Ciais, Philippe; Friedlingstein, Pierre; Peng, Shushi; Krinner, Gerhard. 2017 Quantifying uncertainties of permafrost carbon–climate feedbacks. Biogeosciences, 14 (12). 3051-3066. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-3051-2017 <https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-3051-2017>
op_rights cc_by
op_rightsnorm CC-BY
op_doi https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-3051-2017
container_title Biogeosciences
container_volume 14
container_issue 12
container_start_page 3051
op_container_end_page 3066
_version_ 1766163659954847744