Trajectory sensitivity of the transient climate response to cumulative carbon emissions

Geophysical Research Letters

Volumn 41, Issue 7, 2014, Pages 2520-2527

  Krasting, J P ^a   Dunne, J P ^a   Shevliakova, E ^b   Stouffer, R J ^a  

^a NOAA EARTH SYSTEM RESEARCH LABORATORY   (United States)

^b PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

carbon sink; climate sensitivity; cumulative emissions; oceanic heat uptake; TCRE; transient climate response

Indexed keywords

EARTH (PLANET); UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

CARBON SINK; CLIMATE RESPONSE; CLIMATE SENSITIVITY; CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS; OCEANIC HEAT UPTAKE; TCRE;

CLIMATE MODELS;

CARBON EMISSION; CARBON SINK; CLIMATE CHANGE; EMISSION INVENTORY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; TRAJECTORY;

EID: 84897117689     PISSN: 00948276     EISSN: 19448007     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/2013GL059141     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Allen, M.-R., and, T.-F. Stocker, (2014), Impact of delay in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, Nature Clim. Change, 4 (1), 23-26, doi: 10.1038/nclimate2077.
2. Allen, M.-R., D.-J. Frame, C. Huntingford, C.-D. Jones, J.-A. Lowe, M. Meinshausen, and, N. Meinshausen, (2009), Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne, Nature, 458 (7242), 1163-1166.
3. Anderson, K., and, A. Bows, (2011), Beyond "dangerous" climate change: Emission scenarios for a new world, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 369 (1934), 20-44, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2010.0290.
4. Ciais, P., et al. (2013), Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles, in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by, T. Stocker, et al., chap. 6, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U. K., and New York.
5. Delworth, T. L., et al. (2006), GFDL's CM2 global coupled climate models. Part I: Formulation and simulation characteristics, J. Clim., 19 (5), 643-674, doi: 10.1175/JCLI3629.1.
6. Diffenbaugh, N.-S., and, C.-B. Field, (2013), Changes in ecologically critical terrestrial climate conditions, Science, 341 (6145), 486-492, doi: 10.1126/science.1237123.
7. Dunne, J. P., et al. (2012), GFDL's ESM2 global coupled climate-carbon Earth system models. Part I: Physical formulation and baseline simulation characteristics, J. Clim., 25 (19), 6646-6665, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00560.1.
8. Dunne, J. P., et al. (2013), GFDL's ESM2 global coupled climate-carbon Earth system models. Part II: Carbon system formulation and baseline simulation characteristics, J. Clim., 26 (7), 2247-2267, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00150.1.
9. 2 and surface temperature perturbations, J. Clim., 22 (10), 2501-2511, doi: 10.1175/2008JCLI2554.1.
10. 2 emissions stoppage, Nature Clim. Change, 4 (1), 40-44, doi: 10.1038/nclimate2060.
11. 2 emissions using CMIP5 simulations, J. Clim., 26, 6844-6858, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00476. 1.
12. Held, I.-M., M. Winton, K. Takahashi, T. Delworth, F. Zeng, and, G.-K. Vallis, (2010), Probing the fast and slow components of global warming by returning, abruptly to preindustrial forcing, J. Clim., 23 (9), 2418-2427, doi: 10.1175/2009JCLI3466.1.
13. Houghton, R.-A., J.-I. House, J. Pongratz, G.-R. van der Werf, R.-S. DeFries, M.-C. Hansen, C. Le Quéré, and, N. Ramankutty, (2012), Carbon emissions from land use and land-cover change, Biogeosciences, 9 (12), 5125-5142, doi: 10.5194/bg-9-5125-2012.
14. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (2013), Summary for policymakers, in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by, T. Stocker, et al., Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U. K., and New York.
15. 2 emissions and airborne fraction simulated by CMIP5 Earth system models under four representative concentration pathways, J. Clim., 26 (13), 4398-4413, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00554.1.
16. Macintosh, A., (2010), Keeping warming within the 2°C limit after Copenhagen, Energy Policy, 38 (6), 2964-2975, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.01.034.
17. Matthews, H.-D., and, K. Caldeira, (2008), Stabilizing climate requires near-zero emissions, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35 (4), L04705, doi: 10.1029/2007GL032388.
18. Matthews, H.-D., N.-P. Gillett, P.-A. Stott, and, K. Zickfeld, (2009), The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions, Nature, 459 (7248), 829-832.
19. Shevliakova, E., R.-J. Stouffer, S. Malyshev, J.-P. Krasting, G.-C. Hurtt, and, S.-W. Pacala, (2013), Historical warming reduced due to enhanced land carbon uptake, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 110, 16,730-16,735, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1314047110.
20. Stouffer, R.-J., and, S. Manabe, (1999), Response of a coupled ocean-atmosphere model to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide: Sensitivity to the rate of increase, J. Clim., 12 (8), 2224-2237, doi: 10.1175/1520-0442(1999) 012<2224:ROACOA>2.0.CO;2.
21. Taylor, K.-E., R.-J. Stouffer, and, G.-A. Meehl, (2011), An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 93 (4), 485-498, doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1.
22. 2-fertilized vegetation on future global climate and carbon dynamics, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31 (23), L23211, doi: 10.1029/2004GL021239.
23. Vuuren, D., et al. (2011), The representative concentration pathways: An overview, Clim. Change, 109 (1-2), 5-31, doi: 10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z.
24. Winton, M., A. Adcroft, S.-M. Griffies, R.-W. Hallberg, L.-W. Horowitz, and, R.-J. Stouffer, (2013), Influence of ocean and atmosphere components on simulated climate sensitivities, J. Clim., 26 (1), 231-245, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00121.1.
25. 2 emissions path dependent?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L05703, doi: 10.1029/2011GL050205.