RECCAP2 Future Component: Consistency and Potential for Regional Assessment to Constrain Global Projections
Chris D. Jones,
Tilo Ziehn,
Jatin Anand,
Ana Bastos,
Eleanor Burke,
Josep G. Canadell,
Manoel Cardoso,
Yolandi Ernst,
Atul K. Jain,
Sujong Jeong,
Elizabeth D. Keller,
Masayuki Kondo,
Ronny Lauerwald,
Tzu‐Shun Lin,
Guillermo Murray‐Tortarolo,
Gert‐Jan Nabuurs,
Mike O’Sullivan,
Ben Poulter,
Xiaoyu Qin,
Celso vonRandow,
Marcos Sanches,
Dmitry Schepaschenko,
Anatoly Shvidenko,
T. Luke Smallman,
Hanqin Tian,
Yohanna Villalobos,
Xuhui Wang,
Jeongmin Yun
Affiliations
Chris D. Jones
Met Office Hadley Centre Exeter UK
Tilo Ziehn
CSIRO Environment Aspendale VIC Australia
Jatin Anand
Department of Atmospheric Sciences University of Illinois Urbana IL USA
Ana Bastos
Department Biogeochemical Integratio Max‐Planck‐Institut für Biogeochemie Jena Germany
Eleanor Burke
Met Office Hadley Centre Exeter UK
Josep G. Canadell
Global Carbon Project CSIRO Environment Canberra ACT Australia
Manoel Cardoso
National Institute for Space Research São José dos Campos Brazil
Yolandi Ernst
Global Change Institute University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
Atul K. Jain
Department of Atmospheric Sciences University of Illinois Urbana IL USA
Sujong Jeong
Department of Environmental Planning Graduate School of Environmental Studies Seoul National University Seoul Republic of Korea
Elizabeth D. Keller
GNS Science Lower Hutt New Zealand
Masayuki Kondo
Institute for Space‐Earth Environmental Research Nagoya University Nagoya Japan
Ronny Lauerwald
INRAE/AgroParisTech‐UMR Ecosys Université Paris‐Saclay Palaiseau France
Tzu‐Shun Lin
Department of Atmospheric Sciences University of Illinois Urbana IL USA
Guillermo Murray‐Tortarolo
Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Morelia México
Gert‐Jan Nabuurs
Wageningen Environmental Research Wageningen The Netherlands
Mike O’Sullivan
Faculty of Environment, Science and Economy University of Exeter Exeter UK
Ben Poulter
Biospheric Sciences Lab NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt MD USA
Xiaoyu Qin
State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology Research Center for Eco‐Environmental Sciences Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing China
Celso vonRandow
National Institute for Space Research São José dos Campos Brazil
Marcos Sanches
National Institute for Space Research São José dos Campos Brazil
Dmitry Schepaschenko
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Laxenburg Austria
Anatoly Shvidenko
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Laxenburg Austria
T. Luke Smallman
School of GeoSciences University of Edinburgh Edinburgh UK
Hanqin Tian
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences Schiller Institute for Integrated Science and Society Boston College Chestnut Hill MA USA
Yohanna Villalobos
Global Carbon Project CSIRO Environment Canberra ACT Australia
Xuhui Wang
College of Urban and Environmental Sciences Institute of Carbon Neutrality Sino‐French Institute of Earth System Sciences Peking University Beijing China
Jeongmin Yun
Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena CA USA
Abstract Projections of future carbon sinks and stocks are important because they show how the world's ecosystems will respond to elevated CO2 and changes in climate. Moreover, they are crucial to inform policy decisions around emissions reductions to stay within the global warming levels identified by the Paris Agreement. However, Earth System Models from the 6th Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) show substantial spread in future projections—especially of the terrestrial carbon cycle, leading to a large uncertainty in our knowledge of any remaining carbon budget (RCB). Here we evaluate the global terrestrial carbon cycle projections on a region‐by‐region basis and compare the global models with regional assessments made by the REgional Carbon Cycle Assessment and Processes, Phase 2 activity. Results show that for each region, the CMIP6 multi‐model mean is generally consistent with the regional assessment, but substantial cross‐model spread exists. Nonetheless, all models perform well in some regions and no region is without some well performing models. This gives confidence that the CMIP6 models can be used to look at future changes in carbon stocks on a regional basis with appropriate model assessment and benchmarking. We find that most regions of the world remain cumulative net sources of CO2 between now and 2100 when considering the balance of fossil‐fuels and natural sinks, even under aggressive mitigation scenarios. This paper identifies strengths and weaknesses for each model in terms of its performance over a particular region including how process representation might impact those results and sets the agenda for applying stricter constraints at regional scales to reduce the uncertainty in global projections.