1
|
Cooper VT, Armour KC, Hakim GJ, Tierney JE, Osman MB, Proistosescu C, Dong Y, Burls NJ, Andrews T, Amrhein DE, Zhu J, Dong W, Ming Y, Chmielowiec P. Last Glacial Maximum pattern effects reduce climate sensitivity estimates. SCIENCE ADVANCES 2024; 10:eadk9461. [PMID: 38630811 PMCID: PMC11023557 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adk9461] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/19/2023] [Accepted: 03/13/2024] [Indexed: 04/19/2024]
Abstract
Here, we show that the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) provides a stronger constraint on equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), the global warming from increasing greenhouse gases, after accounting for temperature patterns. Feedbacks governing ECS depend on spatial patterns of surface temperature ("pattern effects"); hence, using the LGM to constrain future warming requires quantifying how temperature patterns produce different feedbacks during LGM cooling versus modern-day warming. Combining data assimilation reconstructions with atmospheric models, we show that the climate is more sensitive to LGM forcing because ice sheets amplify extratropical cooling where feedbacks are destabilizing. Accounting for LGM pattern effects yields a median modern-day ECS of 2.4°C, 66% range 1.7° to 3.5°C (1.4° to 5.0°C, 5 to 95%), from LGM evidence alone. Combining the LGM with other lines of evidence, the best estimate becomes 2.9°C, 66% range 2.4° to 3.5°C (2.1° to 4.1°C, 5 to 95%), substantially narrowing uncertainty compared to recent assessments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vincent T. Cooper
- Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Kyle C. Armour
- Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
- School of Oceanography, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Gregory J. Hakim
- Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | | | | | - Cristian Proistosescu
- Department of Climate, Meteorology, and Atmospheric Sciences and Department of Earth Sciences and Environmental Change, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA
| | - Yue Dong
- Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
| | - Natalie J. Burls
- Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic & Earth Sciences, Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA
| | | | - Daniel E. Amrhein
- Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory, NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA
| | - Jiang Zhu
- Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory, NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA
| | - Wenhao Dong
- Cooperative Programs for the Advancement of Earth System Science, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA
- NOAA/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, NJ, USA
| | - Yi Ming
- Earth and Environmental Sciences and Schiller Institute for Integrated Science and Society, Boston College, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Philip Chmielowiec
- Department of Climate, Meteorology, and Atmospheric Sciences and Department of Earth Sciences and Environmental Change, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Bastiaansen R, Ashwin P, von der Heydt AS. Climate response and sensitivity: time scales and late tipping points. Proc Math Phys Eng Sci 2023. [DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2022.0483] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Climate response metrics are used to quantify the Earth’s climate response to anthropogenic changes of atmospheric
CO
2
. Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is one such metric that measures the equilibrium response to
CO
2
doubling. However, both in their estimation and their usage, such metrics make assumptions on the linearity of climate response, although it is known that, especially for larger forcing levels, response can be nonlinear. Such nonlinear responses may become visible immediately in response to a larger perturbation, or may only become apparent after a long transient period. In this paper, we illustrate some potential problems and caveats when estimating ECS from transient simulations. We highlight ways that very slow time scales may lead to poor estimation of ECS even if there is seemingly good fit to linear response over moderate time scales. Moreover, such slow processes might lead to late abrupt responses (late tipping points) associated with a system’s nonlinearities. We illustrate these ideas using simulations on a global energy balance model with dynamic albedo. We also discuss the implications for estimating ECS for global climate models, highlighting that it is likely to remain difficult to make definitive statements about the simulation times needed to reach an equilibrium.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robbin Bastiaansen
- Department of Physics and IMAU, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Mathematical Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Peter Ashwin
- Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QF, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Burls N, Sagoo N. Increasingly Sophisticated Climate Models Need the Out-Of-Sample Tests Paleoclimates Provide. JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN MODELING EARTH SYSTEMS 2022; 14:e2022MS003389. [PMID: 37035628 PMCID: PMC10078273 DOI: 10.1029/2022ms003389] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/12/2022] [Revised: 11/28/2022] [Accepted: 12/05/2022] [Indexed: 06/19/2023]
Abstract
Climate models are becoming increasingly sophisticated as climate scientists continually work to improve the realism with which the processes influencing Earth's climate are represented. One example is the treatment of cloud microphysics: as complexity is added to cloud microphysical schemes, Earth's energy budget can respond to changes in climate forcings, such as carbon dioxide or aerosols, in new ways. This increase in degrees of freedom has illuminated larger spread in climate sensitivity across the latest generation of climate models participating Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, Phase 6, with more high climate sensitivity models (Zelinka et al., 2020, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019gl085782). Whilst the historical record gives us just over a century of data to apply toward climate sensitivity constraints (e.g., Nijsse et al., 2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-737-2020), the ocean is still taking up much of the heat trapped by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and the climate system is far from equilibrium which limits our understanding how climate sensitivity might change in response to long-term forced climate change. Here we discuss the valuable tests that paleoclimate reconstructions can provide the latest generation of climate models, as demonstrated by the recent study of Zhu et al., 2022, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021ms002776. Their study provides an example of the benefits for climate model development when climate models are confronted with simulating climates very different from today. Ideally the climate model development stage under future iterations of CMIP will involve such tests as an effort to constrain global climate sensitivity and the regional patterns of climate, such as polar amplification and subtropical aridification.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Natalie Burls
- Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Earth SciencesCenter for Ocean‐Land‐Atmosphere StudiesGeorge Mason UniversityVAFairfaxUSA
| | - Navjit Sagoo
- Department of MeteorologyStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
von der Heydt AS. Can the Miocene climate inform the future? Science 2022; 377:26-27. [PMID: 35771927 DOI: 10.1126/science.abq6542] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/02/2022]
Abstract
Another climate reconstruction shows a correlation between temperature and CO2.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna S von der Heydt
- Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Wong TE, Cui Y, Royer DL, Keller K. A tighter constraint on Earth-system sensitivity from long-term temperature and carbon-cycle observations. Nat Commun 2021; 12:3173. [PMID: 34039993 PMCID: PMC8154887 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-23543-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/19/2019] [Accepted: 04/30/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
The long-term temperature response to a given change in CO2 forcing, or Earth-system sensitivity (ESS), is a key parameter quantifying our understanding about the relationship between changes in Earth’s radiative forcing and the resulting long-term Earth-system response. Current ESS estimates are subject to sizable uncertainties. Long-term carbon cycle models can provide a useful avenue to constrain ESS, but previous efforts either use rather informal statistical approaches or focus on discrete paleoevents. Here, we improve on previous ESS estimates by using a Bayesian approach to fuse deep-time CO2 and temperature data over the last 420 Myrs with a long-term carbon cycle model. Our median ESS estimate of 3.4 °C (2.6-4.7 °C; 5-95% range) shows a narrower range than previous assessments. We show that weaker chemical weathering relative to the a priori model configuration via reduced weatherable land area yields better agreement with temperature records during the Cretaceous. Research into improving the understanding about these weathering mechanisms hence provides potentially powerful avenues to further constrain this fundamental Earth-system property. Earth-system sensitivity (ESS) describes the long-term temperature response for a given change in atmospheric CO2 and, as such, is a crucial parameter to assess future climate change. Here, the authors use a Bayesian model with data from the last 420 Myrs to reduce uncertainties and estimate ESS to be around 3.4 °C.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tony E Wong
- School of Mathematical Sciences, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY, USA.
| | - Ying Cui
- Department of Earth and Environmental Studies, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, USA.
