YaBeSH Engineering and Technology Library

    • Journals
    • PaperQuest
    • YSE Standards
    • YaBeSH
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   YE&T Library
    • AMS
    • Journal of Climate
    • View Item
    •   YE&T Library
    • AMS
    • Journal of Climate
    • View Item
    • All Fields
    • Source Title
    • Year
    • Publisher
    • Title
    • Subject
    • Author
    • DOI
    • ISBN
    Advanced Search
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Archive

    Climate–Carbon Cycle Feedback Analysis: Results from the C4MIP Model Intercomparison

    Source: Journal of Climate:;2006:;volume( 019 ):;issue: 014::page 3337
    Author:
    Friedlingstein, P.
    ,
    Cox, P.
    ,
    Betts, R.
    ,
    Bopp, L.
    ,
    von Bloh, W.
    ,
    Brovkin, V.
    ,
    Cadule, P.
    ,
    Doney, S.
    ,
    Eby, M.
    ,
    Fung, I.
    ,
    Bala, G.
    ,
    John, J.
    ,
    Jones, C.
    ,
    Joos, F.
    ,
    Kato, T.
    ,
    Kawamiya, M.
    ,
    Knorr, W.
    ,
    Lindsay, K.
    ,
    Matthews, H. D.
    ,
    Raddatz, T.
    ,
    Rayner, P.
    ,
    Reick, C.
    ,
    Roeckner, E.
    ,
    Schnitzler, K.-G.
    ,
    Schnur, R.
    ,
    Strassmann, K.
    ,
    Weaver, A. J.
    ,
    Yoshikawa, C.
    ,
    Zeng, N.
    DOI: 10.1175/JCLI3800.1
    Publisher: American Meteorological Society
    Abstract: Eleven coupled climate?carbon cycle models used a common protocol to study the coupling between climate change and the carbon cycle. The models were forced by historical emissions and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) A2 anthropogenic emissions of CO2 for the 1850?2100 time period. For each model, two simulations were performed in order to isolate the impact of climate change on the land and ocean carbon cycle, and therefore the climate feedback on the atmospheric CO2 concentration growth rate. There was unanimous agreement among the models that future climate change will reduce the efficiency of the earth system to absorb the anthropogenic carbon perturbation. A larger fraction of anthropogenic CO2 will stay airborne if climate change is accounted for. By the end of the twenty-first century, this additional CO2 varied between 20 and 200 ppm for the two extreme models, the majority of the models lying between 50 and 100 ppm. The higher CO2 levels led to an additional climate warming ranging between 0.1° and 1.5°C. All models simulated a negative sensitivity for both the land and the ocean carbon cycle to future climate. However, there was still a large uncertainty on the magnitude of these sensitivities. Eight models attributed most of the changes to the land, while three attributed it to the ocean. Also, a majority of the models located the reduction of land carbon uptake in the Tropics. However, the attribution of the land sensitivity to changes in net primary productivity versus changes in respiration is still subject to debate; no consensus emerged among the models.
    • Download: (827.8Kb)
    • Show Full MetaData Hide Full MetaData
    • Item Order
    • Go To Publisher
    • Price: 5000 Rial
    • Statistics

      Climate–Carbon Cycle Feedback Analysis: Results from the C4MIP Model Intercomparison

    URI
    http://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4220917
    Collections
    • Journal of Climate

    Show full item record

    contributor authorFriedlingstein, P.
    contributor authorCox, P.
    contributor authorBetts, R.
    contributor authorBopp, L.
    contributor authorvon Bloh, W.
    contributor authorBrovkin, V.
    contributor authorCadule, P.
    contributor authorDoney, S.
    contributor authorEby, M.
    contributor authorFung, I.
    contributor authorBala, G.
    contributor authorJohn, J.
    contributor authorJones, C.
    contributor authorJoos, F.
    contributor authorKato, T.
    contributor authorKawamiya, M.
    contributor authorKnorr, W.
    contributor authorLindsay, K.
    contributor authorMatthews, H. D.
    contributor authorRaddatz, T.
    contributor authorRayner, P.
    contributor authorReick, C.
    contributor authorRoeckner, E.
    contributor authorSchnitzler, K.-G.
    contributor authorSchnur, R.
    contributor authorStrassmann, K.
    contributor authorWeaver, A. J.
    contributor authorYoshikawa, C.
    contributor authorZeng, N.
    date accessioned2017-06-09T17:02:03Z
    date available2017-06-09T17:02:03Z
    date copyright2006/07/01
    date issued2006
    identifier issn0894-8755
    identifier otherams-78267.pdf
    identifier urihttp://onlinelibrary.yabesh.ir/handle/yetl/4220917
    description abstractEleven coupled climate?carbon cycle models used a common protocol to study the coupling between climate change and the carbon cycle. The models were forced by historical emissions and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) A2 anthropogenic emissions of CO2 for the 1850?2100 time period. For each model, two simulations were performed in order to isolate the impact of climate change on the land and ocean carbon cycle, and therefore the climate feedback on the atmospheric CO2 concentration growth rate. There was unanimous agreement among the models that future climate change will reduce the efficiency of the earth system to absorb the anthropogenic carbon perturbation. A larger fraction of anthropogenic CO2 will stay airborne if climate change is accounted for. By the end of the twenty-first century, this additional CO2 varied between 20 and 200 ppm for the two extreme models, the majority of the models lying between 50 and 100 ppm. The higher CO2 levels led to an additional climate warming ranging between 0.1° and 1.5°C. All models simulated a negative sensitivity for both the land and the ocean carbon cycle to future climate. However, there was still a large uncertainty on the magnitude of these sensitivities. Eight models attributed most of the changes to the land, while three attributed it to the ocean. Also, a majority of the models located the reduction of land carbon uptake in the Tropics. However, the attribution of the land sensitivity to changes in net primary productivity versus changes in respiration is still subject to debate; no consensus emerged among the models.
    publisherAmerican Meteorological Society
    titleClimate–Carbon Cycle Feedback Analysis: Results from the C4MIP Model Intercomparison
    typeJournal Paper
    journal volume19
    journal issue14
    journal titleJournal of Climate
    identifier doi10.1175/JCLI3800.1
    journal fristpage3337
    journal lastpage3353
    treeJournal of Climate:;2006:;volume( 019 ):;issue: 014
    contenttypeFulltext
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian
     
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian