CO2辐射效应与生理效应对气候系统影响异同的模拟研究

doi:10.12006/j.issn.1673-1719.2023.234

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

基于CESM地球系统模式，模拟研究不同CO₂浓度变化情景下，在快响应阶段和平衡阶段，CO₂通过影响大气辐射传输过程的辐射效应和通过影响植被气孔的生理效应对气候系统的影响和作用机制异同。试验结果表明，在CO₂倍增的情况下，CO₂辐射效应和生理效应都会引起全球地表的增温。辐射效应在两个阶段的地表增温中均起主导作用，而在快响应阶段，生理效应在全球陆表增温中贡献率达到了(27.5±0.9)%。CO₂辐射效应和生理效应对全球水循环的影响有明显差异。在平衡阶段，CO₂辐射效应使全球地表蒸散增加(5.2±0.1)%，径流量增加(8.0±0.4)%; 而CO₂生理效应使全球地表蒸散量下降(3.9±0.1)%，径流量增加(10.1±0.4)%。在快响应阶段，生理效应在蒸散量的变化中占据主导作用。在CO₂倍增试验基础上，又进行了大气CO₂浓度分别为400×10^-6、600×10^-6、800×10^-6、1000×10^-6的模拟试验。随着CO₂浓度的增加，受辐射效应影响，地表温度、蒸散量和降水量出现持续增加，但增幅有所放缓；受CO₂生理效应影响，地表蒸散量持续减少，下降幅度并未出现明显变化。CO₂辐射效应和生理效应的协同作用具有非线性。对于地表温度、降水和蒸散等变量，CO₂辐射效应和生理效应共同作用引起的变化与两者单独作用时引起的变化之和存在差异，且这种差异随着CO₂浓度的增加越来越显著。

关键词: 气候变化, CO₂辐射效应, 植被气孔, CO₂生理效应

Abstract:

The community Earth system model (CESM) was used to investigate the climate response to CO₂radiative forcing that is associated with CO₂-induced changes in atmospheric radiation, and physiological forcing that is associated with CO₂-induced changes in stomatal opening. The results show that both forcings cause global surface warming. During the fast adjustment processes, CO₂-physiological forcing contributes to (27.5±0.9)% of the total global land mean warming. The effects of the two forcings on the global water cycle are significantly different. As a result of CO₂ doubling, at equilibrium state, the CO₂ radiation forcing increases global surface evapotranspiration by (5.2±0.1)% and runoff by (8.0±0.4)%, CO₂ physiological forcing decreased global surface evapotranspiration by (3.9±0.1)% and increased global runoff by (10.1±0.4)%. With the increase of CO₂ concentration, under the influence of radiative forcing, surface temperature, evapotranspiration and precipitation continue to increase, but the increase rates slow down. Under the influence of physiological forcing, surface evapotranspiration continues to decrease, and the decreasing rate do not change significantly. The changes caused by the combined effect of two types of CO₂ forcings are different from the sum of changes caused by the two forcings alone, and this difference becomes more and more significant with the increase of CO₂ concentration.

Key words: Climate change, CO₂ radiative forcing, Vegetation stomata, CO₂ physiological forcing

吴星怡, 曹龙. CO₂辐射效应与生理效应对气候系统影响异同的模拟研究[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2024, 20(2): 170-181.

WU Xing-Yi, CAO Long. Climate response to carbon dioxide radiative forcing and physiological forcing[J]. Climate Change Research, 2024, 20(2): 170-181.

图/表 9

表1 试验方案

Table 1 The experiment scheme of CO2 concentration doubling

图1 CO2浓度倍增时气温变化值的全球分布情况

Fig. 1 Changes in surface air temperature in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2. (Hatched areas represent regions where changes are not statistically significant at the 0.05 level using the Student t-test. The same bellow)

图2 CO2浓度倍增时平衡阶段低云量和到达地面的太阳辐射通量变化值的全球分布情况注：左下角数值分别表示陆地范围内低云量和到达地面的太阳辐射通量的平均变化值，阴影部分表示变化值未通过0.05的显著性水平检验。