| | - Dana L Royer
- Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT, USA
| | - Klaus Keller
- Department of Geosciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.,Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Sherwood SC, Webb MJ, Annan JD, Armour KC, Forster PM, Hargreaves JC, Hegerl G, Klein SA, Marvel KD, Rohling EJ, Watanabe M, Andrews T, Braconnot P, Bretherton CS, Foster GL, Hausfather Z, von der Heydt AS, Knutti R, Mauritsen T, Norris JR, Proistosescu C, Rugenstein M, Schmidt GA, Tokarska KB, Zelinka MD. An Assessment of Earth's Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence. REVIEWS OF GEOPHYSICS (WASHINGTON, D.C. : 1985) 2020; 58:e2019RG000678. [PMID: 33015673 PMCID: PMC7524012 DOI: 10.1029/2019rg000678] [Citation(s) in RCA: 87] [Impact Index Per Article: 21.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2019] [Revised: 04/22/2020] [Accepted: 06/24/2020] [Indexed: 05/10/2023]
Abstract
We assess evidence relevant to Earth's equilibrium climate sensitivity per doubling of atmospheric CO2, characterized by an effective sensitivity S. This evidence includes feedback process understanding, the historical climate record, and the paleoclimate record. An S value lower than 2 K is difficult to reconcile with any of the three lines of evidence. The amount of cooling during the Last Glacial Maximum provides strong evidence against values of S greater than 4.5 K. Other lines of evidence in combination also show that this is relatively unlikely. We use a Bayesian approach to produce a probability density function (PDF) for S given all the evidence, including tests of robustness to difficult-to-quantify uncertainties and different priors. The 66% range is 2.6-3.9 K for our Baseline calculation and remains within 2.3-4.5 K under the robustness tests; corresponding 5-95% ranges are 2.3-4.7 K, bounded by 2.0-5.7 K (although such high-confidence ranges should be regarded more cautiously). This indicates a stronger constraint on S than reported in past assessments, by lifting the low end of the range. This narrowing occurs because the three lines of evidence agree and are judged to be largely independent and because of greater confidence in understanding feedback processes and in combining evidence. We identify promising avenues for further narrowing the range in S, in particular using comprehensive models and process understanding to address limitations in the traditional forcing-feedback paradigm for interpreting past changes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S C Sherwood
- Climate Change Research Centre and ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes University of New South Wales Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia
| | - M J Webb
- Met Office Hadley Centre Exeter UK
| | | | | | - P M Forster
- Priestley International Centre for Climate University of Leeds Leeds UK
| | | | - G Hegerl
- School of Geosciences University of Edinburgh Edinburgh UK
| | | | - K D Marvel
- Department of Applied Physics and Applied Math Columbia University New York NY USA
- NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies New York NY USA
| | - E J Rohling
- Research School of Earth Sciences Australian National University Canberra ACT Australia
- Ocean and Earth Science, National Oceanography Centre University of Southampton Southampton UK
| | - M Watanabe
- Atmosphere and Ocean Research Institute The University of Tokyo Tokyo Japan
| | | | - P Braconnot
- Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, unité mixte CEA-CNRS-UVSQ Université Paris-Saclay Gif sur Yvette France
| | | | - G L Foster
- Ocean and Earth Science, National Oceanography Centre University of Southampton Southampton UK
| | | | - A S von der Heydt
- Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, and Centre for Complex Systems Science Utrecht University Utrecht The Netherlands
| | - R Knutti
- Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science Zurich Switzerland
| | - T Mauritsen
- Department of Meteorology Stockholm University Stockholm Sweden
| | - J R Norris
- Scripps Institution of Oceanography La Jolla CA USA
| | - C Proistosescu
- Department of Atmospheric Sciences and Department of Geology University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Urbana IL USA
| | - M Rugenstein
- Max Planck Institute for Meteorology Hamburg Germany
| | - G A Schmidt
- NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies New York NY USA
| | - K B Tokarska
- School of Geosciences University of Edinburgh Edinburgh UK
- Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science Zurich Switzerland
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Abstract
Earth’s global surface temperature shows variability on an extended range of temporal scales and satisfies an emergent scaling symmetry. Recent studies indicate that scale invariance is not only a feature of the observed temperature fluctuations, but an inherent property of the temperature response to radiative forcing, and a principle that links the fast and slow climate responses. It provides a bridge between the decadal- and centennial-scale fluctuations in the instrumental temperature record, and the millennial-scale equilibration following perturbations in the radiative balance. In particular, the emergent scale invariance makes it possible to infer equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from the observed relation between radiative forcing and global temperature in the instrumental era. This is verified in ensembles of Earth system models (ESMs), where the inferred values of ECS correlate strongly to estimates from idealized model runs. For the range of forcing data explored in this paper, the method gives best estimates of ECS between 1.8 and 3.7 K, but statistical uncertainties in the best estimates themselves will provide a wider likely range of the ECS.
