Helge Hellevang1,2, Per Aagaard1. 1. Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1047, Blindern, NO0316 Oslo, Norway. 2. The University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), Pb. 156, 9171 Longyearbyen, Norway.
Abstract
Land-use changes until the beginning of the 20(th) century made the terrestrial biosphere a net source of atmospheric carbon. Later, burning of fossil fuel surpassed land use changes as the major anthropogenic source of carbon. The terrestrial biosphere is at present suggested to be a carbon sink, but the distribution of excess anthropogenic carbon to the ocean and biosphere sinks is highly uncertain. Our modeling suggest that land-use changes can be tracked quite well by the carbon isotopes until mid-20(th) century, whereas burning of fossil fuel dominates the present-day observed changes in the isotope signature. The modeling indicates that the global carbon isotope fractionation has not changed significantly during the last 150 years. Furthermore, increased uptake of carbon by the ocean and increasing temperatures does not yet appear to have resulted in increasing the global gross ocean-to-atmosphere carbon fluxes. This may however change in the future when the excess carbon will emerge in the ocean upwelling zones, possibly reducing the net-uptake of carbon compared to the present-day ocean.
Land-use changes until the beginning of the 20(th) century made the terrestrial biosphere a net source of atmospheric carbon. Later, burning of fossil fuel surpassed land use changes as the major anthropogenic source of carbon. The terrestrial biosphere is at present suggested to be a carbon sink, but the distribution of excess anthropogenic carbon to the ocean and biosphere sinks is highly uncertain. Our modeling suggest that land-use changes can be tracked quite well by the carbon isotopes until mid-20(th) century, whereas burning of fossil fuel dominates the present-day observed changes in the isotope signature. The modeling indicates that the global carbon isotope fractionation has not changed significantly during the last 150 years. Furthermore, increased uptake of carbon by the ocean and increasing temperatures does not yet appear to have resulted in increasing the global gross ocean-to-atmosphere carbon fluxes. This may however change in the future when the excess carbon will emerge in the ocean upwelling zones, possibly reducing the net-uptake of carbon compared to the present-day ocean.
It is beyond doubt that anthropogenic emissions (from burning of fossil fuel, energy
intensive industry and land-use changes) are the cause of the exponentially increasing
atmosphere CO2 as observed since the onset of the industrial revolution12345. The increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is a
key factor for climate changes, and this has placed knowledge about the global carbon
cycle in the forefront of policy debates and climate research. To implement effective
carbon-related policies and to develop future carbon emission trading, a good
understanding is required of the carbon sinks and sources and the human impacts on
them.The relative contribution of the emissions and the efficiency of the biosphere and the
ocean to mitigate the increase in atmospheric CO2-concentrations, remain
highly uncertain25678. This is demonstrated in chapter six of the
latest IPCC report5, where we can read that the net land-atmosphere
carbon flux in the 1980s was estimated to
−0.1 ± 0.8 Gt C/a (negative numbers denote net
uptake). These numbers were partly based on estimates of net CO2 releases
caused by land use changes (+1.4 ± 0.8 Gt C/a), and a
residual terrestrial sink estimated to
−1.5 ± 1.1 Gt C/a. There are globally much data
supporting increased uptake of carbon by the ocean mixed layer (shallow surface
water)910111213 but the global gross ocean-atmosphere fluxes,
partly influenced by annual and inter-annual processes, such as El Niño/La
Niña events1415, are nevertheless not easy to estimate.
Obtaining global values of the carbon fluxes are further complicated by large local and
regional variations in carbon releases and uptake by the terrestrial biosphere581617. Because of the close coupling between oxygen and carbon
fluxes during photosynthesis and respiration, the tracer APO (Atmospheric Potential
Oxygen), in combination with atmospheric CO2 data, is used to obtain the net
amount of CO2 being taken up by the oceanic sink16. The net
amount of carbon being taken up by the terrestrial biosphere can then be found from the
residual (difference between carbon accumulated in the atmosphere and amount taken up by
the global oceans)1618. APO values are however not straightforward to
estimate, and a recent study suggests that the strength of the terrestrial sink may be
significantly lower than found earlier19. Moreover, current measurements
of the atmospheric O2/N2 ratio and CO2 concentrations
may suggest that the amount of oxygen is dropping at a faster rate than calculated from
the APO tracer values20.Biomass burning and conversion from forest to agricultural land, contribute at present
approximately 10% of the total anthropogenic emissions521. Such
land-use changes are driven by the increasing demand for fertile farm land, leading to
large scale soil degradation22232425. In the 18th
and 19th centuries and until the first half of the 20th
century, rapid expansions of farming and deforestation were the main sources of
anthropogenic CO2 to the atmosphere2627. Deforestation and
soil degradation are however still ongoing at alarming rates28. At
present, burning of fossil fuel and cement production contribute about 10 Gt/a
of carbon emissions, whereas land-use changes are estimated to provide about
0.9 Gt C/a5. The stable carbon isotopes (12C and
13C) and their isotope ratio
(R = C/C)
reflect the processes distributing carbon between the various reservoirs
(photosynthesis, respiration, ocean dissolution etc.) and the related isotope
fractionation. For convenience, values are compared to a standard value and the
δC notation, also referred to as the
“carbon isotope signature” is used:The value of the standard ratio R is by convention that of
the Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite (VPDB)29. In the terrestrial biosphere,
photosynthesis preferentially takes up the light carbon isotope (12C) in
plants, and the terrestrial biosphere therefore has a negative
δC value, on average
−25.0%13. Photosynthesis in the surface ocean water removes
the light carbon isotopes from the water, giving the water a slightly positive
δC value (at present about +1 to
+2%)11.The carbon isotope signature (δC) of the
atmosphere is affected by carbon exchanges with the biosphere and ocean mixed layer, and
from anthropogenic carbon emissions. Because of the changes in these fluxes with time,
and most importantly anthropogenic contributions to the fluxes, the atmospheric
δC has changed significantly since the
19th century, from a value of about −6.5 to a present-day
value below −8.0 (Fig. 1)30313233.
This is caused by the depletion of atmospheric 13C by the addition of
12C-enriched carbon from fossil fuel and land-use changes (the so
called Suess effect). The rate of change has increased considerably during the
20th century, presumably due to the accelerating input from fossil
fuel burning which releases carbon with a strongly negative
δC (at present about
−28)34.
Figure 1
Measured stable carbon isotopes () from 1860 to
2010.
Data are from Friedli et al.30 (F86), Etheridge et
al.31 (DE08, Law Dome Ice Core) and the recent series
(South Pole, Point Barrow and Mauna Loa) from Keeling et al.32.
In this study, we propose a new simple box model solved in forward mode to evaluate the
sensitivity of the atmospheric carbon isotope signature on natural and anthropogenically
induced carbon fluxes (see Methods). Natural here refers to atmosphere-biosphere
and atmosphere-ocean carbon fluxes prior to significant input from land-use changes
(pre-19th century fluxes). A forward model is a numerical algorithm
where fossil fuel emissions, carbon-emissions from land-use changes, base (at time zero)
natural fluxes, isotope fractionation, and partitioning of excess carbon is used as
input, and the carbon isotope signature of the atmosphere is calculated. The aim is to
extend earlier forward models including input data of the atmospheric carbon isotope
inventory, land-use changes, fossil-fuel emissions, and isotope signatures of fossil
fuel to 2010. Some datasets, e.g., ice core data from the Law Dome and South Pole, have
recently been modified and extended33 and is compared to the modeling
results. One main aim is to tune the global natural carbon fluxes, but the forward model
also allows us to see if the main human sources of carbon emissions; fossil fuel burning
and land-use changes, can be observed in the recent data of the atmosphere carbon
isotopes. The forward modeling approach can furthermore be used to explicitly test to
what extent some of the natural fluxes (e.g., the ocean-atmosphere carbon flux) is
changing, or if the isotope fractionation factors can be regarded as constant with time.
The model (eq. 2) used in this work is essential the same as the
forward model used by Tans et al.35 and the derivation of the
model can be found there. The model is simplified, and does not take into account
isotope mixing between shallow and deep ocean waters, but instead calculate the
shallow-water carbon isotope inventory as a linear function of changes in the atmosphere
inventory (eq. 6 provided in Methods). This reduces the
number of uncertain input parameters, but preserves the full capability of the model to
predict changes in the atmosphere carbon isotope inventory. The isotope fractionation
factors were also simplified from three to two parameters here, but this does not affect
the modeling (both here and in Tans et al.35 constant
fractionation factors were used for the entire simulated time span, and this is
suggested to be valid from the comparison between modeling results and measured data).
