Quantifying process-level uncertainty contributions to TCRE and carbon budgets for meeting Paris Agreement climate targets

To achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement requires deep and rapid reductions in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, but uncertainty surrounds the magnitude and depth of reductions. Earth system models provide a means to quantify the link from emissions to global climate change. Using the concept of TCRE—the transient climate response to cumulative carbon emissions—we can estimate the remaining carbon budget to achieve 1.5 or 2 °C. But the uncertainty is large, and this hinders the usefulness of the concept. Uncertainty in carbon budgets associated with a given global temperature rise is determined by the physical Earth system, and therefore Earth system modelling has a clear and high priority remit to address and reduce this uncertainty. Here we explore multi-model carbon cycle simulations across three generations of Earth system models to quantitatively assess the sources of uncertainty which propagate through to TCRE. Our analysis brings new insights which will allow us to determine how we can better direct our research priorities in order to reduce this uncertainty. We emphasise that uses of carbon budget estimates must bear in mind the uncertainty stemming from the biogeophysical Earth system, and we recommend specific areas where the carbon cycle research community needs to re-focus activity in order to try to reduce this uncertainty. We conclude that we should revise focus from the climate feedback on the carbon cycle to place more emphasis on CO2 as the main driver of carbon sinks and their long-term behaviour. Our proposed framework will enable multiple constraints on components of the carbon cycle to propagate to constraints on remaining carbon budgets.

[1]  C. Jones,et al.  So What Is in an Earth System Model? , 2020, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems.

[2]  V. Brovkin,et al.  Is there warming in the pipeline? A multi-model analysis of the zero emission commitment from CO2 , 2020 .

[3]  P. Cox,et al.  An emergent constraint on Transient Climate Response from simulated historical warming in CMIP6 models , 2020 .

[4]  Pierre Friedlingstein,et al.  Carbon–concentration and carbon–climate feedbacks in CMIP6 models and their comparison to CMIP5 models , 2019, Biogeosciences.

[5]  A. J. Hewitt,et al.  UKESM1: Description and Evaluation of the U.K. Earth System Model , 2019, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems.

[6]  R. Waldman,et al.  Evaluation of CNRM Earth System Model, CNRM‐ESM2‐1: Role of Earth System Processes in Present‐Day and Future Climate , 2019, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems.

[7]  J. Rogelj,et al.  Path Independence of Carbon Budgets When Meeting a Stringent Global Mean Temperature Target After an Overshoot , 2019, Earth's Future.

[8]  Christopher J. Smith,et al.  Estimating and tracking the remaining carbon budget for stringent climate targets , 2019, Nature.

[9]  J. Rogelj,et al.  The Zero Emissions Commitment Model Intercomparison Project (ZECMIP) contribution to C4MIP: quantifying committed climate changes following zero carbon emissions , 2019, Geoscientific Model Development.

[10]  Atul K. Jain,et al.  Global Carbon Budget 2016 , 2016 .

[11]  R. Sutton ESD Ideas: a simple proposal to improve the contribution of IPCC WGI to the assessment and communication of climate change risks , 2018, Earth System Dynamics.

[12]  M. Allen,et al.  A solution to the misrepresentations of CO2-equivalent emissions of short-lived climate pollutants under ambitious mitigation , 2018, npj Climate and Atmospheric Science.

[13]  J. Schwinger,et al.  Ocean Carbon Cycle Feedbacks Under Negative Emissions , 2018 .

[14]  N. Gillett,et al.  Cumulative carbon emissions budgets consistent with 1.5 °C global warming , 2018, Nature Climate Change.

[15]  P. Friedlingstein,et al.  The utility of the historical record for assessing the transient climate response to cumulative emissions , 2018, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[16]  G. Luderer,et al.  Pathways limiting warming to 1.5°C: a tale of turning around in no time? , 2018, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[17]  Richard G. Williams,et al.  Pathways to 1.5 °C and 2 °C warming based on observational and geological constraints , 2018, Nature Geoscience.

[18]  M. V. Vilariño,et al.  Mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5°C in the context of sustainable development , 2018 .

[19]  L. Bopp,et al.  Sensitivity of Global Warming to Carbon Emissions: Effects of Heat and Carbon Uptake in a Suite of Earth System Models , 2017 .

[20]  P. Friedlingstein,et al.  Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C , 2017 .

[21]  A. MacDougall The oceanic origin of path-independent carbon budgets , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[22]  N. Gillett,et al.  The Sensitivity of the Proportionality between Temperature Change and Cumulative CO2 Emissions to Ocean Mixing , 2017 .

[23]  P. Friedlingstein,et al.  Estimating Carbon Budgets for Ambitious Climate Targets , 2017, Current Climate Change Reports.

[24]  S. Bony,et al.  Climate research must sharpen its view. , 2017, Nature climate change.

