0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Ocean carbon uptake under aggressive emission mitigation

      ,
      Biogeosciences
      Copernicus GmbH

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Abstract. Nearly every nation has signed the UNFCC Paris Agreement, committing to mitigate anthropogenic carbon emissions so as to limit the global mean temperature increase above pre-industrial levels to well below 2 ∘C, and ideally to no more than 1.5 ∘C. A consequence of emission mitigation that has received limited attention is a reduced efficiency of the ocean carbon sink. Historically, the roughly exponential increase in atmospheric CO2 has resulted in a proportional increase in anthropogenic carbon uptake by the ocean. We define growth of the ocean carbon sink exactly proportional to the atmospheric growth rate to be 100 % efficient. Using a model hierarchy consisting of a common reduced-form ocean carbon cycle model and the Community Earth System Model (CESM), we assess the mechanisms of future change in the efficiency of the ocean carbon sink under three emission scenarios: aggressive mitigation (1.5 ∘C), intermediate mitigation (RCP4.5), and high emissions (RCP8.5). The reduced-form ocean carbon cycle model is tuned to emulate the global-mean behavior of the CESM and then allows for mechanistic decomposition. With intermediate or no mitigation (RCP4.5, RCP8.5), changes in efficiency through 2080 are almost entirely the result of future reductions in the carbonate buffer capacity of the ocean. Under the 1.5 ∘C scenario, the dominant driver of efficiency decline is the ocean's reduced ability to transport anthropogenic carbon from surface to depth. As the global-mean upper-ocean gradient of anthropogenic carbon reverses sign, carbon can be re-entrained in surface waters where it slows further removal from the atmosphere. Reducing uncertainty in ocean circulation is critical to better understanding the transport of anthropogenic carbon from surface to depth and to improving quantification of its role in the future ocean carbon sink.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The representative concentration pathways: an overview

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The Community Earth System Model: A Framework for Collaborative Research

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found
              Is Open Access

              Global Carbon Budget 2019

              Abstract. Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere – the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFF) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade available (2009–2018), EFF was 9.5±0.5 GtC yr−1, ELUC 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM 4.9±0.02 GtC yr−1 (2.3±0.01 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN 2.5±0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.2±0.6 GtC yr−1, with a budget imbalance BIM of 0.4 GtC yr−1 indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2018 alone, the growth in EFF was about 2.1 % and fossil emissions increased to 10.0±0.5 GtC yr−1, reaching 10 GtC yr−1 for the first time in history, ELUC was 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, for total anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 11.5±0.9 GtC yr−1 (42.5±3.3 GtCO2). Also for 2018, GATM was 5.1±0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.4±0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 2.6±0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 407.38±0.1 ppm averaged over 2018. For 2019, preliminary data for the first 6–10 months indicate a reduced growth in EFF of +0.6 % (range of −0.2 % to 1.5 %) based on national emissions projections for China, the USA, the EU, and India and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. Overall, the mean and trend in the five components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2018, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. A detailed comparison among individual estimates and the introduction of a broad range of observations shows (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land use change emissions over the last decade, (2) a persistent low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent underestimation of the CO2 variability by ocean models outside the tropics. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quéré et al., 2018a, b, 2016, 2015a, b, 2014, 2013). The data generated by this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2019 (Friedlingstein et al., 2019).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Biogeosciences
                Biogeosciences
                Copernicus GmbH
                1726-4189
                2021
                April 30 2021
                : 18
                : 8
                : 2711-2725
                Article
                10.5194/bg-18-2711-2021
                10feddf3-bfe0-42cf-b3ff-e2e9473c0c76
                © 2021

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article