Climate response to carbon dioxide radiative forcing and physiological forcing

doi:10.12006/j.issn.1673-1719.2023.234

Abstract

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

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

Figures/Tables 9

Table 1 The experiment scheme of CO2 concentration doubling

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 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