[25]  R. Knutti,et al.  The Uncertainty in the Transient Climate Response to Cumulative CO2 Emissions Arising from the Uncertainty in Physical Climate Parameters , 2017 .

[26]  Pete Smith,et al.  Research priorities for negative emissions , 2016 .

[27]  P. Cox,et al.  Projected land photosynthesis constrained by changes in the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2 , 2016, Nature.

[28]  Philip G. Sansom,et al.  Sources of Uncertainty in Future Projections of the Carbon Cycle , 2016 .

[29]  J. Canadell,et al.  Simulating the Earth system response to negative emissions , 2016 .

[30]  Pierre Friedlingstein,et al.  C4MIP – The Coupled Climate–Carbon Cycle Model Intercomparison Project: Experimental protocol for CMIP6 , 2016 .

[31]  H. Matthews,et al.  On the proportionality between global temperature change and cumulative CO2 emissions during periods of net negative CO2 emissions , 2016 .

[32]  A. MacDougall The Transient Response to Cumulative CO2 Emissions: a Review , 2016, Current Climate Change Reports.

[33]  Veronika Eyring,et al.  Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization , 2015 .

[34]  R. Knutti,et al.  Sensitivity of carbon budgets to permafrost carbon feedbacks and non-CO2 forcings , 2015 .

[35]  J. Randerson,et al.  Multicentury changes in ocean and land contributions to the climate‐carbon feedback , 2015 .

[36]  Atul K. Jain,et al.  Using ecosystem experiments to improve vegetation models , 2015 .

[37]  Daniel M. Ricciuto,et al.  Predicting long‐term carbon sequestration in response to CO2 enrichment: How and why do current ecosystem models differ? , 2015 .

[38]  Philip Goodwin,et al.  Sensitivity of climate to cumulative carbon emissions due to compensation of ocean heat and carbon uptake , 2015 .

[39]  Pierre Friedlingstein,et al.  Uncertainties in CMIP5 Climate Projections due to Carbon Cycle Feedbacks , 2014 .

[40]  Corinne Le Quéré,et al.  Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles , 2014 .

[41]  Myles R. Allen,et al.  Constraining the Ratio of Global Warming to Cumulative CO2 Emissions Using CMIP5 Simulations , 2013 .

[42]  Pierre Friedlingstein,et al.  Twenty-First-Century Compatible CO2 Emissions and Airborne Fraction Simulated by CMIP5 Earth System Models under Four Representative Concentration Pathways , 2013, Journal of Climate.

[43]  Andrei P. Sokolov,et al.  Historical and idealized climate model experiments: an intercomparison of Earth system models of intermediate complexity , 2013 .

[44]  P. Cox,et al.  Sensitivity of tropical carbon to climate change constrained by carbon dioxide variability , 2013, Nature.

[45]  M. Raupach The exponential eigenmodes of the carbon-climate system, and their implications for ratios of responses to forcings , 2013 .

[46]  K.,et al.  Carbon–Concentration and Carbon–Climate Feedbacks in CMIP5 Earth System Models , 2012 .

[47]  M. Allen,et al.  Equivalence of greenhouse-gas emissions for peak temperature limits , 2012 .

[48]  R. Betts,et al.  High sensitivity of future global warming to land carbon cycle processes , 2012 .

[49]  F. Joos,et al.  Regional Impacts of Climate Change and Atmospheric CO2on Future Ocean Carbon Uptake: A Multimodel Linear Feedback Analysis , 2011 .

[50]  J. Gregory,et al.  Quantifying Carbon Cycle Feedbacks , 2009 .

[51]  H. Damon Matthews,et al.  The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions , 2009, Nature.

[52]  N. Meinshausen,et al.  Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C , 2009, Nature.

[53]  N. Meinshausen,et al.  Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne , 2009, Nature.

[54]  Brian J. Soden,et al.  Quantifying Climate Feedbacks Using Radiative Kernels , 2008 .

[55]  Jens Kattge,et al.  Will the tropical land biosphere dominate the climate–carbon cycle feedback during the twenty-first century? , 2007 .

[56]  H. L. Miller,et al.  Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis , 2007 .

[57]  S. Bony,et al.  How Well Do We Understand and Evaluate Climate Change Feedback Processes , 2006 .

[58]  R. Schnur,et al.  Climate-carbon cycle feedback analysis: Results from the C , 2006 .

[59]  A. Weaver,et al.  Primary productivity control of simulated carbon cycle–climate feedbacks , 2005 .

[60]  P. Cox,et al.  How positive is the feedback between climate change and the carbon cycle? , 2003 .

[61]  J. Dufresne,et al.  Positive feedback between future climate change and the carbon cycle , 2001 .

[62]  R. Betts,et al.  Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model , 2000, Nature.

[63]  Ken Caldeira,et al.  Insensitivity of global warming potentials to carbon dioxide emission scenarios , 1993, Nature.

[64]  H. P. Tappan Of the sensitivity. , 1840 .