The way the model was solved also differed slightly. Tans et al.35
solved the model explicitly for the fluxes given the isotope disequilibria as input,
whereas we varied carbon cycle parameters (fluxes, ocean/terrestrial biosphere
sink/source strengths, etc.) and compared the model fit to the measured atmospheric
carbon inventory. Finally, Tans et al.35 model was used
successfully for a narrow time interval between 1970 and 1990, whereas this work has
expanded the timeframe to 1860 to 2010. Other models used to constrain global carbon
fluxes, are based on the Tans et al.35 equations, but run in
inverse mode333637 (e.g., using measured atmospheric
δC and CO2 pressures to
estimate fluxes) rather than in forward mode as used in this work (Trudinger et
al.37 uses forward calculations but they are only implicitly
given in the inverse model results). The inverse models have a much larger number of
input parameters, and smoothening of the input
δC and CO2 pressures is
required. Some further discussion on challenges using the results from the inverse
models is provided at the end of the results section.
Results
In order to use the forward model to constrain parameters of the global carbon cycle,
such as the major natural carbon fluxes, the airborne fraction (amount of
anthropogenic CO2 that accumulate in the atmosphere), and amount of
excess carbon being stored in the ocean and terrestrial biosphere, we performed a
sensitivity study where we changed parameters one by one (while fixing the other
parameters) and observed the effect on the modelled carbon isotope signatures.
Table 1 summarizes the base-case parameters used, and
the background for these values is explained in the texts below.
Table 1
Summary and explanation of input parameters used in the model.
Global carbon cycle parameters
Symbol used in model
Base-case value
References
Base terrestrial-atmosphere fluxes*
J(ba), J(ab)
60 Gt C/a (Half of the GPP)
5, 38
Base-case initial (1860) ocean-atmosphere fluxes
J(oa), J(ao)
78 Gt C/a
5
Fossil fuel fluxes
Time series, at present ~9 Gt C/a
48
Carbon fluxes from land-use changes
J(ba*)
Time series, at present ~1.5 Gt C/a
49
Airborne fraction
y
46%
5, 50,
51
Relative contributions of the ocean and terrestrial biosphere
sinks
x(o),
x(b)x(o) + x(b) = 1
50/50
Starting point for sensitivity
Factor relating change in ocean (mixed zone)
δ13C relative to changes in the
atmosphere δ13C.
σ
0.5
This model
Isotope composition of fossil fuel
Time series, at present ~−28.0
30
Isotope composition of the terrestrial biosphere
−25.0
5
Initial (1860) isotope composition of the ocean (mixed
zone)
+2.5
Initial (1860) isotope composition of the atmosphere
−6.48
Base-case parameterization
See table 1 for an overview of variables used in the
model, including their base-case and/or initial values and their literature
sources. The remaining of this section is devoted to explain the background for
the chosen values. Further details on the model equations with explanations are
given in the Method section.To obtain a set of parameters to use for the base case, we used initial
ocean-atmosphere (J) and biosphere-atmosphere
(J) fluxes of 78.0 and 60.0 Gt/a
respectively. The remaining input parameter, the isotope fractionation factor
ε (with
ε = 0), was found
by the requirement of a steady-state atmospheric isotope signature (shortened
) for the initial time after 1860. With
this base-case setup, we found that a value for
ε of −7.0% provided the best fit.
Simulated values are generally within the range of
measurements for the entire simulated time, except for the period from 1962 to
1978 where the modelled is slightly lower than the
Law Dome DE08 ice core data set (Fig. 2a). In our
comparison however, the DE08 ice core provides the only time series for this
period, and we would expect also a range of values
here if we take into account regional variations comparable to the data recorded
during the later years (approximately ±0.15%). A variation in
ε of ±0.5% illustrates the
sensitivity of the model to this parameter (Fig. 2a).
Notice how the three curves are close to parallel after initial steady-states
have been reached, and also parallel to the measured data recording the
accelerated changes that have pertained since the middle of the 20th
century.
Figure 2
(a) Optimizing the β parameter (correcting for isotope
fractionation upon photosynthesis) to provide initial steady-state
atmospheric values. The β
value depends on the choice of terrestrial
(J) and ocean
(J) carbon fluxes to the
atmosphere, and a value of −7.0% was found for the base case
(J = 60 Gt C/a,
J = 78 Gt C/a
and α = 0.0%). (b) Sensitivity of the
model to σ, providing the change in surface ocean
δ13C as a fraction of the change in the
atmosphere δ13C (Eq. 5).
The change in surface ocean δC is
modelled as a fraction of the change in , and
therefore adopts the same slopes. With the starting δ13C
value of +2.5 and a σ (see eq. 6) of 0.5,
we obtain a present-day value of about +1.55, which is in good agreement with
recent observations (Fig. 2b)91012. It
is interesting to see that, due to the relatively large seawater-atmosphere
carbon fluxes, even modest changes in ocean
δC have a significant impact
on (Fig. 2b).The simulated changes in CO2 pressure and a comparison with data by
Etheridge et al.31 based on Antarctic ice-core
measurements (Law Dome, DE08), and recent direct measurements reported by
Keeling et al.32 is shown in Fig. 3.
