Coupled Atmosphere-Biosphere Models As a Tool for Conservation Planning and Policy

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Coupled Atmosphere-Biosphere Models As a Tool for Conservation Planning and Policy Essays and Perspectives Natureza & Conservação 9(2):145-151, December 2011 Copyright© 2011 ABECO Handling Editor: Maria Lucia Lorini Brazilian Journal of Nature Conservation doi: 10.4322/natcon.2011.020 Coupled Atmosphere-Biosphere Models as a Tool for Conservation Planning and Policy Richard J. Ladle1,2, Ana C. M. Malhado1,3 & Marcos H. Costa3 1 Instituto de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde – ICBS, Universidade Federal de Alagoas – UFAL, Maceió, AL, Brazil 2 School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, United Kingdom 3 Departamento de Engenharia da Agricultura, Universidade Federal de Viçosa – UFV, Viçosa, MG, Brazil Abstract Over the last 20 years a new generation of climate models have been developed that link atmosphere models to dynamic vegetation models (coupled atmosphere-biosphere models). These models are able to capture key feedbacks between the changing climate and changing ecosystems, providing more realistic forecasts of anthropogenic climate change. Moreover, the biosphere model can be regionally calibrated to provide more geographically specific predictions about future trajectories of environmental change over the next century. We identify four potential uses of coupled atmosphere-biosphere models for conservation: (i) more accurate and regionally specific forecasts of climate change; (ii) better understanding of carbon cycling, a key ecosystem service; (iii) better placement and design of protected areas, and; (iv) improved modeling of different land-use scenarios. Realizing these objectives will require better integration and communication between modeling and conservation communities and the development of specific visualization and planning tools that allows these complex models to be fully integrated into conservation planning. Key words: Climate Change, Land Use, Environmental Governance, Scale, Amazon. Introduction The latest projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on (Jepson & Ladle 2010), promoting a wide range of strategies Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007 suggest that the Earth will for mitigation and adaptation (Hannah et al. 2002). However, heat up by 1.8-4 °C this century as compared with late 20th conservation planning in a rapidly changing world poses century baselines (IPCC 2007). The warmer temperature considerable challenges and will require conservationists, combined with wide-scale changes in precipitation patterns planners and policy makers to develop flexible, dynamic and the seasonality of weather will have a profound impact approaches that seek to conserve the processes underpinning on the distribution of biomes and species. Indeed, climate is biodiversity, and not just the species that have been the thought to play a key role in determining the distributions of traditional targets for conservation action (Fuller et al. 2011). species (Pearson & Dawson 2003), and consequently there A recent review of conservation planning studies revealed have been great efforts to predict the impacts of climate that approximately 80% of initiatives assume that neither change on biodiversity. For example, one high profile biodiversity, nor the ecological and environmental processes study that combined a Global Circulation model (GCM) on which it depends, change over time (Pressey et al. 2007). with species distribution models predicted that 15-37% Moreover, there is frequently a lack of alignment between of species in their sample regions would be ‘committed spatial scale of climate change models, the key ecosystem to extinction’ (living outside of their current climate processes that are influenced by changes in the climate, and envelope) as a result of climate change between 2004 and the political and planning units that develop conservation 2050 (Thomas et al. 2004). policy and formulate responses. For example, while The results of these and other studies have propelled climate conservation planning is frequently done at a regional or change to the forefront of the global conservation agenda landscape scale, the most commonly used climate change models (Global Circulation/General Climate Models) are *Send correspondence to: Richard J. Ladle globally calibrated and, in any case, do not incorporate Instituto de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde – ICBS, the dynamic interactions between the atmosphere and Universidade Federal de Alagoas – UFAL, Praça Afrânio Jorge, s/n, Prado, CEP 57010-020, the biosphere that are essential for a more complete Maceió, AL, Brasil understanding of how major ecosystems will change in E-mail: [email protected] a warming world. 