DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

Climate Change: Science and Ethics

CIE4510-20

Climate Lab 2
CL2: The Carbon Cycle 2021-2022

Group 20
Alice Caseiro, nº 5605903
Josephine van Ruiten, nº 4598040
Juliette Bruining, nº 4465180
Maxine Luger, nº 4494555
Niels Koldewijn, nº 4543386

Instructor
Dr. S.L.M. Lhermitte
2021/2022
Contents

1 Part 1. Historical simulation (1880-2000) 1

1.1 Emissions and sinks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.1 Compare the pCO2 evolution in the pre-industrial (no anthropogenic emissions)
and the historical run (includes emissions from fossil fuel burning and land use
change). Include a graph in your answer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.2 Compare the emission (Gt/yr) from fossil fuel burning and land use change
at years 1920 and 2000. Hint: click on “ffb” and “land use change” at the
bottom of the graphical interface. Note that it will show the same line for your
two simulations, although in reality the preindustrial simulation did not include
these emissions. Please ignore that and concentrate in your historical run. . . 1
1.1.3 What is the change in Gt in the atmospheric reservoir between 1960 and 2000?
What is the corresponding increase in pCO2 in ppmv? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1.4 What is the change in Gt in the land and ocean reservoirs between 1960 and
2000? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1.5 What is the sum of the changes in atmosphere, land, and ocean reservoirs be-
tween 1960 and 2000? How does this relate to the change in the fossil fuel
reservoir? Explain your answer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Global carbon budget 1990-1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2.1 Compare sources and sinks of anthropogenic CO2 for the period (1990-1999) in
the model with data from AR5 (Chapter 6, Table 6.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Simulated atmospheric concentration for the period 1880-2100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3.1 Go back to the first graph you have plotted. What is the increase in atmospheric
CO2 concentrations between 1880 and 2000? How large, fast and significant is
this change if you compare it with the natural CO2 oscillations over the last
800,000 years? Use the the Figure 5 from Chapter 5 of AR6 for your answer.
Also comment on how the CO2 concentrations from the graph below compare
with concentrations many million years ago, during warm periods of Earth’s
history. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3.2 How does this compare with the atmospheric CO2 evolution if the land use
emission is not included? Add a figure to illustrate this. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3.3 What is the CO2 concentration currently, according to measurements? Cite
your source. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 Part 2. Future changes in the carbon cycle 5

2.1 Carbon Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1 How much is the total anthropogenic emission in Gt for the period 2006-2100
for each scenario? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.2 Compare with the cumulative emissions for AR5 scenarios (Figure 6.25 and
Chapter 6 Executive Summary, section “Future Projections”, on fossil fuel emis-
sions compatible with the RCPs). To which AR5 scenario are closer each of the
three AR4 scenarios? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.3 Compare (e.g., peaks, rate of change) the annual emission curve (“addition”) in
the model, and AR5 (upper panel of Figure 6.25). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Simulated CO2 concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.1 What are your simulated CO2 concentrations by 2100? How does this compare
with AR5, inset of figure 6.25? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3 Carbon Sinks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
 2.3.1 Compare the airborne fraction (that is, the fraction of the human emission
that stays in the atmosphere) by year 2100 in the three scenarios. How does
this compare with AR5 Figure 6.26 (atmosphere fraction, see figure 7 in this
document)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.2 Does the land remain a sink of carbon in your model? Compare this with AR5
results (Executive Summary of Chapter 6 and Figure 6.26). . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4 Parameter sensitivity: photosynthesis, soil respiration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4.1 How much does atmospheric CO2 change by 2100 if Tsens p was negative (that
is, photosynthesis decreases with the warming)? To answer this, try with two
negative values and construct a table showing the change in global mean tem-
perature, atmospheric CO2 and in photosynthesis rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4.2 What would be the land storage between 1880 and 2100 if we don’t consider the
land response to climate change? Hint: land storage is the sum of soil change
and land biota change. Alternatively, you can calculate it as the change in the
reservoir “Land Biota”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4.3 Why does the land carbon increase in time (with respect to 1880) in this simu-
lation regardless of having suppressed the dependence with climate change? . . 7

3 Part 3. Geo-engineering the carbon cycle 9

4 Contributions 11

A Appendix 11
A.1 Global carbon budget 1980-1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A.1.1 Compare sources and sinks of anthropogenic CO2 for the period (1980-1989) in
the model with data from AR5 (Chapter 6, Table 6.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Climate Change: Science and Ethics 2021/2022 Group 20

1 Part 1. Historical simulation (1880-2000)

1.1 Emissions and sinks
1.1.1 Compare the pCO2 evolution in the pre-industrial (no anthropogenic emissions)
and the historical run (includes emissions from fossil fuel burning and land use
change). Include a graph in your answer.
Figure 1 shows that the pCO2 is relatively constant in Run 1 (the preindustrial carbon cycle), but
in Run 2 (with anthropogenic carbon emissions) the pCO2 seems to increase exponentially.