The comparison suggests that the anthropogenic fluxes and the assumption of 46%
airborne CO2 provide good estimates for the changes in atmospheric
CO2 mass and corresponding CO2 pressure. The
significant difference between simulated and measured data in the early part of
the comparison (1860 to 1950) is however not understood. Some studies have
suggested higher values for the fraction of anthropogenic carbon accumulating in
the atmosphere. For example, Rafelski et al.38 assumed an
airborne fraction of 57%, which also gave good predictions of the CO2
pressures. They, however, did not include excess fluxes from land-use changes,
as was done in the present study.
Figure 3
Comparison of simulated and measured atmospheric CO2 partial
pressures.
The measured data are from the Law Dome DE08 ice core (red triangles)31, and from the Mauna Loa sampling station (green
circles)32 respectively.
Sensitivity of model to the terrestrial biosphere-atmosphere carbon
flux
In our model carbon fluxes between the terrestrial biosphere and atmosphere were
divided into two distinct parts; one large component representing fluxes prior
to human influences by land-use changes and fossil-fuel burning (hereafter
referred to as the base terrestrial-atmosphere carbon flux), and one smaller but
increasing component including the contributions from human perturbations of the
system (including the increasing net uptake of carbon by land-plants caused by
increasing atmospheric CO2). The base terrestrial-atmosphere carbon
fluxes were held constant from 1860 to 2010. We first attempted using fluxes of
60 Gt C/a, in accordance with the use of a net primary production (NPP)
of about half the gross primary production (GPP)39, and with GPP
typical estimated to 120 Gt C/a539. Exact values of
gross fluxes are hard to estimate, and they are generally quoted with
uncertainties greater than ±20%5.
Simulations using base terrestrial-atmosphere fluxes of 50 and 70 Gt C/a
were therefore also performed, roughly covering the entire range in uncertainty.
This range also covers the somewhat lower estimates by Ito40 and
Runnin41, suggesting NPP of 56 and 54 Gt C/a
respectively. The results are shown in Fig. 4a. The
modeling shows that the difference between the models is small prior to about
1960. From thereon, however, using a base flux of 50 Gt C/a apparently
overestimates the rate of reduction of the atmosphere
δ13C, giving estimates on the lower side of the data
assemblage, whereas the opposite is true using 70 Gt C/a. The base-case
value of 60 Gt C/a gives the overall best fit to the measured data
points, further supporting the use of such a value in the global carbon cycle
models.
Figure 4
(a) Sensitivity of the model to the non-anhtropogenic part of the
biosphere-atmosphere flux (J). The
simulations were done with a fixed value of
x( = 0.5, implying that
the ocean takes up 50% of the residual carbon being stored in the
terrestrial biosphere-ocean system. (b) Sensitivity of the model to
the fraction of excess carbon being stored in the ocean relative to the
terrestrial biosphere. The simulations were done with a fixed
non-anthropogenic biosphere-atmosphere flux of 60 Gt C/a.
Despite the general good fit between the simulated and measured data, there is
apparently a mismatch between the updated ice core data from Rubino et
al.33, and the recent firn data (Fig.
4a). The fit between the model and measured recent data is very good,
but it is impossible to obtain this fit with a
δC starting point (1860) of
about −6.65%, required for the shifted ice-core data. Instead, using the
old un-shifted ice-core data (δC
starting point (1860) of about −6.48%) provides excellent fit between
model and measured data for the entire period from 1860 to present. As will be
discussed further below, this has consequences for the inverse modeling and
estimated natural fluxes33, especially for transition period from
ice- to firn data.