146 Ladle et al. Natureza & Conservação 9(2):145-151, December 2011 Over the last 20 years a new generation of climate models A major advance in producing a genuinely coupled model have been developed that seek to address these challenges that could effectively simulate the bi-directional feedbacks by coupling GCMs to vegetation models (e.g. Cox et al. between the atmosphere and the biosphere occurred in 2000, Cox et al. 2004) – hereafter referred to as coupled 1998 when Jonathan Foley and his colleagues developed a atmosphere-biosphere models – and, regionally calibrating new framework for model integration (Foley et al. 1998). the coupled models to provide more accurate and spatially The new approach involved the common treatment of specific predictions about changes in land coverage by land surface, ecophysiological and vegetation dynamics major ecosystem types and climate change within specified processes. To demonstrate the feasibility of their integration regions. In the following perspective we (i) provide a brief strategy they coupled the GCM (GENESIS 2) with the overview of the development, characteristics and sensitivity Integrated Biosphere Simulator (IBIS version 1; Foley et al. of coupled atmosphere-biosphere models, (ii) discuss the 1996)- (detailed specification in Levis et al. 1999 ). Within potential application of these models to conservation the coupled model GENESIS simulated the atmospheric policy, planning and practice and, finally, (iii) outline the dynamics while IBIS predicted changes in vegetation various challenges faced by the modeling and conservation dynamics in response to competition among plants and research communities to fully utilize and exploit the results variation in CO2 levels. of coupled models. The conceptual focus of studies utilizing coupled atmosphere- biosphere models is extremely variable. However, the Modelling Atmosphere-Biosphere most typical uses are the generation of high-resolution Interactions maps of atmospheric CO2 (e.g. Ahmadov et al. 2007), modeling changes in vegetation cover and their dynamic As described above, coupled atmosphere-biosphere models relationship with climate variables such as air temperature have two components: a climate model linked to a vegetation and precipitation (e.g. Cox et al. 2004; Anav & Mariotti model. Such a structure allows scientists to better account 2011), predicting and monitoring changes in key ecosystem for the dynamic interactions between vegetation dynamics variables such as net primary production, leaf area index (e.g. and atmospheric chemistry (e.g. carbon cycling and water Dan & Li 2005) and carbon fluxes (e.g. Delire et al. 2003). cycling). The climate model part of the couple is typically a general circulation model such as the National Center for The wide range of uses, flexibility and predictive power of Atmospheric Research’s (NCAR) Community Climate Model coupled models suggest that they would be useful tools (in conjunction with other climate models) for exploring Version 3 (CCM3). The NCAR model is a good example of and informing conservation policy. However, their utility a climate model that provides a physical representation of depends, to an extent, on their robustness at different spatial key climate processes such as clouds and radiation, moist scales of analysis. In this context the success of coupled convection, the planetary boundary layer, and large-scale models such GENESIS-IBIS in generating predictions for transport (Kiehl et al. 1998). The main purpose of GCMs global land cover patterns are somewhat counterbalanced, is to model the effects of changes in certain boundary as Foley et al. note, by “significant regional biases in the conditions (e.g. solar constant) or physical parameters (e.g. simulation” (Foley et al. 1998, p. 562). Such regional biases in CO concentration) on the future global climate (McGuffie 2 estimation have continued to be an issue for coupled models. & Henderson-Sellers 1997). For instance, Dan et al. (2005) observed that the predicted It has long been recognized that the predictions of GCMs may values for leaf area index (LAI) from their coupled model be compromised because they do not account for important (AVIM-IAP/LASG GOALS GCM) varied considerably from bi-directional interactions between the atmosphere and observed values in certain areas. Consequently, one of the the biosphere. In one of the first attempts to incorporate goals of climate researchers over the last decade has been biosphere interactions into GCMs, Sellers et al. (1986) to produce coupled atmosphere-biosphere models that are created a simple biosphere model (SiB) that represented better able to simulate regional fluxes. This is especially each terrestrial model grid area in terms of an upper and important from the perspective of developing effective lower vegetation layer, either or both of which could be adaptation and mitigation strategies since most political present or absent at
Recommended publications
  • Climate Models and Their Evaluation
    8 Climate Models and Their Evaluation Coordinating Lead Authors: David A. Randall (USA), Richard A. Wood (UK) Lead Authors: Sandrine Bony (France), Robert Colman (Australia), Thierry Fichefet (Belgium), John Fyfe (Canada), Vladimir Kattsov (Russian Federation), Andrew Pitman (Australia), Jagadish Shukla (USA), Jayaraman Srinivasan (India), Ronald J. Stouffer (USA), Akimasa Sumi (Japan), Karl E. Taylor (USA) Contributing Authors: K. AchutaRao (USA), R. Allan (UK), A. Berger (Belgium), H. Blatter (Switzerland), C. Bonfi ls (USA, France), A. Boone (France, USA), C. Bretherton (USA), A. Broccoli (USA), V. Brovkin (Germany, Russian Federation), W. Cai (Australia), M. Claussen (Germany), P. Dirmeyer (USA), C. Doutriaux (USA, France), H. Drange (Norway), J.-L. Dufresne (France), S. Emori (Japan), P. Forster (UK), A. Frei (USA), A. Ganopolski (Germany), P. Gent (USA), P. Gleckler (USA), H. Goosse (Belgium), R. Graham (UK), J.M. Gregory (UK), R. Gudgel (USA), A. Hall (USA), S. Hallegatte (USA, France), H. Hasumi (Japan), A. Henderson-Sellers (Switzerland), H. Hendon (Australia), K. Hodges (UK), M. Holland (USA), A.A.M. Holtslag (Netherlands), E. Hunke (USA), P. Huybrechts (Belgium), W. Ingram (UK), F. Joos (Switzerland), B. Kirtman (USA), S. Klein (USA), R. Koster (USA), P. Kushner (Canada), J. Lanzante (USA), M. Latif (Germany), N.-C. Lau (USA), M. Meinshausen (Germany), A. Monahan (Canada), J.M. Murphy (UK), T. Osborn (UK), T. Pavlova (Russian Federationi), V. Petoukhov (Germany), T. Phillips (USA), S. Power (Australia), S. Rahmstorf (Germany), S.C.B. Raper (UK), H. Renssen (Netherlands), D. Rind (USA), M. Roberts (UK), A. Rosati (USA), C. Schär (Switzerland), A. Schmittner (USA, Germany), J. Scinocca (Canada), D. Seidov (USA), A.G.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded 10/02/21 08:25 AM UTC
    15 NOVEMBER 2006 A R O R A A N D B O E R 5875 The Temporal Variability of Soil Moisture and Surface Hydrological Quantities in a Climate Model VIVEK K. ARORA AND GEORGE J. BOER Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Meteorological Service of Canada, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada (Manuscript received 4 October 2005, in final form 8 February 2006) ABSTRACT The variance budget of land surface hydrological quantities is analyzed in the second Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP2) simulation made with the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (CCCma) third-generation general circulation model (AGCM3). The land surface parameteriza- tion in this model is the comparatively sophisticated Canadian Land Surface Scheme (CLASS). Second- order statistics, namely variances and covariances, are evaluated, and simulated variances are compared with observationally based estimates. The soil moisture variance is related to second-order statistics of surface hydrological quantities. The persistence time scale of soil moisture anomalies is also evaluated. Model values of precipitation and evapotranspiration variability compare reasonably well with observa- tionally based and