IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v176y2023i12d10.1007_s10584-023-03639-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing carbon cycle projections from complex and simple models under SSP scenarios

Author

Listed:
  • Irina Melnikova

    (Université Paris-Saclay
    National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES))

  • Philippe Ciais

    (Université Paris-Saclay)

  • Olivier Boucher

    (Sorbonne Université / CNRS)

  • Katsumasa Tanaka

    (Université Paris-Saclay
    National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES))

Abstract

Both full-fledged Earth system models (ESMs) and simple climate models (SCMs) have been used to investigate climate change for future representative CO2 concentration pathways under the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. Here, we explore to what extent complex and simple models are consistent in their carbon cycle response in concentration-driven simulations. Although ESMs and SCMs exhibit similar compatible fossil fuel CO2 emissions, ESMs systematically estimate a lower ocean carbon uptake than SCMs in the historical period and future scenarios. The ESM and SCM differences are especially large under low-concentration and overshoot scenarios. Furthermore, ESMs and SCMs deviate in their land carbon uptake estimates, but the differences are scenario-dependent. These differences are partly driven by a few model outliers (ESMs and SCMs) and the procedure of observational constraining that is present in the majority of SCMs but not applied in ESMs. The differences in land uptake arise from the difference in the way land-use change (LUC) emissions are calculated and different assumptions on how the carbon cycle feedbacks are defined, possibly reflecting the treatment of nitrogen limitation of biomass growth and historical calibration of SCMs. The differences in ocean uptake, which are especially large in overshoot scenarios, may arise from the faster mixing of carbon from the surface to the deep ocean in SCMs than in ESMs. We also discuss the inconsistencies that arise when converting CO2 emissions from integrated assessment models (IAMs) to CO2 concentrations inputs for ESMs, which typically rely on a single SCM. We further highlight the discrepancies in LUC emission estimates between models of different complexity, particularly ESMs and IAMs, and encourage climate modeling groups to address these potential areas for model improvement.