Relative contributions of the ocean and terrestrial biosphere
sources/sinks
In the model base-case we assumed that equal amounts of the excess atmospheric
CO2 would be taken up by the ocean (through increased dissolution
following Henry’s law) and the terrestrial biosphere (through increased
plant growth) respectively, and we further assumed that this have not change
significantly between 1860 and present. The true fraction of carbon taken up by
the terrestrial biosphere is however lower, because of carbon emissions from
land-use changes (treated as a separate input parameter in the model). The
terrestrial biosphere has therefore for most of the periode 1860 to present been
a net source of carbon. The total amount of excess carbon taken up by the two
systems was estimated using an airborne fraction of 0.46, implying that a
residual of 54% of the anthropogenic carbon emissions each year have been taken
up by the two sinks. To understand how changes in the individual contributions
of the two sinks affect the carbon isotope signature, we compared simulations
using ocean uptake of 30, 50 and 70% of the residual 54% excess carbon. The
sensitivity study suggest that modelled atmospheric
δC is little sensitive to
changes in the relative contributions of the ocean and biosphere to take up the
anthropogenic CO2 (Fig. 4b). As already
mentioned, values can be constrained by the APO tracer, and a range of studies
suggests that the terrestrial biosphere has been a net sink since the second
half of the 20th century, and that the ocean and biosphere sinks recently have
made quite similar contributions5. The time when the biosphere
became a net sink can also be found in the present modeling, by comparing the
natural and anthropogenic biosphere emissions to the simulated counter flux. If
we use the base-case values, the biosphere has been a net sink since 1970 and
the net uptake at present (2010 value) is about 1.3 Gt C/a (Fig. 5) (compared to a present-day ocean uptake of about
3.6 Gt C/a). These values are in the range of earlier estimates51738, but the timing is later and the size of the flux is on
the lower end of earlier estimates. If the fraction of excess anthropogenic
carbon being stored in the biosphere is changed to 70 and 30%, the time at which
the biosphere becomes a net sink is shifted to the years 1950 and 2000,
respectively. The corresponding net 2010 uptakes then change to 2.4 and
0.2 Gt C/a. The present-day net land surface uptake is estimated to
approximately 1.4 to 3.8 Gt C/a (mean about 2.6–2.9 Gt
C/a)542, indicating that the fertilization of land plants
are more effective than ocean uptake in taking up excess atmospheric carbon, but
keep in mind that much of this effect is lost by the human induced carbon
emissions from land-use changes.
Figure 5
Carbon fluxes from the biosphere to the atmosphere () (red curve) compared to the simulated counter-fluxes from the
atmosphere to the biosphere (J).
Three scenarios are simulated varying the fraction of excess carbon being
taken up by the ocean (x(): the base-case
scenario with x = 0.5 (blue
curve); one with lower oceanic carbon uptake
(x = 0.3) (upper grey
curve); and one with a higher uptake (x=
0.7) (lower grey curve). The biosphere is a net carbon sink when .
Model constraints on temporal changes in the ocean-air CO2
flux
The ocean-air flux has been proposed to have increased from 60 to 78 Gt
C/a since 1750 following the textbook analysis of Sarmiento and Gruber543. The background for the increase is a complex response of
surface ocean temperature, CO2 solubility, and biogenic carbon uptake
on increased atmospheric CO2. In the present model, isotope
fractionation factors (ε and
ε, see Methods) were used to tune the
model to provide a good match between simulated and measured values for the
atmosphere carbon isotope signature at the onset of the simulations (1860). Our
forward model suggests that using constant values for the estimated isotope
fractionation factors result in a good match between measured and simulated data
for the entire period from 1860 to 2010. Constant fractionation factors have
also been used by other forward and inverse models333536,
supported by the general idea that the large dominance of C3 plants, dominating
in the temperate forests, has not changed very much over the last 150 years. The
increases in the atmospheric CO2 result in moderate increases also
for the atmosphere-ocean and atmosphere-terrestrial fluxes. If we now use a
large increase in the ocean-atmosphere carbon fluxes from 1860 to present, as
suggested by Sarmiento and Gruber43, and still utilize fixed
values for the isotope fractionation factors, the modelled atmospheric
δC plots very far from the
measured values. This indicate that only modest changes in the ocean-air fluxes
have occurred over the last 150 years. The possibility that the isotope
fractionation factors have changed significantly and with a magnitude that
perfects balances the changes in the ocean-atmosphere flux, is very unlikely.
The reason why the ocean-air flux is not very sensitive to increasing
atmospheric CO2 levels over time-scales of less than 150 years, is
that ocean upwelling of old waters to a large degree dictates the
ocean-atmosphere carbon flux14, with the upwelling waters being
on average much older than 150 years44. Increased
ocean-atmosphere fluxes are therefore expected in the future, and this may lead
to decreasing net carbon uptake and a corresponding increasing airborne
fraction.