reanalysis estimates. Soil moisture variability is compared with that simulated by the Variable Infiltration Capacity-2 Layer (VIC-2L) hydrological model driven with observed meteorological data. An equation is developed linking the variances and covariances of precipitation, evapotranspiration, and runoff to soil moisture variance via a transfer function. The transfer function is connected to soil moisture persistence in terms of lagged autocorrelation. Soil moisture persistence time scales are shorter in the Tropics and longer at high latitudes as is consistent with the relationship between soil moisture persis- tence and the latitudinal structure of potential evaporation found in earlier studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Representations of Boundary Layer Processes
    1 2 3 4 5 6 Regional climate modeling over the Maritime Continent: Improving 7 representations of boundary layer processes 8 9 Rebecca L. Gianotti* and Elfatih A. B. Eltahir 10 11 Ralph M. Parsons Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 12 15 Vassar St, Cambridge MA 02139, USA 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ELTAHIR Research Group Report #3, 21 March, 2014 1 Abstract 2 This paper describes work to improve the representation of boundary layer processes 3 within a regional climate model (Regional Climate Model Version 3 (RegCM3) coupled to 4 the Integrated Biosphere Simulator (IBIS)) applied over the Maritime Continent. In 5 particular, modifications were made to improve model representations of the mixed 6 boundary layer height and non-convective cloud cover within the mixed boundary layer. 7 Model output is compared to a variety of ground-based and satellite-derived observational 8 data, including a new dataset obtained from radiosonde measurements taken at Changi 9 airport, Singapore, four times per day. These data were commissioned specifically for this 10 project and were not part of the airport’s routine data collection. It is shown that the 11 modifications made to RegCM3-IBIS significantly improve representations of the mixed 12 boundary layer height and low-level cloud cover over the Maritime Continent region by 13 lowering the simulated nocturnal boundary layer height and removing erroneous cloud 14 within the mixed boundary layer over land. The results also show some improvement with 15 respect to simulated radiation and rainfall, compared to the default version of the model.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Climate Models and Their Limitations Anthony Lupo (USA) William Kininmonth (Australia) Contributing: J
    1 Global Climate Models and Their Limitations Anthony Lupo (USA) William Kininmonth (Australia) Contributing: J. Scott Armstrong (USA), Kesten Green (Australia) 1. Global Climate Models and Their Limitations Key Findings Introduction 1.1 Model Simulation and Forecasting 1.2 Modeling Techniques 1.3 Elements of Climate 1.4 Large Scale Phenomena and Teleconnections Key Findings Confidence in a model is further based on the The IPCC places great confidence in the ability of careful evaluation of its performance, in which model general circulation models (GCMs) to simulate future output is compared against actual observations. A climate and attribute observed climate change to large portion of this chapter, therefore, is devoted to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. They the evaluation of climate models against real-world claim the “development of climate models has climate and other biospheric data. That evaluation, resulted in more realism in the representation of many summarized in the findings of numerous peer- quantities and aspects of the climate system,” adding, reviewed scientific papers described in the different “it is extremely likely that human activities have subsections of this chapter, reveals the IPCC is caused more than half of the observed increase in overestimating the ability of current state-of-the-art global average surface temperature since the 1950s” GCMs to accurately simulate both past and future (p. 9 and 10 of the Summary for Policy Makers, climate. The IPCC’s stated confidence in the models, Second Order Draft of AR5, dated October 5, 2012). as presented at the beginning of this chapter, is likely This chapter begins with a brief review of the exaggerated.
