the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The biogeophysical effects of idealized land cover and land management changes in Earth System Models
Abstract. Land cover and land management change (LCLMC) has been highlighted for its critical role in mitigation scenarios, both in terms of global mitigation and local adaptation. Yet, the climate effect of individual LCLMC options, their dependence on the background climate and the local vs. non-local responses are still poorly understood across different Earth System Models (ESMs). Here we simulate the climatic effects of LCLMC using three state-of-the-art ESMs, including the Community Earth System Model (CESM), the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology Earth System Model (MPI-ESM) and the European Consortium Earth System Model (EC-EARTH). We assess the LCLMC effects using four idealized experiments: (i) a fully afforested world, (ii) a world fully covered by cropland, (ii) a fully afforested world with extensive wood harvesting, and (iv) a full cropland world with extensive irrigation. In these idealized sensitivity experiments, performed under present-day climate conditions, the effects of the different LCLMC strategies represent an upper bound for the potential of global mitigation and local adaptation. To disentangle the local and non-local effects from the LCLMC, a checkerboard-like LCLMC perturbation, i.e., alternating grid boxes with and without LCLMC, is applied. The local effects of deforestation on surface temperature are largely consistent across the ESMs and the observations, with a cooling in boreal latitudes and a warming in the tropics. However, the energy balance components driving the change in surface temperature show less consistency across the ESMs and the observations. Additionally, some biases exist in specific ESMs, such as a strong albedo response in CESM mid-latitudes and a soil thawing driven warming in boreal latitudes in EC-EARTH. The non-local effects on surface temperature are broadly consistent across ESMs for afforestation, though larger model uncertainty exists for cropland expansion. Irrigation clearly induces a cooling effect, however; the ESMs disagree whether these are mainly local or non-local effects. Wood harvesting is found to have no discernible biogeophysical effects on climate. Our results overall underline the potential of ensemble simulations to inform decision making regarding future climate consequences of land-based mitigation and adaptation strategies.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(32949 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(32949 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-253', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Feb 2023
The sections affected by the issues around the incorrect figures have been addressed. The overall conclusions have not changed and I have no additional comments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-253-RC1 - AC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-253', Steven De Hertog, 17 Apr 2023
- AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-253', Steven De Hertog, 27 Feb 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-253', David Wårlind, 13 Apr 2023
This is a review of the manuscript by De Hertog et al. It is a corrected version of the paper by the same authors published last year. That paper was retracted due to multiple errors in the model data analysis that compromised its scientific integrity. Errors include i) Map of near-surface temperature instead of surface temperature for MPI-ESM in Figure 5, and ii) wrong sign of the sensible and latent heat fluxes for EC-EARTH affecting Figures 4, 9, 10 in the main text and Figures E3, E4, E7, E8, E13, E14 in Appendix E and associated text.
The updated figure makes much more sense compared to what was in the original publication. I still have some questions that need to be addressed. I will focus on the error related to the EC-Earth model as it is where most of the issues were.
L126 Update Döscher et al. to the published article.
L186-195 This is not totally true. EC-Earth has a dynamic vegetation model (LPJ-GUESS, Smith et al. 2014) and this is different from CESM and MPI-ESM. The main difference is in the assumption of what a forest is. For CESM and MPI-ESM the areas that are afforested are assumed to be a forest directly (in a physical sense) despite that the tree PFTs don't have any biomass. The forest just appears directly after the land cover map is changed. This is an assumption/model setup that you can have, but why this was made differently for EC-Earth I don't understand. In the EC-Earth setup of this study, it is the biomass of the trees that determines the physical parameters of the forest which is the opposite of the other models. It will take time for a tree to grow to a size that affects anything. And perhaps in many of the areas where the forest should be, the tree PFTs might not be productive and no tree biomass is created. I guess that the tree biomass between the three models is similar in areas of afforestation but definitely, the physical parameters are different due to the differences in model setups. This difference in the setup is what drives the difference between the models, not that EC-Earth has a dynamic vegetation model. To state that the same approach isn’t possible for EC-Earth (having a physical forest directly after the change of land cover map) is not true. There is no switch for this, but a very small hack of the code would make the EC-Earth behave in the same way as CESM and MPI-ESM. It is pity that this hasn’t been done as now any FRST-CTRL comparison between the models is extremely hard. This also explains the albedo discrepancy or EC-Earth compared to the other models in Figure 4c and D2 and makes your statement in L778-783 wrong. There isn’t an error in how EC-Earth represents albedo, but an error in your model setup, as explained above. If there isn’t any extensive new tree biomass in afforested areas, then you won’t see a change in albedo. The other models see a change in albedo due to the physical parameters being set to be a forest, hence they see a large change in albedo. This discrepancy between the model setups needs to be made very clear, as the author seems to not understand it themselves and make wrong statements about EC-Earth due to their error in setting up the model simulations. Also, all other FRST-CTRL comparisons with EC-Earth show very small effects. This is also due to the above-explained setup error. And FRST-CROP comparisons with EC-Earth will mainly be driven by the CROP change to CTRL as FRST to CTRL shows so minor differences. So the effect of the different model setups needs to be made much clearer.