Individual contributions of land-use changes and fossil fuel to changes in
δ13C–1860 to 2010
If we try to simulate the changes in the isotopes without taking into account any
anthropogenic emissions, or with only fossil fuel burning or changes in
land-use, we cannot obtain the slopes as observed
in the measured data (Fig. 6). It is also indicated that
fossil fuel burning alone is not sufficient to explain the slopes. Only the
combined contributions of the two sources can fully explain the atmospheric
δC over the simulated time
from 1860 to 2010. There are also no other natural carbon sources with
(about present day value) that can be
imposed instead to get the slopes. Magmatic (mantle) degassing has a
δ13C of about 0.0, and there are limits for how much
the net carbon fluxes to the ocean can be increased. We also know that the
terrestrial biosphere cannot have been a large net source of carbon over the
last 50 years5. Claims by ‘climate sceptics’ that
the build-up of carbon since the industrial revolution is mostly natural, using
the argument that the residence time of carbon in the atmosphere is short and
that little anthropogenic carbon is left, can therefore be easily refuted by
studying the carbon isotope changes.
Figure 6
Individual contributions of anthropogenic emissions (land-use changes and
fossil-fuel burning) to the modelled temporal changes in the atmospheric
.
Both fluxes are needed to get good fits between measured values (and slopes)
for the entire time frame, despite a decent fit if only the contribution
from fossil-fuel burning is taken into account.
Estimated natural fluxes: Forward vs inverse models
The present work is done using a forward model, largely based on the same
equations as in Tans et al.35, but utilizing recent and
updated data up to 2010 and also extending the simulations back to 1860. Tans
work was shown to successfully model the effect of fossil fuel combustion on the
atmospheric and ocean carbon isotope evolution, but did not include the
contribution of land-use changes, estimated to contribute between ~20
and 40% of the total humancarbon emissions during the time interval
1970–1990 (see Fig. 7). Hence, the natural and
estimated induced carbon fluxes (especially the atmosphere-ocean fluxes) must
have been shifted accordingly to ensure fit between model and measured isotope
data.
Figure 7
Carbon fluxes from fossil fuel burning from Boden et al.47 compared to fluxes from land-use changes from Houghton et
al.48.
Inverse models are based on single or double deconvolution algorithms, and with
various extended methods (e.g., the Kalman Filter double deconvolution)3345 to quantify uncertainties in estimated fluxes. These models
have been utilized to estimate natural and induced carbon fluxes over much of
the same time interval as in this study, 1860 to present, and the most recent
one extended simulations to 201033. The Kalman Filter double
inversion methods are very good to quantify uncertainties, and much of our
understanding of the uncertainties comes from these studies. The forward
modeling approach offers no such quantitative method to assess uncertainties,
but could potential be extended using statistical modeling such as adding a
Monte Carlo algorithm, but this was outside the scope of this work. Despite the
superiority in obtaining uncertainties, inverse models also have some clear
limitations. First, de deconvolution methods require continuous data series, and
uses smoothed curves fitted to the longer time series where data are few.
Estimated fluxes will therefore, to some extent, depend on the choice of moving
average. Second, the longer time series contains a mixture of data from
different sources (e.g., measurements of ice air bubbles followed by direct
measurements from atmospheric air), and these may not be well correlated. This
implies that data (and the smoothed curves) may be shifted and this may have
large impacts on the estimated fluxes. One example is the combination of ice
core CO2 pressure data from the Law Dome (E08)31 and
direct measurements at Hawaii32 (shown in Fig.
3) used in the inversion by Trudinger et al.37
Their model (and any other inversion using these data sets) would suggest that
the flattening (actually slight drop) in CO2 pressures during the
1930s to 40s must be caused by a large increase in the net uptake of
CO2 in the ocean. There is however no physical mechanism to
explain this increased uptake during this time. Changes in the natural ocean
carbon uptake is closely connected to strengthening and weakening of the
downwelling/upwelling currents mixing deep and shallow ocean water masses, which
is further connected to El Niño/La Niña events1415. There are no indications of specific decrease in upwelling
or increase in downwelling by particularly strong and frequent El Niño
events during this time46. Also increased biogenic growth that
would depend on a period of increased nutrient supply is not likely. Lacking any
other plausible explanation for the increased carbon uptake during this time,
the flattening of the data may just be an artifact. The inverse models do
however not distinguishing between physical and unphysical background of trends
in data and the estimated fluxes may therefore also be unphysical.
Conclusions
The forward modeling approach offers an explicit way of testing how various
parameters affect the isotope signature of the atmosphere. In this study we extended
the work by Tans et al.35 in time. We found that the forward
modeling approach, and even for the very simplified models, can be used to
successfully model the temporal evolution of the atmospheric carbon isotope
signature over extended times, here the 150 years between 1860 and 2010. This does
however rely on input data on fossil fuel combustion, land-use changes, and the
assumption that the isotope fractionation factors between the atmosphere and
terrestrial biosphere and ocean are known (in this work successfully treated as
constants). The modeling also suggests that outgassing of carbon from the ocean
(mainly at ocean upwelling zones) has not increased significantly since 1860. This
contrasts to the general consensus based on Sarmiento and Gruber43,
and also used by IPCC5, that ocean-atmosphere carbon fluxes have
increased from 60 to 78 Gt C/a since 1750. Finally, the simplified forward
modeling approach used here does not offer the powerful capability of Kalman Filter
Double Deconvolution to yield uncertainty estimates of fluxes3337.