Fig. 2 Changes in low cloudiness and net solar flux in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2

图3 快响应和平衡阶段及不同季节生理效应对气温变化的贡献率分布注：上图左下角数值表示生理效应对全球年平均近地表气温变化的贡献率；下图左下角数值则表示生理效应对北半球近地表气温变化的贡献率。右侧曲线图表示不同情况下温度贡献率陆地纬向平均值的分布情况。

Fig. 3 Contribution of CO2 physiological forcing to temperature change in different periods and different seasons

图4 CO2浓度倍增时快响应阶段各水循环变量变化值的全球分布情况注：左下角数值表示陆地区域各变量相对于CO2浓度为280×10-6时的平均变化率，阴影部分表示变化值未通过0.05的显著性水平检验，下同。

Fig. 4 Fast adjustments in precipitation, evapotranspiration and runoff in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2

图5 CO2浓度倍增时平衡阶段各水循环变量变化值的全球分布情况

Fig. 5 Changes in precipitation, evapotranspiration, and runoff in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 at equilibrium state

图6 不同CO2浓度下各气候变量的陆地平均值变化注：RAD和PHY表示在不同CO2浓度情景下，分别受辐射效应和生理效应的影响，各变量的全球陆地平均值。

Fig. 6 Variation of temperature, runoff, precipitation, and evapotranspiration under different CO2 concentrations

图7 地表温度、降水量和蒸散量的非线性变化量随CO2浓度的变化注：非线性变化量表示为ALL与 PHY+RAD之差。其中ALL表示辐射效应和生理效应共同作用时，温度、降水量和蒸散量相对于CO2浓度为280×10-6的陆地平均值变化量，而PHY和RAD则分别表示生理效应和辐射效应单独作用时各变量相对于CO2浓度为280×10-6的陆地平均值变化量。

Fig. 7 The nonlinear variation of surface temperature, precipitation, and evapotranspiration with changes in CO2 concentration

图8 CO2浓度为400×10-6和800×10-6时地表温度、降水量和蒸散量相对于CO2浓度为280×10-6的非线性差异注：右侧曲线图表示不同情况下陆地范围内非线性变化值的纬向平均分布。

Fig. 8 Distribution of nonlinear changes in surface temperature, precipitation, and evapotranspiration at CO2 concentrations of 400×10-6 and 800×10-6 relative to CO2 concentration of 280×10-6

