Simulated response of the ocean and land carbon cycles to positive and negative CO2 emissions

doi:10.12006/j.issn.1673-1719.2024.058

Abstract

Abstract:

Human activities lead to increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentrations and global warming, threatening human survival. As a potential method to mitigate global warming, CO₂ removal has garnered extensive attention in recent years. We employed the University of Victoria Earth System Climate Model (UVic ESCM) to simulate and analyze the effects of both positive and negative CO₂ pulses of various intensity on the carbon cycle starting from preindustrial equilibrium (CO₂ concentration: 285×10^-6). The results show that in the 100 Pg C positive CO₂ pulse emission scenario, 100 (1000) years after imposing the CO₂ pulse, only 28% (18%) of the CO₂ emission remains in the atmosphere, the ocean absorbs about 38% (61%) of the CO₂ emission, the land absorbs about 34% (21%) of the CO₂ emission. In the 100 Pg C negative CO₂ pulse emission scenario, the ocean and the land releases CO₂ to the atmosphere, weakening the effect of CO₂ removal. 100 (1000) years after imposing the CO₂ pulse, only 23% (12%) of the initial CO₂ removal from the atmosphere remains, with 36% (65%) offset by ocean carbon release, 41% (23%) offset by land carbon release. According to different positive and negative pulse scenarios, the cumulative airborne fraction in the positive pulse scenario is always higher than cumulative removal fraction in the negative pulse scenario of the same intensity, which indicates that the positive and negative pulse carbon emission scenario responses of the sea and land carbon cycles are asymmetric. It means that negative emissions of higher intensities are needed to offset the atmospheric CO₂ concentration increases caused by positive emissions.

Key words: Climate change, CO₂ removal, Carbon cycle, Earth System Modeling

ZHANG Jing-Yu, CAO Long. Simulated response of the ocean and land carbon cycles to positive and negative CO₂ emissions[J]. Climate Change Research, 2024, 20(4): 416-427.

Figures/Tables 9

Fig. 1 Atmospheric CO2 concentration change in the full coupling experiments

Fig. 2 Changes in carbon storage of atmospheric, marine and land carbon reservoirs in +100 Pg C scenario (a) and -100 Pg C scenario (b)

Table 1 The change of atmospheric, ocean and land carbon storage in the share of pulse carbon emissions in the fully coupled experiments

Fig. 3 Global average air-sea carbon flux change (a) and ocean carbon storage change (b) in fully coupled experiments

Fig. 4 Spatial changes of air-sea carbon flux (a, b) in the 10th year after the ±100 Pg C pulse carbon emissions and asymmetry (c) in fully coupled experiments

Fig. 5 Timing diagram of DIC buffer factor change in fully coupled experiments (COU) and biogeochemically coupled experiments (BGC)

Fig. 6 Global average air-land carbon flux change (a), land carbon storage change (b), vegetation NPP change (c), vegetation carbon storage change (d), global average soil respiration change (e), and soil carbon storage change (f) in fully coupled experiments

Fig. 7 Spatial changes of air-land carbon flux (a, b) in 10th year after the ±100 Pg C pulse carbon emissions and asymmetry (c) in fully coupled experiments

Fig. 8 Differences of atmospheric CO2 concentration changes (a), sea surface CO2 pressure changes (b), air-sea carbon flux changes (c), ocean carbon storage changes (d), air-land carbon flux changes (e), land carbon storage changes (f), vegetation NPP changes (g), vegetation carbon storage changes (h), soil respiration changes (i) and soil carbon storage changes (j) variables between the COU and BGC experiments in the ± 100 Pg C pulse carbon emission scenarios