On the other hand, the forward model is explicit and does not need any smoothening
of data, and can be used as a complimentary method to constrain natural and induced
global carbon fluxes.
Methods
The δ13C of the atmosphere was calculated for each year from
1860 to 2010 by using a three-box-model representing the terrestrial biosphere,
ocean mixed layer, and atmosphere carbon reservoirs, and anthropogenic carbon fluxes
from fossil fuel burning and land-use changes (Fig. 8). In the
model, the carbon isotope signature of the atmosphere is updated for each year after
a simple balance between carbon fluxes into and out of the atmosphere.
Figure 8
Box model representing atmospheric carbon stable isotope mixing by taking
into account fossil fuel burning, and fluxes of carbon to and from the
terrestrial biosphere and surface ocean water and the atmosphere.
In equation (2)
J denotes fluxes (Gt C/year), m denotes mass (Gt C), t denotes
time (years), and superscripts a, f, b, and o denote the four carbon
reservoirs: atmosphere, fossil fuel, terrestrial biosphere, and ocean mixed layer.
The double superscripts denote the direction of the flux, i.e. ‘ao’
indicates the flux of carbon from the atmosphere to the ocean mixed layer. Subscript
i indicates the initial time. The changes caused by
uptake of carbon by the ocean and biosphere sinks were modified by adding
εo and εb (units %). These
two parameters correct for the global isotope fractionation between the atmosphere
and the ocean and terrestrial biospheres. Because the isotope fractionation is
affected by a range of processes and exact values are difficult to obtain, values
were found by regression, fitting the initial (1860) modelled
δ13C to the measured data. Since it is the carbon in the
terrestrial biosphere rather than in the ocean mixed layer that dominates in
biogenic uptake, we chose to use
ε = 0.0%, and to estimate
ε by a regression analysis giving a
satisfactory steady state isotope value at the beginning of the forward model (i.e.
1860). Because of the interdependency of ε and
ε, other values of
ε would lead to a different
ε, but modelled results after 1860 were found
to not differ significantly. Values for the flux of carbon from burning of fossil
fuel () and the excess flux of carbon from changes in
land use () were obtained from Boden et
al.47 and Houghton et al.48
respectively (Fig. 7). The remaining fluxes were estimated
( and ) or
assumed constant with time ( and ). Out of the total (gross) fluxes of carbon between the
atmosphere and biosphere, we used the Net Primary Productivity (NPP) to represent
carbon fluxes that modify . We assumed the NPP is
about half of the Gross Primary Productivity (GPP), following Beer et
al.39, and used an initial pre-industrial value for the GPP
and NPP fluxes of 120 and 60 Gt/a respectively5. The
flux was then kept constant over the
simulated time, with the model (Eq. 2) taking explicitly into
account the changes in net fluxes from land-use changes.() Fluxes from the atmosphere to the biosphere were
updated with time, taking into account the CO2 fertilization effect on
the biosphere following the increased levels of atmospheric CO2 (see Eq.
4 below). The carbon fluxes from the atmosphere to the
ocean and terrestrial biosphere were estimated by assuming that a fraction of the
excess carbon provided to the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuel and changes in
land use has been accommodated by the ocean and terrestrial biosphere sinks:andwherewhere y denotes the airborne fraction of CO2, i.e. the
anthropogenic carbon being left in the atmosphere, and
x( and x( the
fractions of residual carbon being stored in the ocean and terrestrial biosphere
sinks respectively
(x + x = 1).
A value of 0.46 was chosen for airborne fraction and assumed constant from 1860 to
2010, in accordance with estimates by e.g., Sabine et al.49,
Knorr50, and IPCC5. The fractions of excess carbon
being stored in the ocean and terrestrial biospheres are uncertain, and we therefore
included a sensitivity study varying this fraction. Finally, the
δ13C of fossil fuel emissions was taken from estimates by
Andres et al.34, changing from about −24 in 1860 to
about −28 at present.Estimating the surface ocean δ13C and changes in this value
with time is complicated by mixing of carbon from the atmosphere, terrestrial input,
mixing of deep-ocean and surface-ocean water masses, and preferential removal of
12C over 13C by the oceanic biosphere. The sum of
these processes leads to a positive δ13C. The effect of
increasing atmosphere CO2 on the biogenic removal of carbon from the
surface ocean water is not well understood and the surface ocean
δ13C was therefore modified as a fraction
σ of the change in the atmospheric
δ13C:The exact value of σ is not known, but values close to 0.5 has been
indicated11, and we used this value in the base case and then
varied from 0.3 to 0.7 to illustrate the sensitivity of the model to this parameter.