Collapse
|
8
|
Dyez KA, Hönisch B, Schmidt GA. Early Pleistocene obliquity-scale pCO 2 variability at ~1.5 million years ago. PALEOCEANOGRAPHY AND PALEOCLIMATOLOGY 2018; 33:1270-1291. [PMID: 32715282 PMCID: PMC7380090 DOI: 10.1029/2018pa003349] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2018] [Accepted: 10/31/2018] [Indexed: 05/12/2023]
Abstract
In the early Pleistocene, global temperature cycles predominantly varied with ~41-kyr (obliquity-scale) periodicity. Atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations likely played a role in these climate cycles; marine sediments provide an indirect geochemical means to estimate early Pleistocene CO2. Here we present a boron isotope-based record of continuous high-resolution surface ocean pH and inferred atmospheric CO2 changes. Our results show that, within a window of time in the early Pleistocene (1.38-1.54 Ma), pCO2 varied with obliquity, confirming that, analogous to late Pleistocene conditions, the carbon cycle and climate covaried at ~1.5 Ma. Pairing the reconstructed early Pleistocene pCO2 amplitude (92 ±13 μatm) with a comparably smaller global surface temperature glacial/interglacial amplitude (3.0 ±0.5 K), yields a surface temperature change to CO2 radiative forcing ratio of S [CO2]~0.75 (± 0.5) °C/Wm-2, as compared to the late Pleistocene S [CO2] value of ~1.75 (± 0.6) °C/Wm-2. This direct comparison of pCO2 and temperature implicitly incorporates the large ice sheet forcing as an internal feedback and is not directly applicable to future warming. We evaluate this result with a simple climate model, and show that the presumably thinner, though extensive, northern hemisphere ice sheets would increase surface temperature sensitivity to radiative forcing. Thus, the mechanism to dampen actual temperature variability in the early Pleistocene more likely lies with Southern Ocean circulation dynamics or antiphase hemispheric forcing. We also compile this new carbon dioxide record with published Plio-Pleistocene δ11B records using consistent boundary conditions and explore potential reasons for the discrepancy between Pliocene pCO2 based on different planktic foraminifera.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kelsey A. Dyez
- Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
- Now at Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Bärbel Hönisch
- Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
- Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Rohling EJ, Marino G, Foster GL, Goodwin PA, von der Heydt AS, Köhler P. Comparing Climate Sensitivity, Past and Present. ANNUAL REVIEW OF MARINE SCIENCE 2018; 10:261-288. [PMID: 28938079 DOI: 10.1146/annurev-marine-121916-063242] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/25/2023]
Abstract
Climate sensitivity represents the global mean temperature change caused by changes in the radiative balance of climate; it is studied for both present/future (actuo) and past (paleo) climate variations, with the former based on instrumental records and/or various types of model simulations. Paleo-estimates are often considered informative for assessments of actuo-climate change caused by anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, but this utility remains debated because of concerns about the impacts of uncertainties, assumptions, and incomplete knowledge about controlling mechanisms in the dynamic climate system, with its multiple interacting feedbacks and their potential dependence on the climate background state. This is exacerbated by the need to assess actuo- and paleoclimate sensitivity over different timescales, with different drivers, and with different (data and/or model) limitations. Here, we visualize these impacts with idealized representations that graphically illustrate the nature of time-dependent actuo- and paleoclimate sensitivity estimates, evaluating the strengths, weaknesses, agreements, and differences of the two approaches. We also highlight priorities for future research to improve the use of paleo-estimates in evaluations of current climate change.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eelco J Rohling
- Research School of Earth Sciences, The Australian National University, Canberra 2601, Australia; ,
- Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton, Southampton SO14 3ZH, United Kingdom; ,
| | - Gianluca Marino
- Research School of Earth Sciences, The Australian National University, Canberra 2601, Australia; ,
| | - Gavin L Foster
- Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton, Southampton SO14 3ZH, United Kingdom; ,
| | - Philip A Goodwin
- Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton, Southampton SO14 3ZH, United Kingdom; ,
| | - Anna S von der Heydt
- Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research Utrecht and Center for Extreme Matter and Emergent Phenomena, Utrecht University, 3584 CC Utrecht, The Netherlands;
| | - Peter Köhler
- Alfred-Wegener-Institut Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar-und Meeresforschung (AWI), 27515 Bremerhaven, Germany;
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Meissner KJ, Bralower TJ. Palaeoclimate: Volcanism caused ancient global warming. Nature 2017; 548:531-533. [PMID: 28858315 DOI: 10.1038/548531a] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Katrin J Meissner
- Climate Change Research Centre and ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, University of New South Wales Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2052, Australia
| | - Timothy J Bralower
- Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Schmidt GA, Severinghaus J, Abe-Ouchi A, Alley RB, Broecker W, Brook E, Etheridge D, Kawamura K, Keeling RF, Leinen M, Marvel K, Stocker TF. Overestimate of committed warming. Nature 2017; 547:E16-E17. [PMID: 28703191 PMCID: PMC5885753 DOI: 10.1038/nature22803] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/17/2016] [Accepted: 04/03/2017] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
Palaeoclimate variations are an essential component in constraining future projections of climate change as a function of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases1 . The Earth System Sensitivity (ESS) describes the multi-millennial response of Earth (in terms of global mean temperature) to a doubling of CO2 concentrations. A recent study2 used a correlation of inferred temperatures and radiative forcing from greenhouse gases over the past 800,000 years3 to estimate the ESS from present day CO2 is about 9°C, and to imply a long-term commitment of 3–7°C even if greenhouse gas levels remain at present-day concentrations. However, we demonstrate that the methodology of ref. 2 does not reliably estimate the ESS in the presence of orbital forcing of ice age cycles and therefore conclude that the inferred2 present-day committed warming is considerably overestimated. There is a Reply to this Comment by Snyder, C. W. Nature 547, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature22804 (2017).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gavin A Schmidt
- NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York 10025, USA
| | - Jeff Severinghaus
- Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093, USA
| | - Ayako Abe-Ouchi
- Atmosphere and Ocean Research Institute, University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Japan
- Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, Yokohama 236-0001, Japan
| | - Richard B Alley
- Department of Geosciences, Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA
| | - Wallace Broecker
- Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, New York, New York 10964, USA
| | - Ed Brook
- College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331, USA
| | - David Etheridge
- CSIRO Climate Science Centre, Aspendale, Victoria, Australia
| | - Kenji Kawamura
- National Institute for Polar Research, Tachikawa, Tokyo 190-8518, Japan
- Department of Polar Science, SOKENDAI (The Graduate University for Advanced Studies), Tachikawa, Tokyo 190-8518, Japan
- Institute of Biogeosciences, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, Yokosuka 237-0061, Japan
| | - Ralph F Keeling
- Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093, USA
| | - Margaret Leinen
- Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093, USA
| | - Kate Marvel
- NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York 10025, USA
- Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, Columbia University, New York, New York 10025, USA
| | - Thomas F Stocker
- Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|