References 28

[1]	IPCC. Climate change 2021: the physical science basis[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021
[2]	Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, P?rtner H O, et al. Global warming of 1.5 ℃: IPCC special report on impacts of global warming of 1.5 ℃ above pre-industrial levels in context of strengthening response to climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022
[3]	Olhoff A, Christensen J M. Emissions gap report 2020[J]. UNEP DTU Partnership, 2020: 128
[4]	曹龙. IPCC AR6 报告解读: 气候系统对二氧化碳移除响应[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2021, 17 (6): 664-670.
	Cao L. Climate system response to carbon dioxide removal[J]. Climate Change Research, 2021, 17 (6): 664-670 (in Chinese)
[5]	MacDougall A H. Reversing climate warming by artificial atmospheric carbon-dioxide removal: can a Holocene-like climate be restored?[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 2013, 40 (20): 5480-5485
[6]	Zickfeld K, Eby M, Weaver A J, et al. Long-term climate change commitment and reversibility: an EMIC intercomparison[J]. Journal of Climate, 2013, 26 (16) : 5782-5809
[7]	Schwinger J, Tjiputra J. Ocean carbon cycle feedbacks under negative emissions[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 2018, 45 (10): 5062-5070
[8]	Joos F, Roth R, Fuglestvedt J S, et al. Carbon dioxide and climate impulse response functions for the computation of greenhouse gas metrics: a multi-model analysis[J]. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2013, 13 (5): 2793-2825
[9]	Jones C D, Arora V, Friedlingstein P, et al. C4MIP: The coupled climate-carbon cycle model intercomparison project: experimental protocol for CMIP6[J]. Geoscientific Model Development, 2016, 9 (8): 2853-2880
[10]	Zickfeld K, Azevedo D, Mathesius S, et al. Asymmetry in the climate: carbon cycle response to positive and negative CO₂ emissions[J]. Nature Climate Change, 2021, 11 (7): 613-617
[11]	Weaver A J, Eby M, Wiebe E C, et al. The UVic Earth System Climate Model:model description, climatology, and applications to past, present and future climates [M]. Routledge:Data, Models and Analysis, 2019: 169-236
[12]	Fanning A F, Weaver A J. An atmospheric energy-moisture balance model: climatology, interpentadal climate change, and coupling to an ocean general circulation model[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 1996, 101 (D10): 15111-15128
[13]	Pacanowski R C. MOM 2 documentation, user’s guide and reference manual[J]. GFDL Ocean Group Tech Rep, 1995 (3): 232
[14]	Bitz C M, Lipscomb W H. An energy-conserving thermodynamic model of sea ice[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 1999, 10 (C7): 15669-15677
[15]	Schmittner A, Oschlies A, Matthews H D, et al. Future changes in climate, ocean circulation, ecosystems, and biogeochemical cycling simulated for a business-as-usual CO₂ emission scenario until year 4000 AD[J]. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 2008, 22 (1): GB1013
[16]	Orr J, Najjar R, Sabine C, et al. Abiotic-HOWTO, internal OCMIP report[R]. Saclay: LSCE/CEA, 1999: 29
[17]	Meissner K, Weaver A, Matthews H, et al. The role of land surface dynamics in glacial inception: a study with the UVic Earth System Model[J]. Climate Dynamics, 2003, 21: 515-537
[18]	Cao L, Jiang J. Simulated effect of carbon cycle feedback on climate response to solar geoengineering[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 2017, 44 (24): 12, 484-412, 491
[19]	MacDougall A H. Limitations of the 1% experiment as the benchmark idealized experiment for carbon cycle intercomparison in C4MIP[J]. 2019, 12 (2): 597-611
[20]	Mengis N, Keller D P, MacDougall A H, et al. Evaluation of the University of Victoria Earth System Climate Model version 2.10 (UVic ESCM 2.10)[J]. Geoscientific Model Development, 2020, 13 (9): 4183-4204
[21]	Eby M, Weaver A J, Alexander K, et al. Historical and idealized climate model experiments: an intercomparison of Earth System Models of intermediate complexity[J]. Climate of the Past, 2013, 9 (3): 1111-1140
[22]	Friedlingstein P, Cox P, Betts R, et al. Climate: carbon cycle feedback analysis: results from the C4MIP model intercomparison[J]. Journal of Climate, 2006, 19 (14): 3337-3353
[23]	Weber S, Drijfhout S, Abe-Ouchi A, et al. The modern and glacial overturning circulation in the Atlantic ocean in PMIP coupled model simulations[J]. Climate of the Past, 2007, 3 (1): 51-64
[24]	Gregory J, Dixon K, Stouffer R, et al. A model intercomparison of changes in the Atlantic thermohaline circulation in response to increasing atmospheric CO₂ concentration[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 2005, 32 (12): L12703
[25]	Keller D P, Lenton A, Scott V, et al. The Carbon Dioxide Removal Model Intercomparison Project (CDRMIP): rationale and experimental protocol for CMIP6[J]. Geoscientific Model Development, 2018, 11 (3): 1133-1160
[26]	Gloor M, Sarmiento J L, Gruber N. What can be learned about carbon cycle climate feedbacks from the CO₂ airborne fraction?[J]. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2010, 10 (16): 7739-7751
[27]	Revelle R, Suess H E. Carbon dioxide exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase of atmospheric CO₂ during the past decades[J]. Tellus, 1957, 9 (1): 18-27
[28]	Sabine C L, Feely R A, Gruber N, et al. The oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO₂[J]. Science, 2004, 305 (5682): 367-371 doi: 10.1126/science.1097403 pmid: 15256665