As will be demonstrated, using σ = 0.5 provides a
drop in surface ocean δ13C of 0.95% that compares reasonably
with other, more sophisticated, models that predict a drop of approximately 1% from
1800 to 198010.The mass of atmospheric carbon was updated with the assumption that the airborne
fraction of CO2 was 46%, in accordance with estimates by e.g., Sabine
et al.49. The corresponding changes in the CO2
pressure were estimated by:with an 1860 CO2 pressure value () of
281 ppm.
Additional Information
How to cite this article: Hellevang, H. and Aagaard, P. Constraints on natural
global atmospheric CO2 fluxes from 1860 to 2010 using a simplified
explicit forward model. Sci. Rep.
5, 17352; doi: 10.1038/srep17352 (2015).
Authors: Richard J Plevin; Michael O'Hare; Andrew D Jones; Margaret S Torn; Holly K Gibbs Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2010-11-01 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Christian Beer; Markus Reichstein; Enrico Tomelleri; Philippe Ciais; Martin Jung; Nuno Carvalhais; Christian Rödenbeck; M Altaf Arain; Dennis Baldocchi; Gordon B Bonan; Alberte Bondeau; Alessandro Cescatti; Gitta Lasslop; Anders Lindroth; Mark Lomas; Sebastiaan Luyssaert; Hank Margolis; Keith W Oleson; Olivier Roupsard; Elmar Veenendaal; Nicolas Viovy; Christopher Williams; F Ian Woodward; Dario Papale Journal: Science Date: 2010-07-05 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Christopher L Sabine; Richard A Feely; Nicolas Gruber; Robert M Key; Kitack Lee; John L Bullister; Rik Wanninkhof; C S Wong; Douglas W R Wallace; Bronte Tilbrook; Frank J Millero; Tsung-Hung Peng; Alexander Kozyr; Tsueno Ono; Aida F Rios Journal: Science Date: 2004-07-16 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Josep G Canadell; Corinne Le Quéré; Michael R Raupach; Christopher B Field; Erik T Buitenhuis; Philippe Ciais; Thomas J Conway; Nathan P Gillett; R A Houghton; Gregg Marland Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2007-10-25 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Blandine Courel; Harry K Robson; Alexandre Lucquin; Ekaterina Dolbunova; Ester Oras; Kamil Adamczak; Søren H Andersen; Peter Moe Astrup; Maxim Charniauski; Agnieszka Czekaj-Zastawny; Igor Ezepenko; Sönke Hartz; Jacek Kabaciński; Andreas Kotula; Stanisław Kukawka; Ilze Loze; Andrey Mazurkevich; Henny Piezonka; Gytis Piličiauskas; Søren A Sørensen; Helen M Talbot; Aleh Tkachou; Maryia Tkachova; Adam Wawrusiewicz; John Meadows; Carl P Heron; Oliver E Craig Journal: R Soc Open Sci Date: 2020-04-22 Impact factor: 2.963
Authors: Manon Bondetti; Lara González Carretero; Ekaterina Dolbunova; Krista McGrath; Sam Presslee; Alexandre Lucquin; Viktor Tsybriy; Andrey Mazurkevich; Andrey Tsybriy; Peter Jordan; Carl Heron; John Meadows; Oliver E Craig Journal: Archaeol Anthropol Sci Date: 2021-07-26 Impact factor: 1.989
Authors: Andre Carlo Colonese; Rachel Winter; Rafael Brandi; Thiago Fossile; Ricardo Fernandes; Silvia Soncin; Krista McGrath; Matthew Von Tersch; Arkley Marques Bandeira Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-10-06 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Alice Toso; Ellen Hallingstad; Krista McGrath; Thiago Fossile; Christine Conlan; Jessica Ferreira; Dione da Rocha Bandeira; Paulo César Fonseca Giannini; Simon-Pierre Gilson; Lucas de Melo Reis Bueno; Murilo Quintans Ribeiro Bastos; Fernanda Mara Borba; Adriana M P do Santos; André Carlo Colonese Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-12-06 Impact factor: 4.379