    [Show full text]
  • Assimila Blank
    NERC NERC Strategy for Earth System Modelling: Technical Support Audit Report Version 1.1 December 2009 Contact Details Dr Zofia Stott Assimila Ltd 1 Earley Gate The University of Reading Reading, RG6 6AT Tel: +44 (0)118 966 0554 Mobile: +44 (0)7932 565822 email: [email protected] NERC STRATEGY FOR ESM – AUDIT REPORT VERSION1.1, DECEMBER 2009 Contents 1. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Context .................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Scope of the ESM audit ............................................................................................ 4 1.4 Methodology ............................................................................................................ 5 2. Scene setting ........................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 NERC Strategy......................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Definition of Earth system modelling ........................................................................ 8 2.3 Broad categories of activities supported by NERC ................................................. 10 2.4 Structure of the report ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Terrestrial Biosphere Carbon Storage Under Alternative Climate Projections
    TERRESTRIAL BIOSPHERE CARBON STORAGE UNDER ALTERNATIVE CLIMATE PROJECTIONS SIBYLL SCHAPHOFF1, WOLFGANG LUCHT1, DIETER GERTEN1, STEPHEN SITCH1, WOLFGANG CRAMER1 and I. COLIN PRENTICE2 1Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, P.O. Box 601203, D-14412 Potsdam, Germany E-mail: [email protected] 2QUEST, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Wills Memorial Building, Bristol BS8 1RJ, UK Abstract. This study investigates commonalities and differences in projected land biosphere carbon storage among climate change projections derived from one emission scenario by five different gen- eral circulation models (GCMs). Carbon storage is studied using a global biogeochemical process model of vegetation and soil that includes dynamic treatment of changes in vegetation composition, a recently enhanced version of the Lund-Potsdam-Jena Dynamic Global Vegetation Model (LPJ- DGVM). Uncertainty in future terrestrial carbon storage due to differences in the climate projections is large. Changes by the end of the century range from −106 to +201 PgC, thus, even the sign of the response whether source or sink, is uncertain. Three out of five climate projections produce a land carbon source by the year 2100, one is approximately neutral and one a sink. A regional breakdown shows some robust qualitative features. Large areas of the boreal forest are shown as a future CO2 source, while a sink appears in the arctic. The sign of the response in tropical and sub-tropical ecosys- tems differs among models, due to the large variations in simulated precipitation patterns. The largest uncertainty is in the response of tropical rainforests of South America and Central Africa. 1. Introduction The land biosphere plays a substantial role in the global carbon cycle.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Models an Assessment of Strengths and Limitations
    Climate Models An Assessment of Strengths and Limitations U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.1 July 2008 FEDERAL EXECUTIVE TEAM Acting Director, Climate Change Science Program ......................................................William J. Brennan Director, Climate Change Science Program Office.......................................................Peter A. Schultz Lead Agency Principal Representative to CCSP; Associate Director, Department of Energy, Office of Biological and Environmental Research .........................................................................................Anna Palmisano Product Lead; Department of Energy, Office of Biological and Environmental Research ........................................................Anjuli S. Bamzai Synthesis and Assessment Product Advisory Group Chair; Associate Director, EPA National Center for Environmental Assessment.....................................................................................................................Michael W. Slimak Synthesis and Assessment Product Coordinator, Climate Change Science Program Office ......................................................................Fabien J.G. Laurier OTHER AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES National Aeronautics and Space Administration ...........................................................Donald Anderson National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ......................................................Brian D. Gross National Science Foundation .........................................................................................Jay
    [Show full text]
  • Biosphere-Atmosphere Interactions Over West Africa. I: Development and Validation of a Coupled Dynamic Model
    Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. (2000), 126, pp. 1239-1260 Biosphere-atmosphere interactions over West Africa. I: Development and validation of a coupled dynamic model By GUILING WANG' and ELFATM A. B. ELTAHJR Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA (Received 12 April 1999; revised 7 September 1999) SUMMARY In this study we develop a zonally symmetric, synchronously coupled biosphere-atmosphere model including ecosystem dynamics, and apply this model to study biosphere-atmosphere interactions in the region of West Africa. The atmospheric model is zonally symmetric, and includes representation of atmospheric dynamics, a radiation scheme, a moist convection scheme, a boundary-layer scheme, and a cloud-parametrization scheme. The biospheric model is the Integrated BIosphere Simulator (IBIS), which includes representation of the water, energy, momentum, and carbon balance, vegetation phenology, and vegetation dynamics. We modified the representation of canopy hydrology in IBIS to account for the impact of rainfall subgrid variability. The biospheric model and atmospheric model are separately tested against observations. The synchronously coupled model is then used to simulate the biosphere-atmosphere system of West Africa. A study on the role of biosphere-atmosphere interactions, including ecosystem dynamics, in the climate variability over West Africa using this model will be presented in a companion paper. KEYWORDS: Biosphere-atmosphere interactions Drought Ecosystem dynamics West Africa 1. INTRODUCTION In the past two decades, significant scientific effort has been devoted to the study of the severe persistent drought in West Africa which started in the late 1960s. Among other factors, land-surface feedback triggered by man-made desertification is widely viewed as a possible mechanism for the drought occurrence and its persistence.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantifying the UK's Carbon Dioxide Flux: an Atmospheric Inverse
    Quantifying the UK’s Carbon Dioxide Flux: An atmospheric inverse modelling approach using a regional measurement network Emily D. White1, Matthew Rigby1, Mark F. Lunt1,2, T. Luke Smallman2,3, Edward Comyn-Platt4, Alistair J. Manning5, Anita L. Ganesan6, Simon O’Doherty1, Ann R. Stavert1,7, Kieran Stanley1, Mathew 5 Williams2,3, Peter Levy8, Michel Ramonet9, Grant L. Forster10,11, Andrew C. Manning10, Paul I. Palmer2 1School of Chemistry, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1TS, UK 2School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH9 3FF, UK 3National Centre for Earth Observation, Edinburgh, EH9 3FF, UK 4Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, OX10 8BB, UK 10 5Hadley Centre, Met. Office, Exeter, EX1 3PB, UK 6School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1SS, UK 7Climate Science Centre, CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Aspendale VIC 3195, Australia 8Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (Edinburgh Research Station), Penicuik, E26 0QB, UK 9Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, CEA-CNRS-UVSQ, Gif-sur-Yvette, 91198, France 15 10Centre for Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK 11National Centre for Atmospheric Science, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK Correspondence to: Emily White ([email protected]), Matthew Rigby ([email protected]) 20 Abstract. We present a method to derive atmospheric-observation-based estimates of carbon dioxide (CO2) fluxes at the national scale, demonstrated using data from a network of surface tall tower sites across the UK and Ireland over the period 2013-2014. The inversion is carried out using simulations from a Lagrangian chemical transport model and an innovative hierarchical Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) framework, which addresses some of the traditional problems faced by inverse modelling studies, such as subjectivity in the specification of model and prior uncertainties.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Yale Interactive Terrestrial Biosphere Model Version 1.0: Description, 2 Evaluation and Implementation Into NASA GISS Modele2 3 4 X
    1 The Yale Interactive terrestrial Biosphere Model version 1.0: description, 2 evaluation and implementation into NASA GISS ModelE2 3 4 X. Yue and N. Unger 5 6 School of Forestry and Environment Studies, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 7 06511, USA 8 9 1 10 Abstract 11 The land biosphere, atmospheric chemistry and climate are intricately interconnected yet 12 the modeling of carbon-climate and chemistry-climate interactions have evolved as 13 entirely separate research communities. We describe the Yale Interactive terrestrial 14 Biosphere (YIBs) model version 1.0, a land carbon cycle model that has been developed 15 for coupling to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) ModelE2 global 16 chemistry-climate model. The YIBs model adapts routines from the mature TRIFFID and 17 CASA models to simulate interactive carbon assimilation, allocation, and autotrophic and 18 heterotrophic respiration. Dynamic daily leaf area index is simulated based on carbon 19 allocation and temperature- and drought-dependent prognostic phenology. YIBs 20 incorporates a semi-mechanistic ozone vegetation damage scheme. Here, we validate the 21 present day YIBs land carbon fluxes for three increasingly complex configurations: (i) 22 off-line local site-level (ii) off-line global forced with WFDEI (WATCH Forcing Data 23 methodology applied to ERA-Interim data) meteorology (iii) on-line coupled to the 24 NASA ModelE2 (NASA ModelE2-YIBs). Off-line YIBs has hourly and on-line YIBs has 25 half-hourly temporal resolution. The large observational database used for validation 26 includes carbon fluxes from 145 flux tower sites and multiple satellite products. At the 27 site level, YIBs simulates reasonable seasonality (correlation coefficient R > 0.8) of gross 28 primary productivity (GPP) at 121 out of 145 sites with biases in magnitude ranging from 29 -19% to 7% depending on plant functional type.