Figure 1: The pCO2 evolution in the pre-industrial and historical run

Legend
Run 1: The preindustrial carbon cycle, no human emissions
Run 2: With anthropogenic carbon emissions

1.1.2 Compare the emission (Gt/yr) from fossil fuel burning and land use change at years
1920 and 2000. Hint: click on “ffb” and “land use change” at the bottom of the
graphical interface. Note that it will show the same line for your two simulations,
although in reality the preindustrial simulation did not include these emissions.
Please ignore that and concentrate in your historical run.
Fossil fuel burning (‘ffb’ in model)
1920: 0.9 Gt/yr
2000: 6.7 Gt/yr

Land use change (‘land use changes’ in model)

1920: 0.6 Gt/yr
2000: 2.85 Gt/yr

Both the fossil fuel burning and the land use change increased during the period of 1920 to 2000.
The fossil fuel burning increased more than the land use change.

1
Climate Change: Science and Ethics 2021/2022 Group 20

1.1.3 What is the change in Gt in the atmospheric reservoir between 1960 and 2000?
What is the corresponding increase in pCO2 in ppmv?
Atmospheric reservoir (‘ATMOSPHERE’ in model)
1960: 672 Gt
2000: 789 Gt
Increase = 789 – 672 = 117 Gt

pCO2 (‘pCO2 atm’ in model)

1960: 314 ppmv
2000: 369 ppmv
Increase = 369 – 314 = 55 ppmv

1.1.4 What is the change in Gt in the land and ocean reservoirs between 1960 and 2000?

Land reservoir (‘LAND BIOTA’ in model)

1960: 619 Gt
2000: 645 Gt
Increase = 645 – 619 = 26 Gt

Ocean reservoir (‘SURF OCEAN’ and ‘DEEP OCEAN’ in model)

1960: 884 Gt (surf ocean), 38k (deep ocean)
2000: 892 Gt (surf ocean), 38k (deep ocean)
Increase = 892 – 884 = 8 Gt

1.1.5 What is the sum of the changes in atmosphere, land, and ocean reservoirs between
1960 and 2000? How does this relate to the change in the fossil fuel reservoir?
Explain your answer.
Sum of changes: 117 + 26 + 8 = 151 Gt

Fossil fuel reservoir (‘FOSSIL FUELS’ in model)

1960: 4.12k Gt
2000: 3.92k Gt
Decrease = 4.12k – 3.92k = 0,2k Gt = 200 Gt

The decrease in the fossil fuel reservoir is in the same order of magnitude as the increase of the
sum of atmosphere, land and ocean reservoirs. Most of the emissions are in the atmosphere (117 Gt)
and after that in land (26 Gt) and the surface ocean (8 Gt). 49 Gt of the emissions from the decrease
of the fossil fuel reservoir did not go to earlier mentioned reservoirs, but it is not known where it went.

2
Climate Change: Science and Ethics 2021/2022 Group 20

1.2 Global carbon budget 1990-1999

1.2.1 Compare sources and sinks of anthropogenic CO2 for the period (1990-1999) in
the model with data from AR5 (Chapter 6, Table 6.1)
Method: calculate the change in the reservoirs fossil fuels, atmosphere, land and ocean and in total
anthropogenic emissions between 1990 and 2000, divide by a decade to get the rates per year. You
will see that the land reservoir grows regardless of the land use emission. Add the compensated land
use emission to this growth to get the total land sink.

Table 1: Sources and sinks of anthropogenic carbon in the period 1990-1999, and percentage of total
anthropogenic emission in parenthesis. Source: AR5

Sources Contributions Sinks Contributions

Fossil fuel combustion 6.4(81%) Atmosphere 3.1(39%)
Land use 1.5(19%) Land 2.6(33%)
- - Ocean 2.2(28%)

Table 2: Bice’s model simulated sources and sinks of anthropogenic carbon in the period 1990-1999
(Gt/yr), and percentage of total anthropogenic emission in parenthesis

Sources Contributions Sinks Contributions

Fossil fuel combustion 6.4(70%) Atmosphere 3.5(39%)
Land use 2.7(30%) Land 4.4(48%)
- - Ocean 1.2(13%)

Calculations for Table 5: Change in total anthropogenic emissions is 91 Gt between 1990 and 2000.
Change in the land reservoir is 17 Gt, adding 27 Gt from the compensated land use emissions gives a
net sink of 44 Gt.
Analysis: The land emissions are overestimated in the input data of the model (2.7 versus 1.5
Gt/yr) with respect to AR5. Furthermore the fraction of the human emission that stays in the
atmosphere, is realistic (both 39%). Finally, the model overestimates the land sink and underestimates
the ocean sink.

