New Coupled Climate-Carbon Simulations with the IPSL ModelFrom validation with atmospheric CO2 and satellite

data to feedback analysis

P. CADULE, L. BOPP, P. FRIEDLINGSTEIN

13/10/2005

2

Either weaker sinks or sources according to future projections with identical IPCC CO2 and Climate scenarii

[IPCC TAR, 2001]

Carbon Models Offline Responses

3

Carbon Models Online Responses

Large panel of possible responses due to a wide range of climate and carbon models sensitivities

Atm. [CO2]

[C4MIP- Friedlingstein et al., 2005]

Δ[CO2]max= 224 ppm

Δ[CO2]min = 19 ppm

All models have a positive feedback but …

4

Climate Change and Carbon Cycle Interactions

Wide range of climate and carbon models sensitivity [C4MIP-Friedlingstein et al., 2005]

climate sensitivity

ocean sensitivity to [CO2]

land sensitivity to [CO2] land sensitivity to T°

ocean sensitivity to T°

5

• The need for Carbon-Climate Coupling – Modeling the carbon cycle– Coupling it with the climate

• But now essentially– Better understand processes individually– Confront results to observations

Pushing towards convergence of processes and their responses

“ En résumé ”

6

IPCC Climate Coupled Model

Terrestrial biosphereORCHIDEE

(SECHIBA only)

OceanORCA-LIM

OPA 8.2

AtmosphereLMDZ.3.3 coupler

ClimateAtmospheric[CO2]

∆t = physic time step

Carbon

CO2 forcing, as well as CH4, N2O and CFC forcing

[CO2] = external forcing

CO2 concentration

provided by IPCC (ext. forcing)

Marti, 2005

7

• Integration of Carbon Models (PISCES et Stomate)• Wind exchange from ATM to PISCES

– Modification in LMDZ4 to send the wind– Addition of a field in the coupler– Modification in OPA to receive the wind

• Filling closed seas• Monthly fluxes computation and storage in a file• CO2 update each month• Creation and generation of new

– Restart files– Input files (*def, namelists, namcouple, emissions)– Output files

• Adaptation of Job launching• Post Treatments• Configuration set-up POF and OOF off-line models• Rebuild the world when CCRT has lost it !!! • LOOP config on CVS

A New Carbon Climate Coupled Model

8

Net total carbon flux Fluxland + Fluxocean

12.2

2 oceanland FluxFluxEMI

dt

COd

Terrestrial biosphereORCHIDEE

(STOMATE activated)

MarineBiochemistry

PISCES

OceanORCA-LIM

OPA 8.2

AtmosphereLMDZ4

EMI = external forcing[Marland et al, 2005

Houghton, 2002]

Ocean flux GtC/mthLand flux GtC/mth

CouplerOASIS 2.4

ClimateAtmospheric[CO2]

CO2 concentration

re-calculated each month

∆t = 1day

Carbon

∆t = physic time step

A New Carbon Climate Coupled Model

9

A New Carbon Climate Coupled Model

Climate

Fossil emi.

CO2CO2

Land and Ocean

LOOP03

LOOP02

Geochemical

impact

Climateimpact

Climatefeedback

LOOP01

LOOP03

Highlights CO2 change impact on fluxes

LOOP02

LOOP03

Highlights climate change impact on fluxes

• LOOP01 control, no emissions

• LOOP02 : fully coupled, emissions– Climate aware of CO2 increase

• LOOP03 : decoupled, emissions– Climate agnostic to CO2 increase

fix atmospheric CO2 concentration[CO2] = 286.2 ppm

10

[CO2] is re-calculated each month based on :

• fossil fuel and land-use emissions

• net CO2 fluxes computed by ORCHIDEE (land) and PISCES (ocean)

Simulated CO2 Concentration

LOOP2 vs LOOP3Weaker land and oceanic uptakes in coupled run (LOOP2)

positive feedback :25 ppm in 2084

11

LOOP vs C4MIP models

climate sensitivity

ocean sensitivity to [CO2]

land sensitivity to [CO2] land sensitivity to T°

ocean sensitivity to T°

Climate and Carbon Models Sensitivity

[C4MIP- Friedlingstein et al., 2005]

LOOP is inside C4MIP responses range. But is it a sufficient criterion ?

12

Satellite Data Comparison

13

Carbon Dioxide Concentration

Simulation matches historical data…

Is it enough to be confident in the model projections ?

