Eine Plattform für die Wissenschaft: Bauingenieurwesen, Architektur und Urbanistik
Eine Plattform für die Wissenschaft: Bauingenieurwesen, Architektur und Urbanistik
The effect of climate–carbon cycle feedbacks on emission metrics
The Climate–Carbon cycle Feedback (CCF) affects emission metric values. In the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change metric values for Global Warming Potentials (GWP) and Global Temperature Potentials (GTP) are reported both with and without CCF for non-CO _2 climate forcers, while CCF is always included for CO _2 . The estimation of CCF for non-CO _2 climate forcers in AR5 is based on a linear feedback analysis. This study compares that approach with an explicit approach that uses a temperature dependent carbon cycle model. The key difference in the CCF results for non-CO _2 climate forcers is that, with the approach used in AR5, a fraction of the CO _2 signal induced by non-CO _2 forcers will persist in the atmosphere basically forever, while, with the approach based on an explicit carbon cycle model, the atmospheric CO _2 signal induced by non-CO _2 forcers eventually vanishes. The differences in metric values between the two model approaches are within ±10% for all well-mixed greenhouse gases when the time horizon is limited to 100 yr or less, for both GWP and GTP. However, for long time horizons, such as 500 yr, metric values are substantially lower with the explicit CCF model than with the linear feedback approach, up to 30% lower for GWP and up to 90% lower for GTP.
The effect of climate–carbon cycle feedbacks on emission metrics
The Climate–Carbon cycle Feedback (CCF) affects emission metric values. In the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change metric values for Global Warming Potentials (GWP) and Global Temperature Potentials (GTP) are reported both with and without CCF for non-CO _2 climate forcers, while CCF is always included for CO _2 . The estimation of CCF for non-CO _2 climate forcers in AR5 is based on a linear feedback analysis. This study compares that approach with an explicit approach that uses a temperature dependent carbon cycle model. The key difference in the CCF results for non-CO _2 climate forcers is that, with the approach used in AR5, a fraction of the CO _2 signal induced by non-CO _2 forcers will persist in the atmosphere basically forever, while, with the approach based on an explicit carbon cycle model, the atmospheric CO _2 signal induced by non-CO _2 forcers eventually vanishes. The differences in metric values between the two model approaches are within ±10% for all well-mixed greenhouse gases when the time horizon is limited to 100 yr or less, for both GWP and GTP. However, for long time horizons, such as 500 yr, metric values are substantially lower with the explicit CCF model than with the linear feedback approach, up to 30% lower for GWP and up to 90% lower for GTP.
The effect of climate–carbon cycle feedbacks on emission metrics
Erik O Sterner (Autor:in) / Daniel J A Johansson (Autor:in)
2017
Aufsatz (Zeitschrift)
Elektronische Ressource
Unbekannt
Metadata by DOAJ is licensed under CC BY-SA 1.0
Hydrological and biogeochemical constraints on terrestrial carbon cycle feedbacks
| DOAJ | 2017
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 2013
Shrub expansion and climate feedbacks in Arctic tundra
| IOP Institute of Physics | 2012
Diagnosing atmosphere–land feedbacks in CMIP5 climate models
| IOP Institute of Physics | 2012