参考文献 31

[1]	IPCC. Climate change 2021: the physical science basis[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023
[2]	Manabe S, Wetherald R T. Effects of doubling the CO₂ concentration on the climate of a general circulation model[J]. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 1975, 32 (1): 3-15 doi: 10.1175/1520-0469(1975)032<0003:TEODTC>2.0.CO;2 URL
[3]	Hansen J, Sato M, Ruedy R. Radiative forcing and climate response[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 1997, 102 (D6): 6831-6864 doi: 10.1029/96JD03436 URL
[4]	Gregory J M. A new method for diagnosing radiative forcing and climate sensitivity[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 2004, 31 (3): L03205
[5]	Hansen J. Efficacy of climate forcings[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2005, 110 (D18): D18104
[6]	Trenberth K E, Fasullo J T, Kiehl J. Earth’s global energy budget[J]. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2009, 90 (3): 311-324 doi: 10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1 URL
[7]	Andrews T, Forster P M, Boucher O, et al. Precipitation, radiative forcing and global temperature change[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 2010, 37 (14): 783-792
[8]	Zhao M, Cao L, Bala G, et al. Climate response to latitudinal and altitudinal distribution of stratospheric sulfate aerosols[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 2021, 126 (24): e2021JD035379
[9]	Boucher O, Jones A, Betts R. Climate response to the physiological impact of carbon dioxide on plants in the Met Office Unified Model HadCM3[J]. Climate Dynamics, 2009, 32: 237-249 doi: 10.1007/s00382-008-0459-6 URL
[10]	Cao L, Bala G, Caldeira K, et al. Importance of carbon dioxide physiological forcing to future climate change[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2010, 107 (21): 9513-9518 doi: 10.1073/pnas.0913000107 URL
[11]	Andrews T, Doutriaux-Boucher M, Boucher O, et al. A regional and global analysis of carbon dioxide physiological forcing and its impact on climate[J]. Climate Dynamics, 2011, 36 (3-4): 783-792 doi: 10.1007/s00382-010-0742-1 URL
[12]	Field C B, Jackson R B, Mooney H A. Stomatal responses to increased CO₂: implications from the plant to the global scale[J]. Plant, Cell and Environment, 1995, 18 (10): 1214-1225 doi: 10.1111/pce.1995.18.issue-10 URL
[13]	Ainsworth E A, Rogers A. The response of photosynthesis and stomatal conductance to rising [CO₂]: mechanisms and environmental interactions: photosynthesis and stomatal conductance responses to rising [CO₂][J]. Plant, Cell and Environment, 2007, 30 (3): 258-270 doi: 10.1111/pce.2007.30.issue-3 URL
[14]	Xu Z, Jiang Y, Jia B, et al. Elevated-CO₂ response of stomata and its dependence on environmental factors[J]. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2016, 7: 657
[15]	Park S W, Kim J S, Kug J S. The intensification of Arctic warming as a result of CO₂ physiological forcing[J]. Nature Communications, 2020, 11 (1): 2098 doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-15924-3
[16]	Zhao M, Cao L. Regional response of land hydrology and carbon uptake to different amounts of solar radiation modification[J]. Earth’s Future, 2022, 10 (11): e2022EF003288
[17]	He M, Piao S, Huntingford C, et al. Amplified warming from physiological responses to carbon dioxide reduces the potential of vegetation for climate change mitigation[J]. Communications Earth & Environment, 2022, 3 (1): 160
[18]	Richardson T B, Forster P M, Andrews T, et al. Carbon dioxide physiological forcing dominates projected eastern Amazonian drying[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 2018, 45 (6): 2815-2825 doi: 10.1002/grl.v45.6 URL
[19]	Cui J, Piao S, Huntingford C, et al. Vegetation forcing modulates global land monsoon and water resources in a CO₂-enriched climate[J]. Nature Communications, 2020, 11 (1): 5184 doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-18992-7
[20]	Bala G, Caldeira K, Nemani R. Fast versus slow response in climate change: implications for the global hydrological cycle[J]. Climate Dynamics, 2010, 35 (2-3): 423-434 doi: 10.1007/s00382-009-0583-y URL
[21]	Cao L, Bala G, Caldeira K. Climate response to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and solar irradiance on the time scale of days to weeks[J]. Environmental Research Letters, 2012, 7 (3): 034015 doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034015 URL
[22]	陈晓龙, 周天军. 影响气候系统模式温室气体敏感度的反馈过程: 基于FGOALS模式的研究[J]. 中国科学:地球科学, 2014, 44 (2): 322-332.
	Chen X L, Zhou T J. Climate sensitivities of two versions of FGOALS model to idealized radiative forcing[J]. Science China: Earth Sciences, 2014, 44 (2): 322-332 (in Chinese)
[23]	Gopalakrishnan R, Bala G, Jayaraman M, et al. Sensitivity of terrestrial water and energy budgets to CO₂-physiological forcing: an investigation using an offline land model[J]. Environmental Research Letters, 2011, 6 (4): 044013 doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044013 URL
[24]	Powell T L, Galbraith D R, Christoffersen B O, et al. Confronting model predictions of carbon fluxes with measurements of Amazon forests subjected to experimental drought[J]. New Phytologist, 2013, 200 (2): 350-365 doi: 10.1111/nph.12390 pmid: 23844931
[25]	Williams I N, Lu Y, Kueppers L M, et al. Land-atmosphere coupling and climate prediction over the U.S. Southern Great Plains[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 2016, 121 (20): 12, 125-12, 144
[26]	Trugman A T, Medvigy D, Mankin J S, et al. Soil moisture stress as a major driver of carbon cycle uncertainty[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 2018, 45 (13): 6495-6503 doi: 10.1029/2018GL078131 URL
[27]	Lawrence D M, Fisher R A, Koven C D, et al. The Community Land Model Version 5: description of new features, benchmarking, and impact of forcing uncertainty[J]. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 2019, 11 (12): 4245-4287 doi: 10.1029/2018MS001583
[28]	Liang X, Wood E F, Lettenmaier D P, et al. The Project for intercomparison of land-surface parameterization schemes PILPS phase 2 c Red-Arkansas River basin experiment: 2. Spatial and temporal analysis of energy fluxes[J]. Global and Planetary Change, 1998, 19 (1-4): 137-159 doi: 10.1016/S0921-8181(98)00045-9 URL
[29]	Xia Y, Mocko D, Huang M, et al. Comparison and assessment of Three Advanced Land Surface Models in simulating terrestrial water storage components over the United States[J]. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 2017, 18 (3): 625-649 doi: 10.1175/JHM-D-16-0112.1 URL
[30]	Ou M, Zhang S. Evaluation and comparison of the common land model and the community land model by using in situ soil moisture observations from the soil climate analysis network[J]. Land, 2022, 11 (1): 126 doi: 10.3390/land11010126 URL
[31]	Ding X, Lai X, Fan G Z. Numerical simulation and evaluation of soil temperature on the Qinghai-Xizang Plateau by the CLM4.5 model[J]. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 2023, 152 (1-2): 371-384 doi: 10.1007/s00704-023-04406-3

