Representation of the terrestrial carbon cycle in CMIP6

Simulation of the carbon cycle in climate models is important due to its impact on climate change, but many weaknesses in its reproduction were found in previous models. Improvements in the representation of the land carbon cycle in Earth system models (ESMs) participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) include the interactive treatment of both the carbon and nitrogen cycles, improved photosynthesis, and soil hydrology. To assess the impact of these model developments on aspects of the global carbon cycle, the Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) is expanded to compare CO₂concentration- and CO₂-emission-driven historical simulations from CMIP5 and CMIP6 to observational data sets. A particular focus is on the differences in models with and without an interactive terrestrial nitrogen cycle. Overestimations of photosynthesis (gross primary productivity (GPP)) in CMIP5 were largely resolved in CMIP6 for participating models with an interactive nitrogen cycle but remaining for models without one. This points to the importance of including nutrient limitation. Simulating the leaf area index (LAI) remains challenging, with a large model spread in both CMIP5 and CMIP6. In ESMs, the global mean land carbon uptake (net biome productivity (NBP)) is well reproduced in the CMIP5 and CMIP6 multi-model means. However, this is the result of an underestimation of NBP in the Northern Hemisphere, which is compensated by an overestimation in the Southern Hemisphere and the tropics. Carbon stocks remain a large uncertainty in the models. While vegetation carbon content is slightly better represented in CMIP6, the inter-model range of soil carbon content remains the same between CMIP5 and CMIP6. Overall, a slight improvement in the simulation of land carbon cycle parameters is found in CMIP6 compared to CMIP5, but with many biases remaining, further improvements of models in particular for LAI and NBP is required. Models from modeling groups participating in both CMIP phases generally perform similarly or better in their CMIP6 compared to their CMIP5 models. This improvement is not as significant in the multi-model means due to more new models in CMIP6, especially those using older versions of the Community Land Model (CLM). Emission-driven simulations perform just as well as the concentration-driven models, despite the added process realism. Due to this, we recommend that ESMs in future Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) phases perform emission-driven simulations as the standard so that climate–carbon cycle feedbacks are fully active. The inclusion of the nitrogen limitation led to a large improvement in photosynthesis compared to models not including this process, suggesting the need to view the nitrogen cycle as a necessary part of all future carbon cycle models. Possible benefits when including further limiting nutrients such as phosphorus should also be considered.