L197-202 The irrigation in EC-Earth is only applied to the dynamic vegetation model. The physical model (IFS/HTESSEL) doesn’t see any difference between an irrigated or rainfed cropland as it has a separate water cycle compared to LPJ-GUESS (see Döscher et al. 2022). So, no water is added to the physical model. The only difference it sees is the change in LAI between an irrigated and rainfed crop PFT. This needs to be explained as this makes it easier to explain the small temperature impact in Figure 7i-l. It is too late to bring this up in the discussion (L639-642), it should be explained already when the experimental design is described and hence EC-Earth should be fully excluded from the IRR-CROP analysis as has been done in figures 9 and 10.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-253-RC2 - AC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-253', Steven De Hertog, 17 Apr 2023
- AC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-253', Steven De Hertog, 17 Apr 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-253', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Feb 2023
The sections affected by the issues around the incorrect figures have been addressed. The overall conclusions have not changed and I have no additional comments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-253-RC1 - AC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-253', Steven De Hertog, 17 Apr 2023
- AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-253', Steven De Hertog, 27 Feb 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-253', David Wårlind, 13 Apr 2023
This is a review of the manuscript by De Hertog et al. It is a corrected version of the paper by the same authors published last year. That paper was retracted due to multiple errors in the model data analysis that compromised its scientific integrity. Errors include i) Map of near-surface temperature instead of surface temperature for MPI-ESM in Figure 5, and ii) wrong sign of the sensible and latent heat fluxes for EC-EARTH affecting Figures 4, 9, 10 in the main text and Figures E3, E4, E7, E8, E13, E14 in Appendix E and associated text.
The updated figure makes much more sense compared to what was in the original publication. I still have some questions that need to be addressed. I will focus on the error related to the EC-Earth model as it is where most of the issues were.
L126 Update Döscher et al. to the published article.
L186-195 This is not totally true. EC-Earth has a dynamic vegetation model (LPJ-GUESS, Smith et al. 2014) and this is different from CESM and MPI-ESM. The main difference is in the assumption of what a forest is. For CESM and MPI-ESM the areas that are afforested are assumed to be a forest directly (in a physical sense) despite that the tree PFTs don't have any biomass. The forest just appears directly after the land cover map is changed. This is an assumption/model setup that you can have, but why this was made differently for EC-Earth I don't understand. In the EC-Earth setup of this study, it is the biomass of the trees that determines the physical parameters of the forest which is the opposite of the other models. It will take time for a tree to grow to a size that affects anything. And perhaps in many of the areas where the forest should be, the tree PFTs might not be productive and no tree biomass is created. I guess that the tree biomass between the three models is similar in areas of afforestation but definitely, the physical parameters are different due to the differences in model setups. This difference in the setup is what drives the difference between the models, not that EC-Earth has a dynamic vegetation model. To state that the same approach isn’t possible for EC-Earth (having a physical forest directly after the change of land cover map) is not true. There is no switch for this, but a very small hack of the code would make the EC-Earth behave in the same way as CESM and MPI-ESM. It is pity that this hasn’t been done as now any FRST-CTRL comparison between the models is extremely hard. This also explains the albedo discrepancy or EC-Earth compared to the other models in Figure 4c and D2 and makes your statement in L778-783 wrong. There isn’t an error in how EC-Earth represents albedo, but an error in your model setup, as explained above. If there isn’t any extensive new tree biomass in afforested areas, then you won’t see a change in albedo. The other models see a change in albedo due to the physical parameters being set to be a forest, hence they see a large change in albedo. This discrepancy between the model setups needs to be made very clear, as the author seems to not understand it themselves and make wrong statements about EC-Earth due to their error in setting up the model simulations. Also, all other FRST-CTRL comparisons with EC-Earth show very small effects. This is also due to the above-explained setup error. And FRST-CROP comparisons with EC-Earth will mainly be driven by the CROP change to CTRL as FRST to CTRL shows so minor differences. So the effect of the different model setups needs to be made much clearer.
L197-202 The irrigation in EC-Earth is only applied to the dynamic vegetation model. The physical model (IFS/HTESSEL) doesn’t see any difference between an irrigated or rainfed cropland as it has a separate water cycle compared to LPJ-GUESS (see Döscher et al. 2022). So, no water is added to the physical model. The only difference it sees is the change in LAI between an irrigated and rainfed crop PFT. This needs to be explained as this makes it easier to explain the small temperature impact in Figure 7i-l. It is too late to bring this up in the discussion (L639-642), it should be explained already when the experimental design is described and hence EC-Earth should be fully excluded from the IRR-CROP analysis as has been done in figures 9 and 10.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-253-RC2 - AC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-253', Steven De Hertog, 17 Apr 2023
- AC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-253', Steven De Hertog, 17 Apr 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
270 | 93 | 20 | 383 | 7 | 6 |
- HTML: 270
- PDF: 93
- XML: 20
- Total: 383
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
4 citations as recorded by crossref.
- A practical exploration of land cover impacts on surface and air temperature when they are most consequential K. Novick & M. Barnes 10.1088/2752-5295/accdf9
- Changes in Land Cover and Management Affect Heat Stress and Labor Capacity A. Orlov et al. 10.1029/2022EF002909
- Neglected implications of land-use and land-cover changes on the climate-health nexus A. Orlov et al. 10.1088/1748-9326/acd799
- Effects of idealized land cover and land management changes on the atmospheric water cycle S. De Hertog et al. 10.5194/esd-15-265-2024
Steven Johan De Hertog
Felix Havermann
Inne Vanderkelen
Suqi Guo
Iris Manola
Dim Coumou
Edouard Léopold Davin
Gregory Duveiller
Quentin Lejeune
Julia Pongratz
Carl-Friedrich Schleussner
Sonia Isabelle Seneviratne
Wim Thiery
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(32949 KB) - Metadata XML