CO₂辐射效应与生理效应对气候系统影响异同的模拟研究

Climate response to carbon dioxide radiative forcing and physiological forcing

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 9

参考文献 31

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	包文, 段安民, 游庆龙, 胡蝶. 青藏高原气候变化及其对水资源影响的研究进展[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2024, 20(2): 158-169.
[2]	樊星, 李路, 高翔, 陈志华. COP28全球盘点成果解读及全球气候治理形势展望[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2024, 20(2): 253-260.
[3]	马丽娟, 袁佳双, 黄磊. 联合国全民早期预警目标下中国气候风险管理前景分析[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2024, 20(1): 48-61.
[4]	许艳, 路文海, 曾容, 刘倡. “基于海洋解决方案倡议”在应对气候变化领域的应用思考[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2024, 20(1): 121-128.
[5]	张凡, 丁建芳, 杨敏, 彭冲. 河南省降雪识别及气候变化下降雪量对气温和降水的响应[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2023, 19(6): 714-722.
[6]	王冰杰, 孙颖, 胡婷, 董思言. 基于再分析资料的近百年中国极端冷事件的变化[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2023, 19(4): 403-417.
[7]	罗慧, 刘杰, 王丽, 唐智亿. 西北气候暖湿化的农业经济影响评估：以宁夏为例[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2023, 19(3): 293-304.
[8]	谭显春, 高瑾昕, 曾桉, 幸绣程. 绿色金融改革创新试验区政策对碳排放的影响评估[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2023, 19(2): 213-226.
[9]	田丹宇, 柴麒敏, 刘伯翰. 欧洲议会涉气候法案的内容与经验借鉴[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2023, 19(2): 249-257.
[10]	米志付, 张浩然. IPCC AR6 WGIII报告解读：城市系统减缓气候变化[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2023, 19(2): 139-150.
[11]	侯一蕾, 邢方圆, 马丽, 杨鸣, 温亚利. 应对气候变化与保护生物多样性协同：全球实践与启示[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2023, 19(1): 91-101.
[12]	樊星, 李路, 秦圆圆, 高翔. 主要发达经济体从碳达峰到碳中和的路径及启示[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2023, 19(1): 102-115.
[13]	张化, 李汶莉, 李雪敏, 董琳, 杨有田, 张国明, 许映军. 面向地震设防风险的未来中国城乡人口情景及暴露特征[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2022, 18(6): 707-719.
[14]	张熹, 陈敏鹏. 适应与绿色复苏：应对新冠疫情和气候复合风险的协同[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2022, 18(6): 720-730.
[15]	梅梅, 侯威, 周星妍. 新、旧气候态差异及对中国地区气候和极端事件评估业务的影响[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2022, 18(6): 653-669.