[CDIAC, 2005]

Confront results to observationsI. Budgets

II. Seasonal Cycle

III. IAV

IV. Long term trends

Outline

15

Mean Budget 80's

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

land use

fossil fuel

land sink

ocean sink

GtC/yr

LeQuéré

IPCC

LOOP

Houghton

De Fries

Mean Budget 90's

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

land use

fossil fuel

land sink

ocean sink

GtC/yr

LeQuéré

IPCC

LOOP

Houghton

De Fries

Atmospheric carbon variation

Land use fossil fuel land ocean

Global Budgets : 80s and 90s

- 2,8 GtC/yr - 2,6 GtC/yr

- 1.8 GtC/yr - 2,2 GtC/yr

Good agreement between LOOP and IPCC

16

-3 -2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0

GtC/yr

Global

90N-30N

30N-30S

30S-90S

Lat

itu

de

Land Mean1988 - 2003

TRANSCOM

LOOP

-2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1

GtC/yr

Global

90N-30N

30N-30S

30S-90S

Lat

itud

e

Ocean Mean1988 - 2003

Takahashi (+rivers) 1995

Takahashi 1995

TRANSCOM

LOOP

Regional Budgets : 1988-2003

Need to confront modelsresults to inversions data

Over-estimation in thetropical region for thecontinental biosphere

17

Regional Breakdown1988 - 2003

-1

-0.9

-0.8

-0.7

-0.6

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

N. America Eurasia N. Atlantic N. Pacific

GtC

/yr LOOP

TRANSCOM

Takahashi 1995

Regional Breakdown : 1988-2003N. Atl and N. Pacshould be different

[Baker et al., 2005]

22 emission regions and78 CO2 measurements

locations

18

Model

Seasonal Cycle at Mauna Loa

A realistic seasonal cycleat a CO2 measurement location

Obs.

19

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

GtC/yr

Global

Lat

itu

de

Land IAV (1988 - 2003)Standard Deviation

TRANSCOM

LOOP

0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2

GtC/yr

GlobalL

atit

ud

e

Ocean IAV (1988-2003)Standard Deviation

TRANSCOM

LOOP

Inter-Annual Variability of CO2 Fluxes

Global and ocean inter-annual variability [PgC yr-1] from xIAV

Over estimation of IAV in LandUnder estimation of IAV in Ocean

[Baker et al., 2005]

20

Long Term Trends : The Ocean

118 ± 19 PgC (1800-1994)

LOOP

96.5 PgC (1860-1995)

Atla

ntic

Pac

ific

CO2 Anthropogenic micromol/kg

GLODAP

[GLODAP, Sabine et al., 2004]

21

Continental biosphere and oceans sinks are influenced by CO2 increase and by climate change.

• Obvious need to model Carbon Cycle- Climate interactions.

• Wide range of possible response drives the need for a better understanding of involved processes.

• Observations and inversions both at global and breakdown region scale constitute the best common reference

22

Short and Medium Term Perspectives

• LOOP to be integrated in the next IPCC report

• Planned article in Tellus (due date end of Nov.) following ICDC7

• Technical note on MODIPSL et LOOP to be written

• Transport :

– LMDZ4 : LMDZ4_V2 tag + transport enabling modifications

– OASIS 3 : asynchronous coupling frequency

– INCA : currently only used for the CO2 transport + …

• Fires : foreseen integration of the regfire model (K. Thonicke)

• Dynamic ecosystems study

– OCEAN (Laurent)

– LAND (Nathalie)

• …

Thank You !

With the contribution of Rachid BENSHILA, Patrick BROCKMANN, Philippe BOUSQUET, Arnaud

CAUBEL, Sébastien DENVIL, Jean-Louis DUFRESNE, Laurent FAIRHEAD, Marie-Angèle FILIBERTI, Philippe PEYLIN, Peter RAYNER,

Backup

26

[Krinner, 2005]

TerrestrialBiosphereModel : ORCHIDEE

27

[Aumont, 2001; Aumont 2003]

PO43-

Diatoms

MicroZoo

P.O.M

D.O.M

Si

IronNano-phyto

Meso Zoo

NO3-

NH4+

Small Ones Big Ones

Marine biology is highly influenced by the ocean dynamicmotivating the need of both PISCES and OPA

Oceanic Biogeochemical Model PISCES