    [Show full text]
  • How the Western Frontiers Were Won with the Help of Geophysics
    1 Carbon dioxide and climate impulse response functions for 2 the computation of greenhouse gas metrics: A multi-model 3 analysis 4 5 Fortunat Joos1,2, Raphael Roth1,2, Jan S. Fuglestvedt3, Glen P. Peters3, Ian G. 6 Enting4, Werner von Bloh5, Victor Brovkin6, Eleanor J. Burke7, Michael Eby8, 7 Neil R. Edwards9, Tobias Friedrich10, Thomas L. Frölicher11,1, Paul R. Halloran7, 8 Philip B. Holden9, Chris Jones7, Thomas Kleinen6, Fred Mackenzie12, Katsumi 9 Matsumoto13, Malte Meinshausen5,14, Gian-Kasper Plattner1, Andy Reisinger15, 10 Joachim Segschneider6, Gary Shaffer16,17, Marco Steinacher1,2, Kuno 11 Strassmann1,2, Katsumasa Tanaka18, Axel Timmermann10, Andrew J. Weaver8 12 [1]{Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Bern, 13 Switzerland} 14 [2]{Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland} 15 [3]{ Center for International Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo (CICERO), PO Box 16 1129 Blindern, 0318 Oslo, Norway} 17 [4]{ MASCOS, 139 Barry St, The University of Melbourne, Vic 3010, Australia} 18 [5]{Potsdam-Institute for Climate, Impact Research, Telegraphenberg A31, 14473 Potsdam, 19 Germany} 20 [6]{Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Bundesstr. 53, 20146 Hamburg, Germany} 21 [7]{Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, UK} 22 [8]{School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, 23 Canada} 24 [9]{The Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom} 25 [10]{International Pacific Research Center, School of
    [Show full text]
  • Implementation of a Two-Way Interactive Atmospheric and Ecological Model and Its Application to the Central United States
    900 JOURNAL OF CLIMATE VOLUME 14 Implementation of a Two-Way Interactive Atmospheric and Ecological Model and Its Application to the Central United States LIXIN LU Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, and Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona ROGER A. PIELKE SR. AND GLEN E. LISTON Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado WILLIAM J. PARTON,DENNIS OJIMA, AND MELANNIE HARTMAN Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado (Manuscript received 23 July 1999, in ®nal form 9 February 2000) ABSTRACT A coupled Regional Atmospheric Modeling System (RAMS) and ecosystem (CENTURY) modeling system has been developed to study regional-scale two-way interactions between the atmosphere and biosphere. Both atmospheric forcings and ecological parameters are prognostic variables in the linked system. The atmospheric and ecosystem models exchange information on a weekly time step. CENTURY receives as input air temperature, precipitation, radiation, wind speed, and relative humidity simulated by RAMS. From CENTURY-produced outputs, leaf area index, and vegetation transimissivity are computed and returned to RAMS. In this way, vegetation responses to weekly and seasonal atmospheric changes are simulated and fed back to the atmospheric± land surface hydrology model. The coupled model was used to simulate the two-way biosphere and atmosphere feedbacks from 1 January to 31 December 1989, focusing on the central United States. Validation was performed for the atmospheric portion of the model by comparing with U.S. summary-of-the-day meteorological station observational datasets, and for the ecological component by comparing with advanced very high-resolution radiometer remote-sensing Normalized Difference Vegetation Index datasets.
    [Show full text]