Abstract

Abstract. 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 soil carbon decomposition) are found to be a larger source of uncertainties than differences in the climate response. Inertia in the permafrost carbon system means that the permafrost carbon response depends on the temporal trajectory of warming as well as the absolute amount of warming. We propose a new policy-relevant metric – the frozen carbon residence time (FCRt) in years – that can be derived from these complex land surface models and used to quantify the permafrost carbon response given any pathway of global temperature change.

Highlights

  • The coupling between the global carbon cycle and the rest of the climate system gives rise to a range of feedbacks to cli-Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union.E

  • Superimposed on the simulated permafrost extent are the observations from Brown et al (1998). Both Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES) and ORCHIDEE-MICT capture all of the observed continuous permafrost

  • Compared with the 0 ◦C isotherm for the 2 m air temperature (Fig. 1, right panels), ORCHIDEE-MICT has some permafrost where the annual mean temperature is greater than 0 ◦C, suggesting it might be missing a process which increases the thermal insulation in winter between the air and the deeper soil

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The coupling between the global carbon cycle and the rest of the climate system gives rise to a range of feedbacks to cli-E. The latest generation of climate models in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) ensemble simulate a warming-induced uptake of carbon, albeit with a low confidence (Ciais et al, 2013) None of these CMIP5 models include a representation of the large stocks of “old” permafrost carbon. The addition of the permafrostcarbon response to climate may change the CMIP5 model simulations of the northern high latitudes from a sink to a source of carbon and a positive feedback (Burke et al, 2013; Koven et al, 2011; Ciais et al, 2013) For this reason permafrost processes must be routinely included in the simulations of the global carbon cycle

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call