the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Combining local model calibration with the emergent constraint approach to reduce uncertainty in the tropical land carbon cycle feedback
Abstract. The role of the land carbon cycle in climate change remains highly uncertain. A key source of projection spread is related to the assumed response of photosynthesis to warming, especially in the tropics. The optimum temperature for photosynthesis determines whether warming positively or negatively impacts photosynthesis, thereby amplifying or suppressing CO2 fertilisation of photosynthesis under CO2-induced global warming. Land carbon cycle models have been extensively calibrated against local eddy flux measurements, but this has not previously been clearly translated into a reduced uncertainty in how the tropical land carbon sink will respond to warming. Using a previous parameter perturbation ensemble carried out with version 3 of the Hadley Centre coupled climate-carbon cycle model (HadCM3C), we identify an emergent relationship between the optimal temperature for photosynthesis, which is especially relevant in tropical forests, and the projected amount of atmospheric CO2 at the end of the century. We combine this with a constraint on the optimum temperature for photosynthesis, derived from eddy-covariance measurements using the adjoint of the JULES land-surface model. Taken together, the emergent relationship from the coupled model and the constraint on the optimum temperature for photosynthesis define an emergent constraint on future atmospheric CO2 in the HadCM3C coupled climate-carbon cycle under a common emissions scenario (A1B). The emergent constraint sharpens the probability density of simulated CO2 change (2100–1900) and moves its peak to a lower value: 497 ± 91 compared to 607 ± 128 ppmv when using the equal-weight prior. Although this result is likely to be model and scenario dependent, it demonstrates the potential of combining the large-scale emergent constraint approach with parameter estimation using detailed local measurements.
-
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
(709 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(709 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-274', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Mar 2023
The authors have identified an emergent relationship between the optimum temperature of photosynthesis and the projected change in atmospheric CO2 between 2100 and 1900, using a combination of global climate-carbon cycle modeling and local eddy-covariance measurements. Results of the analysis show that the larger Topt could further generated a lower â–³CO2 at the end of the century than the original model predictions. Overall this is a well-written and solid study. The findings are also of broad interest to the community and offer an important constrain on the magnitude of the carbon cycle feedback. I have just a few questions about the data processing procedure and would like to see more discussion about the Topt in the manuscript.Â
Please specify the meaning of the red dots in figure 2, which will help readers who have not read Booth et al (2012) to have a clearer understanding of the emergent constrain in your manuscript, at least providing the details of the simulations (red dots) in the appendix.
I suggest the authors better explain the concept and calculation of Topt as well as the optimization process. Also, please provide more details about the utilization of the GPP and LE data in the analysis.Â
Since the author derived Topt using the adjoint of the JULES land-surface model and local eddy flux measurements, I suggest adding a paragraph to look a little more deeply at the result of Topt (see additional paper below).
Huang et al., Air temperature optima of vegetation productivity across global biomes. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 772–779 (2019)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-274-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Nina Raoult, 22 May 2023
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-274', Mousong Wu, 24 Apr 2023
The accurate projections of future climate change impacts on land surface carbon cycles are key to understand the climate change carbon cycle feedback and to mitigate climate change. This paper provides a way by using the observational-constraints of the optimal temperature and the emergent relationship between optimal temperature and atmospheric CO2 changes to narrow the uncertainty in the projected future CO2 changes. This method combined the short-term optimization with the long-term climate-carbon feedback and provided a new way of understanding the climate change.
I enjoyed reading the manucript in its novel idea. While before it can be accepted for publication, I have some questions on its suitability for application to broader model groups.
1. This study used the relationship between Topt and atmospheric CO2 changes, over the tropics for the broadleaf forests. I was wondering about the atmospheric CO2 used for the global mean or the tropical regions? Since the global CO2 can also be mediated by other vegetation types.
2. This study used the adjoint of JULES, which happened to be of the land component of the Earth system model that is used for projections. I wonder how can this relationship be transferred to other models, such as the CMIP5/6 models?
3. Data assimilation is a good tool for optimizing parameters from different processes. The nonlinearity of the terrestrial ecosystem models can have few parameters that are interacted and this would result in the joint-distributions of parameters from different processes. While in the data assimilation we seldom considered that or put little focus on the parameter interactions. So how can we properly obtain the relationships between paramters and variables that can be projected to futures? As the authors mentioned soil moisture and other variables. Why do not we use the emergent relationships between optimized variables instead?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-274-CC1 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Nina Raoult, 22 May 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-274', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Apr 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-274/egusphere-2023-274-RC2-supplement.pdf
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Nina Raoult, 22 May 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-274', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Mar 2023
The authors have identified an emergent relationship between the optimum temperature of photosynthesis and the projected change in atmospheric CO2 between 2100 and 1900, using a combination of global climate-carbon cycle modeling and local eddy-covariance measurements. Results of the analysis show that the larger Topt could further generated a lower â–³CO2 at the end of the century than the original model predictions. Overall this is a well-written and solid study. The findings are also of broad interest to the community and offer an important constrain on the magnitude of the carbon cycle feedback. I have just a few questions about the data processing procedure and would like to see more discussion about the Topt in the manuscript.Â
Please specify the meaning of the red dots in figure 2, which will help readers who have not read Booth et al (2012) to have a clearer understanding of the emergent constrain in your manuscript, at least providing the details of the simulations (red dots) in the appendix.
I suggest the authors better explain the concept and calculation of Topt as well as the optimization process. Also, please provide more details about the utilization of the GPP and LE data in the analysis.Â
Since the author derived Topt using the adjoint of the JULES land-surface model and local eddy flux measurements, I suggest adding a paragraph to look a little more deeply at the result of Topt (see additional paper below).
Huang et al., Air temperature optima of vegetation productivity across global biomes. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 772–779 (2019)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-274-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Nina Raoult, 22 May 2023
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-274', Mousong Wu, 24 Apr 2023
The accurate projections of future climate change impacts on land surface carbon cycles are key to understand the climate change carbon cycle feedback and to mitigate climate change. This paper provides a way by using the observational-constraints of the optimal temperature and the emergent relationship between optimal temperature and atmospheric CO2 changes to narrow the uncertainty in the projected future CO2 changes. This method combined the short-term optimization with the long-term climate-carbon feedback and provided a new way of understanding the climate change.
I enjoyed reading the manucript in its novel idea. While before it can be accepted for publication, I have some questions on its suitability for application to broader model groups.
1. This study used the relationship between Topt and atmospheric CO2 changes, over the tropics for the broadleaf forests. I was wondering about the atmospheric CO2 used for the global mean or the tropical regions? Since the global CO2 can also be mediated by other vegetation types.
2. This study used the adjoint of JULES, which happened to be of the land component of the Earth system model that is used for projections. I wonder how can this relationship be transferred to other models, such as the CMIP5/6 models?
3. Data assimilation is a good tool for optimizing parameters from different processes. The nonlinearity of the terrestrial ecosystem models can have few parameters that are interacted and this would result in the joint-distributions of parameters from different processes. While in the data assimilation we seldom considered that or put little focus on the parameter interactions. So how can we properly obtain the relationships between paramters and variables that can be projected to futures? As the authors mentioned soil moisture and other variables. Why do not we use the emergent relationships between optimized variables instead?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-274-CC1 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Nina Raoult, 22 May 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-274', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Apr 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-274/egusphere-2023-274-RC2-supplement.pdf
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Nina Raoult, 22 May 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
439 | 76 | 18 | 533 | 4 | 4 |
- HTML: 439
- PDF: 76
- XML: 18
- Total: 533
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Tim Jupp
Ben Booth
Peter Cox
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(709 KB) - Metadata XML