skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Sources of Uncertainty in Modeled Land Carbon Storage within and across Three MIPs: Diagnosis with Three New Techniques

Abstract

Terrestrial carbon cycle models have incorporated increasingly more processes as a means to achieve more-realistic representations of ecosystem carbon cycling. Despite this, there are large across-model variations in the simulation and projection of carbon cycling. Several model intercomparison projects (MIPs), for example, the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) (historical simulations), Trends in Net Land–Atmosphere Carbon Exchange (TRENDY), and Multiscale Synthesis and Terrestrial Model Intercomparison Project (MsTMIP), have sought to understand intermodel differences. Here in this study, the authors developed a suite of new techniques to conduct post-MIP analysis to gain insights into uncertainty sources across 25 models in the three MIPs. First, terrestrial carbon storage dynamics were characterized by a three-dimensional (3D) model output space with coordinates of carbon residence time, net primary productivity (NPP), and carbon storage potential. The latter represents the potential of an ecosystem to lose or gain carbon. This space can be used to measure how and why model output differs. Models with a nitrogen cycle generally exhibit lower annual NPP in comparison with other models, and mostly negative carbon storage potential. Second, a transient traceability framework was used to decompose any given carbon cycle model into traceable components and identify themore » sources of model differences. The carbon residence time (or NPP) was traced to baseline carbon residence time (or baseline NPP related to the maximum carbon input), environmental scalars, and climate forcing. Third, by applying a variance decomposition method, the authors show that the intermodel differences in carbon storage can be mainly attributed to the baseline carbon residence time and baseline NPP (>90% in the three MIPs). The three techniques developed in this study offer a novel approach to gain more insight from existing MIPs and can point out directions for future MIPs. Finally, since this study is conducted at the global scale for an overview on intermodel differences, future studies should focus more on regional analysis to identify the sources of uncertainties and improve models at the specified mechanism level.« less

Authors:
ORCiD logo [1];  [2];  [3];  [4];  [5];  [6];  [7];  [8];  [9];  [10];  [11];  [12];  [13];  [14];  [15]
  1. Tsinghua Univ., Beijing (China). State Key Lab. of Hydroscience and Engineering, Dept. of Hydraulic Engineering; Columbia Univ., New York, NY (United States)
  2. Univ. of Oklahoma, Norman, OK (United States). Dept. of Microbiology and Plant Biology
  3. Northern Arizona Univ., Flagstaff, AZ (United States). Dept. of Biological Sciences; Northern Arizona Univ., Flagstaff, AZ (United States).Center for Ecosystem Science and Society; Univ. of Oklahoma, Norman, OK (United States). Dept. of Microbiology and Plant Biology
  4. Tsinghua Univ., Beijing (China). Dept. of Earth System Science; Univ. of Oklahoma, Norman, OK (United States). Dept. of Microbiology and Plant Biology
  5. Northern Arizona Univ., Flagstaff, AZ (United States). Dept. of Biological Sciences; Northern Arizona Univ., Flagstaff, AZ (United States).Center for Ecosystem Science and Society
  6. Univ. of Oklahoma, Norman, OK (United States). Dept. of Microbiology and Plant Biology, and Center for Spatial Analysis
  7. Woods Hole Research Center, Falmouth, MA (United States); Northern Arizona Univ., Flagstaff, AZ (United States).Center for Ecosystem Science and Society
  8. California Inst. of Technology (CalTech), Pasadena, CA (United States). Jet Propulsion Lab.
  9. Uni Research Climate, Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, Bergen (Norway)
  10. Univ. of Exeter, Exeter (United Kingdom). College of Life and Environmental Sciences
  11. Stanford Univ., CA (United States). Dept. of Earth System Science; Lund Univ. (Sweden). Dept. of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science
  12. Northern Arizona Univ., Flagstaff, AZ (United States). School of Earth Sciences and Environmental Sustainability; Northern Arizona Univ., Flagstaff, AZ (United States). Dept. of Civil Engineering, Construction Management, and Environmental Engineering
  13. Tsinghua Univ., Beijing (China). State Key Lab. of Hydroscience and Engineering, Dept. of Hydraulic Engineering; Qinghai Univ., Qinghai (China).College of Ecological and Environmental Engineering
  14. Tsinghua Univ., Beijing (China). State Key Lab. of Hydroscience and Engineering, Dept. of Hydraulic Engineering
  15. Northern Arizona Univ., Flagstaff, AZ (United States). Dept. of Biological Sciences; Northern Arizona Univ., Flagstaff, AZ (United States).Center for Ecosystem Science and Society; Tsinghua Univ., Beijing (China). Dept. of Earth System Science
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Oak Ridge National Lab. (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE; National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA)
OSTI Identifier:
1468035
Grant/Contract Number:  
AC05-00OR22725; NNX10AG01A; NNH10AN681
Resource Type:
Journal Article: Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
Journal of Climate
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 31; Journal Issue: 7; Journal ID: ISSN 0894-8755
Publisher:
American Meteorological Society
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES; Carbon cycle; Land surface model; Model evaluation/performance

