4.8 Article

The emerging anthropogenic signal in land-atmosphere carbon-cycle coupling

期刊

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE
卷 4, 期 9, 页码 796-800

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2323

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [EF-1048481]
  2. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  3. Division Of Mathematical Sciences [1107046] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. Emerging Frontiers
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences [1048481] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Earth system models simulate prominent terrestrial carbon-cycle responses to anthropogenically forced changes in climate and atmospheric composition over the twenty-first century(1-4). The rate and magnitude of the forced climate change is routinely evaluated relative to unforced, or natural, variability using a multi-member ensemble of simulations(5-8). However, Earth system model carbon-cycle analyses do not account for unforced variability(1-4,9). To investigate unforced terrestrial carbon-cycle variability, we analyse ensembles from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5), focusing on the Community Climate System Model (CCSM4). The unforced variability of CCSM4 is comparable to that observed at the Harvard Forest eddy covariance flux tower site. Over the twenty-first century, unforced variability in land-atmosphere CO2 flux is larger than the forced response at decadal timescales in many areas of the world, precluding detection of the forced carbon-cycle change. Only after several decades does the forced carbon signal consistently emerge in CCSM4 and other models for the business-as-usual radiative forcing scenario (RCP8.5). Grid-cell variability in time of emergence is large, but decreases at regional scales. To attribute changes in the terrestrial carbon cycle to anthropogenic forcings, monitoring networks and model projections must consider the timescale at which the forced biogeochemical response emerges from the natural variability.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据