Suggested Citation

  • Irina Melnikova & Philippe Ciais & Olivier Boucher & Katsumasa Tanaka, 2023. "Assessing carbon cycle projections from complex and simple models under SSP scenarios," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(12), pages 1-26, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:176:y:2023:i:12:d:10.1007_s10584-023-03639-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-023-03639-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-023-03639-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-023-03639-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter M. Cox & David Pearson & Ben B. Booth & Pierre Friedlingstein & Chris Huntingford & Chris D. Jones & Catherine M. Luke, 2013. "Sensitivity of tropical carbon to climate change constrained by carbon dioxide variability," Nature, Nature, vol. 494(7437), pages 341-344, February.
    2. S. Khatiwala & F. Primeau & T. Hall, 2009. "Reconstruction of the history of anthropogenic CO2 concentrations in the ocean," Nature, Nature, vol. 462(7271), pages 346-349, November.
    3. Katherine Calvin & Marshall Wise & Page Kyle & Pralit Patel & Leon Clarke & Jae Edmonds, 2014. "Trade-offs of different land and bioenergy policies on the path to achieving climate targets," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 123(3), pages 691-704, April.
    4. Katsumasa Tanaka & Brian C. O’Neill, 2018. "The Paris Agreement zero-emissions goal is not always consistent with the 1.5 °C and 2 °C temperature targets," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 8(4), pages 319-324, April.
    5. Elmar Kriegler & Jae Edmonds & Stéphane Hallegatte & Kristie Ebi & Tom Kram & Keywan Riahi & Harald Winkler & Detlef Vuuren, 2014. "A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared climate policy assumptions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 122(3), pages 401-414, February.
    6. Brian O’Neill & Elmar Kriegler & Keywan Riahi & Kristie Ebi & Stephane Hallegatte & Timothy Carter & Ritu Mathur & Detlef Vuuren, 2014. "A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 122(3), pages 387-400, February.
    7. Rebecca M. Varney & Sarah E. Chadburn & Pierre Friedlingstein & Eleanor J. Burke & Charles D. Koven & Gustaf Hugelius & Peter M. Cox, 2020. "A spatial emergent constraint on the sensitivity of soil carbon turnover to global warming," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 11(1), pages 1-8, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Winchester, Niven & Reilly, John M., 2015. "The feasibility, costs, and environmental implications of large-scale biomass energy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 188-203.
    2. Bai, Yuping & Deng, Xiangzheng & Cheng, Yunfei & Hu, Yecui & Zhang, Lijin, 2021. "Exploring regional land use dynamics under shared socioeconomic pathways: A case study in Inner Mongolia, China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    3. Tomoya Mori & Daisuke Murakami, 2025. "Sustainability of cities under declining population and decreasing distance frictions: The case of Japan," KIER Working Papers 1117, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    4. Lamperti, Francesco & Bosetti, Valentina & Roventini, Andrea & Tavoni, Massimo & Treibich, Tania, 2021. "Three green financial policies to address climate risks," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    5. Solberg, Birger & Moiseyev, Alex & Hansen, Jon Øvrum & Horn, Svein Jarle & Øverland, Margareth, 2021. "Wood for food: Economic impacts of sustainable use of forest biomass for salmon feed production in Norway," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    6. Lanzi, Elisa & Dellink, Rob & Chateau, Jean, 2018. "The sectoral and regional economic consequences of outdoor air pollution to 2060," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 89-113.
    7. Fujimori, Shinichiro & Dai, Hancheng & Masui, Toshihiko & Matsuoka, Yuzuru, 2016. "Global energy model hindcasting," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 293-301.
    8. F. Castro-Llanos & G. Hyman & J. Rubiano & J. Ramirez-Villegas & H. Achicanoy, 2019. "Climate change favors rice production at higher elevations in Colombia," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 24(8), pages 1401-1430, December.
    9. Speers, Ann E. & Besedin, Elena Y. & Palardy, James E. & Moore, Chris, 2016. "Impacts of climate change and ocean acidification on coral reef fisheries: An integrated ecological–economic model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 33-43.
    10. Kalkuhl, Matthias & Wenz, Leonie, 2020. "The impact of climate conditions on economic production. Evidence from a global panel of regions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    11. McManamay, Ryan A. & DeRolph, Christopher R. & Surendran-Nair, Sujithkumar & Allen-Dumas, Melissa, 2019. "Spatially explicit land-energy-water future scenarios for cities: Guiding infrastructure transitions for urban sustainability," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 880-900.
    12. Richard Taylor & Ruth Butterfield & Tiago Capela Lourenço & Adis Dzebo & Henrik Carlsen & Richard J. T. Klein, 2020. "Surveying perceptions and practices of high-end climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 161(1), pages 65-87, July.
    13. Roson, Roberto & Damania, Richard, 2016. "Simulating the Macroeconomic Impact of Future Water Scarcity an Assessment of Alternative Scenarios," Conference papers 332687, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    14. Frauke Meyer & Hawal Shamon & Stefan Vögele, 2022. "Dynamics and Heterogeneity of Environmental Attitude, Willingness and Behavior in Germany from 1993 to 2021," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-22, December.
    15. Hartin, Corinne & Link, Robert & Patel, Pralit & Mundra, Anupriya & Horowitz, Russell & Dorheim, Kalyn & Clarke, Leon, 2021. "Integrated modeling of human-earth system interactions: An application of GCAM-fusion," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    16. Phetheet, Jirapat & Hill, Mary C. & Barron, Robert W. & Gray, Benjamin J. & Wu, Hongyu & Amanor-Boadu, Vincent & Heger, Wade & Kisekka, Isaya & Golden, Bill & Rossi, Matthew W., 2021. "Relating agriculture, energy, and water decisions to farm incomes and climate projections using two freeware programs, FEWCalc and DSSAT," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    17. Milan Ščasný & Emanuele Massetti & Jan Melichar & Samuel Carrara, 2015. "Quantifying the Ancillary Benefits of the Representative Concentration Pathways on Air Quality in Europe," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(2), pages 383-415, October.
    18. Trutnevyte, Evelina & McDowall, Will & Tomei, Julia & Keppo, Ilkka, 2016. "Energy scenario choices: Insights from a retrospective review of UK energy futures," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 326-337.
    19. Matteo Fontana & Massimo Tavoni & Simone Vantini, 2020. "Global Sensitivity and Domain-Selective Testing for Functional-Valued Responses: An Application to Climate Economy Models," Papers 2006.13850, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    20. Coppens, Léo & Venmans, Frank, 2025. "The welfare properties of climate targets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:176:y:2023:i:12:d:10.1007_s10584-023-03639-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.