Model Structure and Climate Data Uncertainty in Historical Simulations of the Terrestrial Carbon Cycle (1850–2014). Issue 10 (28th October 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bonan, Gordon B.; Lombardozzi, Danica L.; Wieder, William R.; Oleson, Keith W.; Lawrence, David M.; Hoffman, Forrest M.; Collier, Nathan
• Is Part Of: Global biogeochemical cycles. Volume 33:Issue 10(2019:Oct.)
• Page Start: 1310
• Page End: 1326
• Publication Date: 2019-10-28
• Subjects: carbon cycle -- terrestrial biosphere model -- model uncertainty -- climate forcing -- Earth system prediction -- ensemble forecasting; Biogeochemical cycles -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 577.1405
• DOI: 10.1029/2019GB006175
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0886-6236

Abstract

Abstract: The divergence among Earth system models in the terrestrial carbon cycle has prompted interest in how to reduce uncertainty. Previous studies have identified model structural uncertainty arising from process parameterizations and parameter values. The current study highlights the importance of climate forcing in generating carbon cycle uncertainty. We use simulations in which three models (Community Land Model version 4 (CLM4), CLM4.5, CLM5) with substantially different carbon cycles are forced with two climate reconstructions (CRUNCEPv7, Global Soil Wetness Project 3 version 1 (GSWP3v1)) to examine the contributions of model structure and climate to uncertainty in the carbon cycle over the period 1850–2014. Climate uncertainty for global annual net biome production exceeds one third of total uncertainty (defined as the sum of climate and model structure uncertainty) in the first half of the twentieth century, but declines after the 1950s. Global annual gross primary productivity, net primary productivity, heterotrophic respiration, and vegetation and soil carbon stocks have substantial climate uncertainty (relative to total uncertainty) throughout the simulation period. Climate forcing contributes more than one half of total uncertainty for these carbon cycle fluxes and stocks throughout boreal North America and Eurasia, some midlatitude regions, and in eastern Amazonia and western equatorial Africa during the decade 2000–2009. Comparison with observationally based data sets of the carbon cycle using model benchmarking methods provides insight into strengths and deficiencies among models and climate forcings, but we caution against overreliance on benchmarking to discriminate among models. The conceptualization of uncertainty arising from this study implies embracing multiple feasible model simulations rather than focusing on which model or simulation is best. Key Points: Two climate reconstructions commonly used to force terrestrial biosphere models over the industrial era differ in climate Climate forcing produces uncertainty in the carbon cycle, and climate uncertainty exceeds model structural uncertainty in many regions Models differ in their sensitivity to climate forcing, especially in boreal North America and Eurasia