Citation Formats

Zhou, Sha, Liang, Junyi, Lu, Xingjie, Li, Qianyu, Jiang, Lifen, Zhang, Yao, Schwalm, Christopher R., Fisher, Joshua B., Tjiputra, Jerry, Sitch, Stephen, Ahlström, Anders, Huntzinger, Deborah N., Huang, Yuefei, Wang, Guangqian, and Luo, Yiqi. Sources of Uncertainty in Modeled Land Carbon Storage within and across Three MIPs: Diagnosis with Three New Techniques. United States: N. p., 2018. Web. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0357.1.
Zhou, Sha, Liang, Junyi, Lu, Xingjie, Li, Qianyu, Jiang, Lifen, Zhang, Yao, Schwalm, Christopher R., Fisher, Joshua B., Tjiputra, Jerry, Sitch, Stephen, Ahlström, Anders, Huntzinger, Deborah N., Huang, Yuefei, Wang, Guangqian, & Luo, Yiqi. Sources of Uncertainty in Modeled Land Carbon Storage within and across Three MIPs: Diagnosis with Three New Techniques. United States. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0357.1.
Zhou, Sha, Liang, Junyi, Lu, Xingjie, Li, Qianyu, Jiang, Lifen, Zhang, Yao, Schwalm, Christopher R., Fisher, Joshua B., Tjiputra, Jerry, Sitch, Stephen, Ahlström, Anders, Huntzinger, Deborah N., Huang, Yuefei, Wang, Guangqian, and Luo, Yiqi. Mon . "Sources of Uncertainty in Modeled Land Carbon Storage within and across Three MIPs: Diagnosis with Three New Techniques". United States. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0357.1.
@article{osti_1468035,
title = {Sources of Uncertainty in Modeled Land Carbon Storage within and across Three MIPs: Diagnosis with Three New Techniques},
author = {Zhou, Sha and Liang, Junyi and Lu, Xingjie and Li, Qianyu and Jiang, Lifen and Zhang, Yao and Schwalm, Christopher R. and Fisher, Joshua B. and Tjiputra, Jerry and Sitch, Stephen and Ahlström, Anders and Huntzinger, Deborah N. and Huang, Yuefei and Wang, Guangqian and Luo, Yiqi},
abstractNote = {Terrestrial carbon cycle models have incorporated increasingly more processes as a means to achieve more-realistic representations of ecosystem carbon cycling. Despite this, there are large across-model variations in the simulation and projection of carbon cycling. Several model intercomparison projects (MIPs), for example, the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) (historical simulations), Trends in Net Land–Atmosphere Carbon Exchange (TRENDY), and Multiscale Synthesis and Terrestrial Model Intercomparison Project (MsTMIP), have sought to understand intermodel differences. Here in this study, the authors developed a suite of new techniques to conduct post-MIP analysis to gain insights into uncertainty sources across 25 models in the three MIPs. First, terrestrial carbon storage dynamics were characterized by a three-dimensional (3D) model output space with coordinates of carbon residence time, net primary productivity (NPP), and carbon storage potential. The latter represents the potential of an ecosystem to lose or gain carbon. This space can be used to measure how and why model output differs. Models with a nitrogen cycle generally exhibit lower annual NPP in comparison with other models, and mostly negative carbon storage potential. Second, a transient traceability framework was used to decompose any given carbon cycle model into traceable components and identify the sources of model differences. The carbon residence time (or NPP) was traced to baseline carbon residence time (or baseline NPP related to the maximum carbon input), environmental scalars, and climate forcing. Third, by applying a variance decomposition method, the authors show that the intermodel differences in carbon storage can be mainly attributed to the baseline carbon residence time and baseline NPP (>90% in the three MIPs). The three techniques developed in this study offer a novel approach to gain more insight from existing MIPs and can point out directions for future MIPs. Finally, since this study is conducted at the global scale for an overview on intermodel differences, future studies should focus more on regional analysis to identify the sources of uncertainties and improve models at the specified mechanism level.},
doi = {10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0357.1},
journal = {Journal of Climate},
number = 7,
volume = 31,
place = {United States},
year = {Mon Mar 12 00:00:00 EDT 2018},
month = {Mon Mar 12 00:00:00 EDT 2018}
}

Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
This content will become publicly available on March 12, 2019
Publisher's Version of Record

Save / Share: