TY - JOUR
T1 - The need for carbon-emissions-driven climate projections in CMIP7
AU - Sanderson, Benjamin
AU - Booth, Ben B B
AU - Eyring, Veronika
AU - Fisher, Rosie A.
AU - Friedlingstein, Pierre
AU - Gidden, Matthew
AU - Hajima, Tomohiro
AU - Jones, Chris
AU - Jones, Colin
AU - Koven, Charles
AU - Lawrence, David
AU - Lowe, Jason
AU - Mengis, Nadine
AU - Peters, Glen
AU - Rogelj, Joeri
AU - Smith, Christopher
AU - Snyder, Abigail C.
AU - Simpson, Isla R.
AU - Swann, Abigail
AU - Tebaldi, Claudia
AU - Ilyina, Tatiana
AU - Schleussner, Carl-Friedrich
AU - Séférian, Roland
AU - Samset, Bjørn H.
AU - Vuuren, Detlef van
AU - Zaehle, Sönke
N1 - Funding Information:
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Veronika Eyring, Roland S\u00E9f\u00E9rian, Rosie A. Fisher, S\u00F6nke Zaehle, Chris D. Jones and Colin G. Jones acknowledge funding by the European Union's Horizon 2020 (H2020) Research and Innovation program under grant agreement nos. 101003536 (ESM2025 \u2013 Earth System Models for the Future) and 821003 (4C, Climate\u2013Carbon Interactions in the Coming Century). Benjamin M. Sanderson and Carl-Friedrich Schleussner acknowledge funding from 101003687 (PROVIDE). Veronika Eyring additionally acknowledges funding by the European Research Council (ERC) Synergy Grant \u201CUnderstanding and Modeling the Earth System with Machine Learning (USMILE)\u201D under the Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation program (grant agreement no. 855187). Charles D. Koven acknowledges support by the Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research of the US Department of Energy under contract DE-AC02-05CH11231 through the Regional and Global Model Analysis Program (RUBISCO SFA). Matthew J. Gidden acknowledges funding under the European Union's Horizon Europe Research and Innovation program under grant agreement no. 101056939 (RESCUE). Nadine Mengis acknowledges funding from the Emmy Noether scheme by the German Research Foundation \u201CFOOTPRINTS \u2013 From carbOn remOval To achieving the PaRIs agreemeNt's goal: Temperature Stabilisation\u201D (ME 5746/1-1). Abigail L. S. Swann acknowledges support from DOE BER RGMA award DE-SC0021209 to the University of Washington. Chris D. Jones was supported by the Joint UK BEIS/Defra Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme (GA01101).
Funding Information:
This research has been supported by the Horizon 2020 (grant nos. 101003536, 821003, 855187, 101056939 and 101003687), the Office of Biological and Environmental Research (grant nos. DE-AC02-05CH11231 and DE-SC0021209), and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (grant no. ME 5746/1-1). Benjamin M. Sanderson, Veronika Eyring, Roland S f rian, Rosie A. Fisher, S nke Zaehle, Chris D. Jones and Colin G. Jones acknowledge funding by the European Union s Horizon 2020 (H2020) Research and Innovation program under grant agreement nos. 101003536 (ESM2025 Earth System Models for the Future) and 821003 (4C, Climate Carbon Interactions in the Coming Century). Benjamin M. Sanderson and Carl-Friedrich Schleussner acknowledge funding from 101003687 (PROVIDE). Veronika Eyring additionally acknowledges funding by the European Research Council (ERC) Synergy Grant Understanding and Modeling the Earth System with Machine Learning (USMILE) under the Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation program (grant agreement no. 855187). Charles D. Koven acknowledges support by the Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research of the US Department of Energy under contract DE-AC02- 05CH11231 through the Regional and Global Model Analysis Program (RUBISCO SFA). Matthew J. Gidden acknowledges funding under the European Union s Horizon Europe Research and Innovation program under grant agreement no. 101056939 (RESCUE). Nadine Mengis acknowledges funding from the Emmy Noether scheme by the German Research Foundation FOOTPRINTS From carbOn remOval To achieving the PaRIs agreemeNt s goal: Temperature Stabilisation (ME 5746/1-1). Abigail L. S. Swann acknowledges support from DOE BER RGMA award DE-SC0021209 to the University of Washington. Chris D. Jones was supported by the Joint UK BEIS/Defra Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme (GA01101).
Funding Information:
This research has been supported by the Horizon 2020 (grant nos. 101003536, 821003, 855187, 101056939 and 101003687), the Office of Biological and Environmental Research (grant nos. DE-AC02-05CH11231 and DE-SC0021209), and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (grant no. ME 5746/1-1).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 Copernicus Publications. All rights reserved.
PY - 2024/11/19
Y1 - 2024/11/19
N2 - Previous phases of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) have primarily focused on simulations driven by atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs), for both idealized model experiments and climate projections of different emissions scenarios. We argue that although this approach was practical to allow parallel development of Earth system model simulations and detailed socioeconomic futures, carbon cycle uncertainty as represented by diverse, process-resolving Earth system models (ESMs) is not manifested in the scenario outcomes, thus omitting a dominant source of uncertainty in meeting the Paris Agreement. Mitigation policy is defined in terms of human activity (including emissions), with strategies varying in their timing of net-zero emissions, the balance of mitigation effort between short-lived and long-lived climate forcers, their reliance on land use strategy, and the extent and timing of carbon removals. To explore the response to these drivers, ESMs need to explicitly represent complete cycles of major GHGs, including natural processes and anthropogenic influences. Carbon removal and sequestration strategies, which rely on proposed human management of natural systems, are currently calculated in integrated assessment models (IAMs) during scenario development with only the net carbon emissions passed to the ESM. However, proper accounting of the coupled system impacts of and feedback on such interventions requires explicit process representation in ESMs to build self-consistent physical representations of their potential effectiveness and risks under climate change. We propose that CMIP7 efforts prioritize simulations driven by CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use and projected deployment of carbon dioxide removal technologies, as well as land use and management, using the process resolution allowed by state-of-the-art ESMs to resolve carbon–climate feedbacks. Post-CMIP7 ambitions should aim to incorporate modeling of non-CO2 GHGs (in particular, sources and sinks of methane and nitrous oxide) and process-based representation of carbon removal options. These developments will allow three primary benefits: (1) resources to be allocated to policy-relevant climate projections and better real-time information related to the detectability and verification of emissions reductions and their relationship to expected near-term climate impacts, (2) scenario modeling of the range of possible future climate states including Earth system processes and feedbacks that are increasingly well-represented in ESMs, and (3) optimal utilization of the strengths of ESMs in the wider context of climate modeling infrastructure (which includes simple climate models, machine learning approaches and kilometer-scale climate models).
AB - Previous phases of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) have primarily focused on simulations driven by atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs), for both idealized model experiments and climate projections of different emissions scenarios. We argue that although this approach was practical to allow parallel development of Earth system model simulations and detailed socioeconomic futures, carbon cycle uncertainty as represented by diverse, process-resolving Earth system models (ESMs) is not manifested in the scenario outcomes, thus omitting a dominant source of uncertainty in meeting the Paris Agreement. Mitigation policy is defined in terms of human activity (including emissions), with strategies varying in their timing of net-zero emissions, the balance of mitigation effort between short-lived and long-lived climate forcers, their reliance on land use strategy, and the extent and timing of carbon removals. To explore the response to these drivers, ESMs need to explicitly represent complete cycles of major GHGs, including natural processes and anthropogenic influences. Carbon removal and sequestration strategies, which rely on proposed human management of natural systems, are currently calculated in integrated assessment models (IAMs) during scenario development with only the net carbon emissions passed to the ESM. However, proper accounting of the coupled system impacts of and feedback on such interventions requires explicit process representation in ESMs to build self-consistent physical representations of their potential effectiveness and risks under climate change. We propose that CMIP7 efforts prioritize simulations driven by CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use and projected deployment of carbon dioxide removal technologies, as well as land use and management, using the process resolution allowed by state-of-the-art ESMs to resolve carbon–climate feedbacks. Post-CMIP7 ambitions should aim to incorporate modeling of non-CO2 GHGs (in particular, sources and sinks of methane and nitrous oxide) and process-based representation of carbon removal options. These developments will allow three primary benefits: (1) resources to be allocated to policy-relevant climate projections and better real-time information related to the detectability and verification of emissions reductions and their relationship to expected near-term climate impacts, (2) scenario modeling of the range of possible future climate states including Earth system processes and feedbacks that are increasingly well-represented in ESMs, and (3) optimal utilization of the strengths of ESMs in the wider context of climate modeling infrastructure (which includes simple climate models, machine learning approaches and kilometer-scale climate models).
UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8141-2024
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85209883133&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.5194/gmd-17-8141-2024
DO - 10.5194/gmd-17-8141-2024
M3 - Article
SN - 1991-959X
VL - 17
SP - 8141
EP - 8172
JO - Geoscientific Model Development
JF - Geoscientific Model Development
IS - 22
ER -