Search for: All records

Abstract. Large-scale reforestation, afforestation, and forest restoration schemes have gained global support as climate change mitigation strategies due to their significant carbon dioxide removal (CDR) potential. However, there has been limited research into the unintended consequences of forestation from a biophysical perspective. In the Community Earth System Model version 2 (CESM2), we apply a global forestation scenario, within a Paris Agreement-compatible warming scenario, to investigate the land surface and hydroclimate response. Compared to a control scenario where land use is fixed to present-day levels, the forestation scenario is up to 2 °C cooler at low latitudes by 2100, driven by a 10 % increase in evaporative cooling in forested areas. However, afforested areas where grassland or shrubland are replaced lead to a doubling of plant water demand in some tropical regions, causing significant decreases in soil moisture (∼ 5 % globally, 5 %–10 % regionally) and water availability (∼ 10 % globally, 10 %–15 % regionally) in regions with increased forest cover. While there are some increases in low cloud and seasonal precipitation over the expanded tropical forests, with enhanced negative cloud radiative forcing, the impacts on large-scale precipitation and atmospheric circulation are limited. This contrasts with the precipitation response to simulated large-scale deforestation found in previous studies. The forestation scenario demonstrates local cooling benefits without major disruption to global hydrodynamics beyond those already projected to result from climate change, in addition to the cooling associated with CDR. However, the water demands of extensive forestation, especially afforestation, have implications for its viability, given the uncertainty in future precipitation changes. 

Forestation is widely proposed for carbon dioxide (CO₂) removal, but its impact on climate through changes to atmospheric composition and surface albedo remains relatively unexplored. We assessed these responses using two Earth system models by comparing a scenario with extensive global forest expansion in suitable regions to other plausible futures. We found that forestation increased aerosol scattering and the greenhouse gases methane and ozone following increased biogenic organic emissions. Additionally, forestation decreased surface albedo, which yielded a positive radiative forcing (i.e., warming). This offset up to a third of the negative forcing from the additional CO₂removal under a 4°C warming scenario. However, when forestation was pursued alongside other strategies that achieve the 2°C Paris Agreement target, the offsetting positive forcing was smaller, highlighting the urgency for simultaneous emission reductions. 

Abstract. Climate simulation uncertainties arise from internal variability, model structure, and external forcings. Model intercomparisons (such as the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project; CMIP) and single-model large ensembles have provided insight into uncertainty sources. Under the Community Earth System Model (CESM) project, large ensembles have been performed for CESM2 (a CMIP6-era model) and CESM1 (a CMIP5-era model). We refer to these as CESM2-LE and CESM1-LE. The external forcing used in these simulations has changed to be consistent with their CMIP generation. As a result, differences between CESM2-LE and CESM1-LE ensemble means arise from changes in both model structure and forcing. Here we present new ensemble simulations which allow us to separate the influences of these model structural and forcing differences. Our new CESM2 simulations are run with CMIP5 forcings equivalent to those used in the CESM1-LE. We find a strong influence of historical forcing uncertainty due to aerosol effects on simulated climate. For the historical period, forcing drives reduced global warming and ocean heat uptake in CESM2-LE relative to CESM1-LE that is counteracted by the influence of model structure. The influence of the model structure and forcing vary across the globe, and the Arctic exhibits a distinct signal that contrasts with the global mean. For the 21st century, the importance of scenario forcing differences (SSP3–7.0 for CESM2-LE and RCP8.5 for CESM1-LE) is evident. The new simulations presented here allow us to diagnose the influence of model structure on 21st century change, despite large scenario forcing differences, revealing that differences in the meridional distribution of warming are caused by model structure. Feedback analysis reveals that clouds and their impact on shortwave radiation explain many of these structural differences between CESM2 and CESM1. In the Arctic, albedo changes control transient climate evolution differences due to structural differences between CESM2 and CESM1. 

Abstract Large-scale changes in the state of the land surface affect the circulation of the atmosphere and the structure and function of ecosystems alike. As global temperatures increase and regional climates change, the timing of key plant phenophase changes are likely to shift as well. Here we evaluate a suite of phenometrics designed to facilitate an “apples to apples” comparison between remote sensing products and climate model output. Specifically, we derive day-of-year (DOY) thresholds of leaf area index (LAI) from both remote sensing and the Community Land Model (CLM) over the Northern Hemisphere. This systematic approach to comparing phenologically relevant variables reveals appreciable differences in both LAI seasonal cycle and spring onset timing between model simulated phenology and satellite records. For example, phenological spring onset in the model occurs on average 30 days later than observed, especially for evergreen plant functional types. The disagreement in phenology can result in a mean bias of approximately 5% of the total estimated Northern Hemisphere NPP. Further, while the more recent version of CLM (v5.0) exhibits seasonal mean LAI values that are in closer agreement with satellite data than its predecessor (CLM4.5), LAI seasonal cycles in CLM5.0 exhibit poorer agreement. Therefore, despite broad improvements for a range of states and fluxes from CLM4.5 to CLM5.0, degradation of plant phenology occurs in CLM5.0. Therefore, any coupling between the land surface and the atmosphere that depends on vegetation state might not be fully captured by the existing generation of the model. We also discuss several avenues for improving the fidelity between observations and model simulations.