Simulated response of the ocean and land carbon cycles to positive and negative CO₂ emissions

RichHTML

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 9

References 28

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

[1]	PAN Xiao-Bin, LIU Shang-Wen. Research on the path of transition finance legal system of China under the background of addressing climate change [J]. Climate Change Research, 2024, 20(4): 465-474.
[2]	BAO Wen, DUAN An-Min, YOU Qing-Long, HU Die. Research progress on climate change and its impact on water resources over the Tibetan Plateau [J]. Climate Change Research, 2024, 20(2): 158-169.
[3]	FAN Xing, LI Lu, GAO Xiang, CHEN Zhi-Hua. The analysis of COP28 Global Stocktake outcome and global climate governance prospects [J]. Climate Change Research, 2024, 20(2): 253-260.
[4]	WU Xing-Yi, CAO Long. Climate response to carbon dioxide radiative forcing and physiological forcing [J]. Climate Change Research, 2024, 20(2): 170-181.
[5]	MA Li-Juan, YUAN Jia-Shuang, HUANG Lei. Prospect of climate risks management in China under the framework of UN Early Warning for All Initiative [J]. Climate Change Research, 2024, 20(1): 48-61.
[6]	XU Yan, LU Wen-Hai, ZENG Rong, LIU Chang. Reflections on the application of “The Ocean Solutions Initiative” for climate change [J]. Climate Change Research, 2024, 20(1): 121-128.
[7]	ZHANG Fan, DING Jian-Fang, YANG Min, PENG Chong. Snowfall identification and response of snowfall to temperature and precipitation under climate change in Henan province [J]. Climate Change Research, 2023, 19(6): 714-722.
[8]	WANG Bing-Jie, SUN Ying, HU Ting, DONG Si-Yan. Changes of extreme cold events in China over the last century based on reanalysis data [J]. Climate Change Research, 2023, 19(4): 403-417.
[9]	LUO Hui, LIU Jie, WANG Li, TANG Zhi-Yi. Impact assessment of climate warming and wetting on agricultural economy in Northwest China: a case study of Ningxia [J]. Climate Change Research, 2023, 19(3): 293-304.
[10]	TAN Xian-Chun, GAO Jin-Xin, ZENG An, XING Xiu-Cheng. Impact of the “Pilot Zones for Green Finance Reform and Innovations” policy on carbon emissions [J]. Climate Change Research, 2023, 19(2): 213-226.
[11]	TIAN Dan-Yu, CHAI Qi-Min, LIU Bo-Han. The content and lessons from the European parliament’s climate-related legislations [J]. Climate Change Research, 2023, 19(2): 249-257.
[12]	MI Zhi-Fu, ZHANG Hao-Ran. Interpretation of IPCC AR6 report: climate change mitigation of urban systems [J]. Climate Change Research, 2023, 19(2): 139-150.
[13]	HOU Yi-Lei, XING Fang-Yuan, MA Li, YANG Ming, WEN Ya-Li. Addressing climate change and biodiversity conservation synergy: global practices and implications [J]. Climate Change Research, 2023, 19(1): 91-101.
[14]	FAN Xing, LI Lu, QIN Yuan-Yuan, GAO Xiang. The pathway from carbon peak to carbon neutrality in major developed economies and its insights [J]. Climate Change Research, 2023, 19(1): 102-115.
[15]	ZHANG Hua, LI Wen-Li, LI Xue-Min, DONG Lin, YANG You-Tian, ZHANG Guo-Ming, XU Ying-Jun. Analysis of urban and rural population scenarios and exposure characteristics in China in the future for the prevention of earthquake risk [J]. Climate Change Research, 2022, 18(6): 707-719.