Journal of Environmental Science International (한국환경과학회지)

The Korean Environmental Sciences Society (한국환경과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Global Carbon Budget Study using Global Carbon Cycle Model

탄소순환모델을 이용한 지구 규모의 탄소 수지 연구

  • Kwon, O-Yul (Dep. of Environmental Energy Engineering, Seoul National University of Science & Technology) ;
  • Jung, Jaehyung (Urban Policy Research Office, Changwon Research Institute)
  • 권오열 (서울과학기술대학교 에너지환경공학과) ;
  • 정재형 (창원시정연구원 도시정책연구실)
  • Received : 2018.07.17
  • Accepted : 2018.09.04
  • Published : 2018.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Two man-made carbon emissions, fossil fuel emissions and land use emissions, have been perturbing naturally occurring global carbon cycle. These emitted carbons will eventually be deposited into the atmosphere, the terrestrial biosphere, the soil, and the ocean. In this study, Simple Global Carbon Model (SGCM) was used to simulate global carbon cycle and to estimate global carbon budget. For the model input, fossil fuel emissions and land use emissions were taken from the literature. Unlike fossil fuel use, land use emissions were highly uncertain. Therefore land use emission inputs were adjusted within an uncertainty range suggested in the literature. Simulated atmospheric $CO_2$ concentrations were well fitted to observations with a standard error of 0.06 ppm. Moreover, simulated carbon budgets in the ocean and terrestrial biosphere were shown to be reasonable compared to the literature values, which have considerable uncertainties. Simulation results show that with increasing fossil fuel emissions, the ratios of carbon partitioning to the atmosphere and the terrestrial biosphere have increased from 42% and 24% in the year 1958 to 50% and 30% in the year 2016 respectively, while that to the ocean has decreased from 34% in the year 1958 to 20% in the year 2016. This finding indicates that if the current emission trend continues, the atmospheric carbon partitioning ratio might be continuously increasing and thereby the atmospheric $CO_2$ concentrations might be increasing much faster. Among the total emissions of 399 gigatons of carbon (GtC) from fossil fuel use and land use during the simulation period (between 1960 and 2016), 189 GtC were reallocated to the atmosphere (47%), 107 GtC to the terrestrial biosphere (27%), and 103GtC to the ocean (26%). The net terrestrial biospheric carbon accumulation (terrestrial biospheric allocations minus land use emissions) showed positive 46 GtC. In other words, the terrestrial biosphere has been accumulating carbon, although land use emission has been depleting carbon in the terrestrial biosphere.

Keywords

References

  1. Booth, B. B. B., Harris, G. R., Muprhy, J. M., House, J. I., Jones, C. D. J., Sexton, D., Sitch, S., 2017, Narrowing the range of future climate projections using historical observations of atmospheric $CO_2$, J. Clim., 30, 3039-3053. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0178.1
  2. Chiodi, A. M., Harrison, D. E., 2014, Comment on Qain et Al. 2014: La Nina and El Nino composite of atmospheric $CO_2$ change, Tellus B: Chem. Phys. Meteorol., 66(1), 20428. https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusb.v66.20428
  3. Haverd, V., Smith B., Nieradzik, L., Briggs, P. R., Woodgate, W., Trudinger, C. M., Canadell, J. G., 2018, A new version of the CABLE land surface model incorporating land use and land cover change, woody vegetation demography, and a novel optimization-based approach to plant coordination of photosynthesis, Geosci. Model. Dev., 11, 2995-3026. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2995-2018
  4. Houghton, R. A., 2007, Balancing the global carbon budget, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., 35, 313-347. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.earth.35.031306.140057
  5. Houghton, R. A., Baccini, A., Walker, W. S., 2018, Where is the residual terrestrial carbon sink?, Wiley Online Library, 14313.
  6. Ilyina, T., Six, K., Segschneider, J., Maier-Reimer, E., Li, H., Nunez-Riboni, I., 2013, The global ocean biogeochemistry model HAMOCC: Model architecture and performance as component of the MPI-Earth System Model in different CMIP5 experimental realizations, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 5, 287-315. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012MS000178
  7. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2014, IPCC fifth assessment report.
  8. Kwon, O. Y., Schnoor, J., 1994, Simple global carbon: the atmosphere-terrestrial biosphere-ocean interaction, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 8(3), 295-305. https://doi.org/10.1029/94GB00768
  9. Lade, S. J., Dinges, J. F., Fetzer, I., Anderies, J. M., Beer, C., Cornell, S. E., Gasser, T., Norberg, J., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Steffen, W., 2018, Analytically tractable climate-carbon cycle feedbacks under 21st century anthropogenic forcing, Eath Syst. Dynam., 9, 507-503. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-507-2018
  10. Law, R. M., Ziehn, T., Matear, R. J., Lenton, A., Chambelain, M. A., Stevens, L. E., Wang, A. P., Sribinovsky, J., Bi, D., Yan, H., Vohralik, P. F., 2017, The carbon cycle in the Austrailian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator (ACCESS-ESM1) - Part 1: Model description and pre-industrial simulation, Geosci. Model. Dev., 10, 2567-2590. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2567-2017
  11. Le Quere, C., Andrew, R. M., Friedlingstein, P., Sitch, S., Pongratz, S., et al., 2017, Global Carbon Budget, Earth Syst. Sci. Data.
  12. Manabe, S., Stouffer, R. J., Spelman, M. J., Bryan, K., 1991, Transient responses of a coupled ocean-atmosphere model to gradual changes of atmospheric $CO_2$, Part I, annual mean response, J. Clim., 4, 785-818. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1991)004<0785:TROACO>2.0.CO;2
  13. Melton, J. R., Arora, V. K., 2016, Competition between plant functional types in the Canadian Terrestrial Ecosystem Model (CTEM) v. 2.0, Geosci. Model. Dev., 9, 323-361. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-323-2016
  14. Michalak, A. M., 2017, From the missing sink to process understanding: the expanding role of top-down studies in carbon cycle science, Fourth International Conference on Earth System Modelling, Germany, 174.
  15. NOAA (National Ocean and Atmosphere Administration), 2017, http://www.noaa.gov/climate.
  16. Santin, C., Doerr, S. H., Preston, C. M., Podriguez, G. G., 2015, Pyrogenic organic matter production from wildfires: a missing sink in the global carbon cycle, Glob. Change Biol., 21, 1621-1633. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12800
  17. Smith, C. J., Forster, P. M., Allen, M., Leach, N., Millar, R., Passerello, G. A., Regayre, L. A., 2017, A simple emission-based impulse response and carbon cycle model, Geosci. Model. Dev., 1-45.
  18. Sun, M. A., Kim, Y. M., Lee, J. H., Boo, K. O., Byun, Y. H., Cho, C. H., 2017, Response of terrestrial carbon cycle: climate variability in carbon tracker and CMIP5 earth system models, Atmos., Korean Meterological Society, 27(3), 301-316. https://doi.org/10.14191/Atmos.2017.27.3.301
  19. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), 2016, Aggregate effect of the intended nationally determined contributions: an update
  20. Wang, J., Zeng, N., Wang, M., Jiang, F., Wang, H., Jiang, Z., 2018, Contrasting terrestrial carbon cycle responses to the 1997/98 and 2015/16 extreme El Nino events, Earth Syst. Dynam., 9, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-1-2018