Importance of carbon dioxide physiological forcing to future climate change

An increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration influences climate both directly through its radiative effect (i.e., trapping longwave radiation) and indirectly through its physiological effect (i.e., reducing transpiration of land plants). Here we compare the climate response to radiative and physiological effects of increased CO2 using the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) coupled Community Land and Community Atmosphere Model. In response to a doubling of CO2, the radiative effect of CO2 causes mean surface air temperature over land to increase by 2.86 ± 0.02 K (± 1 standard error), whereas the physiological effects of CO2 on land plants alone causes air temperature over land to increase by 0.42 ± 0.02 K. Combined, these two effects cause a land surface warming of 3.33 ± 0.03 K. The radiative effect of doubling CO2 increases global runoff by 5.2 ± 0.6%, primarily by increasing precipitation over the continents. The physiological effect increases runoff by 8.4 ± 0.6%, primarily by diminishing evapotranspiration from the continents. Combined, these two effects cause a 14.9 ± 0.7% increase in runoff. Relative humidity remains roughly constant in response to CO2-radiative forcing, whereas relative humidity over land decreases in response to CO2-physiological forcing as a result of reduced plant transpiration. Our study points to an emerging consensus that the physiological effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 on land plants will increase global warming beyond that caused by the radiative effects of CO2.

[1]  R. Nemani,et al.  Climate response to physiological forcing of carbon dioxide simulated by the coupled Community Atmosphere Model (CAM3.1) and Community Land Model (CLM3.0) , 2009 .

[2]  R. Betts,et al.  Climate response to the physiological impact of carbon dioxide on plants in the Met Office Unified Model HadCM3 , 2009 .

[3]  Olivier Boucher,et al.  Carbon dioxide induced stomatal closure increases radiative forcing via a rapid reduction in low cloud , 2009 .

[4]  Peter E. Thornton,et al.  Improvements to the Community Land Model and their impact on the hydrological cycle , 2008 .

[5]  Olivier Boucher,et al.  Projected increase in continental runoff due to plant responses to increasing carbon dioxide , 2007, Nature.

[6]  S. Long,et al.  Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations , 2006, Science.

[7]  R. Betts,et al.  Detection of a direct carbon dioxide effect in continental river runoff records , 2006, Nature.

[8]  T. Phillips,et al.  Biogeophysical effects of CO2 fertilization on global climate , 2006 .

[9]  M. Allen,et al.  Constraints on future changes in climate and the hydrologic cycle , 2002, Nature.

[10]  J. Tenhunen,et al.  Evapotranspiration and soil water content in a scrub‐oak woodland under carbon dioxide enrichment , 2002 .

[11]  R. Betts,et al.  The impact of new land surface physics on the GCM simulation of climate and climate sensitivity , 1999 .

[12]  Susan E. Lee,et al.  Contrasting physiological and structural vegetation feedbacks in climate change simulations , 1997, Nature.

[13]  G. J. Collatz,et al.  Comparison of Radiative and Physiological Effects of Doubled Atmospheric CO2 on Climate , 1996, Science.

[14]  Christopher B. Field,et al.  Stomatal responses to increased CO2: implications from the plant to the global scale , 1995 .

[15]  Hans von Storch,et al.  Taking Serial Correlation into Account in Tests of the Mean. , 1995 .

[16]  G. Collatz,et al.  Physiological and environmental regulation of stomatal conductance, photosynthesis and transpiration: a model that includes a laminar boundary layer , 1991 .

[17]  Peter E. Thornton,et al.  Technical Description of the Community Land Model (CLM) , 2004 .

[18]  W. Collins,et al.  Description of the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 3.0) , 2004 .

[19]  G. Collatz,et al.  Coupled Photosynthesis-Stomatal Conductance Model for Leaves of C4 Plants , 1992 .