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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Coppens, Léo & Venmans, Frank, 2025. "The welfare properties of climate targets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    10. Enrica De Cian & Ian Sue Wing, 2016. "Global Energy Demand in a Warming Climate," Working Papers 2016.16, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    11. Tom Wilson & Irina Grossman & Monica Alexander & Phil Rees & Jeromey Temple, 2022. "Methods for Small Area Population Forecasts: State-of-the-Art and Research Needs," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 41(3), pages 865-898, June.
    12. Victor Nechifor & Matthew Winning, 2017. "The impacts of higher CO2 concentrations over global crop production and irrigation water requirements," EcoMod2017 10487, EcoMod.
    13. Dugan, Anna & Mayer, Jakob & Thaller, Annina & Bachner, Gabriel & Steininger, Karl W., 2022. "Developing policy packages for low-carbon passenger transport: A mixed methods analysis of trade-offs and synergies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    14. Carl-Friedrich Schleussner & Joeri Rogelj & Michiel Schaeffer & Tabea Lissner & Rachel Licker & Erich M. Fischer & Reto Knutti & Anders Levermann & Katja Frieler & William Hare, 2016. "Science and policy characteristics of the Paris Agreement temperature goal," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(9), pages 827-835, September.
    15. D. J. Rasmussen & Scott Kulp & Robert E. Kopp & Michael Oppenheimer & Benjamin H. Strauss, 2022. "Popular extreme sea level metrics can better communicate impacts," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-17, February.
    16. Shiva Zargar & Yuan Yao & Qingshi Tu, 2022. "A review of inventory modeling methods for missing data in life cycle assessment," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(5), pages 1676-1689, October.
    17. Giuseppe Pulighe & Flavio Lupia & Valentina Manente, 2025. "Climate-Driven Invasion Risks of Japanese Beetle ( Popillia japonica Newman) in Europe Predicted Through Species Distribution Modelling," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-14, March.
    18. Zheng, Zhoumin & Xu, Nuo & Khan, Mohsin & Pedersen, Michael & Abdalgader, Tarteel & Zhang, Lai, 2024. "Nonlinear impacts of climate change on dengue transmission in mainland China: Underlying mechanisms and future projection," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 492(C).
    19. Hongliang Zhang & Jianhong E. Mu & Bruce A. McCarl & Jialing Yu, 2022. "The impact of climate change on global energy use," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 1-19, January.
    20. Francesco Lamperti & Valentina Bosetti & Andrea Roventini & Massimo Tavoni, 2019. "The public costs of climate-induced financial instability," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(11), pages 829-833, November.

    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.