1.3 Simulated atmospheric concentration for the period 1880-2100

1.3.1 Go back to the first graph you have plotted. What is the increase in atmospheric
CO2 concentrations between 1880 and 2000? How large, fast and significant is this
change if you compare it with the natural CO2 oscillations over the last 800,000
years? Use the the Figure 5 from Chapter 5 of AR6 for your answer. Also comment
on how the CO2 concentrations from the graph below compare with concentrations
many million years ago, during warm periods of Earth’s history.
The increase in atmospheric Co2 concentrations between 1880 and 2000 is about 79.2ppmv. Com-
pared with the natural CO2 oscillations over the last 800,000 years shown in Figure 5.3 from Chapter
5 of AR6 we can see a very large and fast growth in the last 120 years compared to before. Before
1880, CO2 concentrations oscillated approximatelly between 180 and 290ppmv and then they took an
increase until 369.2ppmv. The simulation agrees with the observations in Figure 5.3. During warm
periods of Earth’s history CO2 concentrations were much higher and reached up to 1500ppmv 50M
years ago, before starting to rapidly decline.

3
Climate Change: Science and Ethics 2021/2022 Group 20

1.3.2 How does this compare with the atmospheric CO2 evolution if the land use emission
is not included? Add a figure to illustrate this.

Figure 2: Atmospheric CO2 evolution including and excluding the land use emissions
If the land use emissions are not included the atmospheric CO2 concentration evolution will de-
crease a bit (being 349.4ppmv in the year 2000 compared to 369.2ppmv), but it’s curve is going to
keep the same form and tendency as one can see in Figure 2.

1.3.3 What is the CO2 concentration currently, according to measurements? Cite your
source.
The current CO2 concentration is 416.15ppm as for December 5th. The source is the Global
Monitoring Laboratory (https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/monthly.html)

4
Climate Change: Science and Ethics 2021/2022 Group 20

2 Part 2. Future changes in the carbon cycle

2.1 Carbon Emissions
2.1.1 How much is the total anthropogenic emission in Gt for the period 2006-2100 for
each scenario?
For the period of 2006-2100 for each scenario the total anthropogenic emission are:
Scenario A2:
2100(2440Gt) − 2006(481Gt) = 1959Gt (1)

Scenario A1b:
2100(2080Gt) − 2006(481Gt) = 1599Gt (2)

Scenario B1:
2100(1620Gt) − 2006(480Gt) = 1140Gt (3)

2.1.2 Compare with the cumulative emissions for AR5 scenarios (Figure 6.25 and Chap-
ter 6 Executive Summary, section “Future Projections”, on fossil fuel emissions
compatible with the RCPs). To which AR5 scenario are closer each of the three
AR4 scenarios?
Reading off the different values for the AR5 scenarios from figure 6.25, it gives: RCP2.6 270 Gt
RCP4.5 780 Gt RCP6.0 1060 Gt RCP8.5 1685 Gt

From here it can be said that the following AR4 scenarios are similar to the AR5 scenarios:
• A2 fits with RCP 8.5
• A1b fits with RCP 8.5
• B1 fits with RCP 6.0
This due to that the all the AR4 scenarios have a value above the RCP 6.0. This means that they are
all in a higher level of the AR5 scenarios.

2.1.3 Compare (e.g., peaks, rate of change) the annual emission curve (“addition”) in
the model, and AR5 (upper panel of Figure 6.25).
Comparing the graphs for the AR5 and the graphs from the model from AR4 it gives that A2 is
similar to RCP8.5 because the rate of change is large and the emission peak keeps increasing.

Figure 3: Annual emission curve in model A2

5
Climate Change: Science and Ethics 2021/2022 Group 20

A1B is value wise in between RCP 6.0 and RCP 8.5. It is closer to RCP 8.5 value wise as said
in the previous question, but has similar peeking in the end to RCP6.0, since it is flattening more
towards the end.

Figure 4: Annual emission curve in model A1B

For B1 it flattens more at the end which means the rate of emission decreases at the end. As well
the peak is lower. This is comparable with RCP6.0.

Figure 5: Annual emission curve in model B1

2.2 Simulated CO2 concentrations
2.2.1 What are your simulated CO2 concentrations by 2100? How does this compare
with AR5, inset of figure 6.25?
The AR5 values are the following, and read of from figure 6.25 from the book.

• RCP 8.5: 950 Ppm

• RCP 6.0: 670 Ppm

• RCP 4.5: 425 Ppm

Comparing these AR5 values with the AR4 values from the simulated model gives the following values
below. The AR4 values are larger than the estimated AR5 values,this is due to overestimation of the
carbon content.

• A2: 2240/2.12 = 1150 Ppm (So can be compared with RCP8.5)

• A1B: 2080/2.12 = 981 Ppm (So can be compared with RCP8.5)

• B1: 1620/2.12 =764 Ppm (So can be compared with RCP6.0)

2.3 Carbon Sinks

2.3.1 Compare the airborne fraction (that is, the fraction of the human emission that
stays in the atmosphere) by year 2100 in the three scenarios. How does this com-
pare with AR5 Figure 6.26 (atmosphere fraction, see figure 7 in this document)?
• A2: 0.451

6
Climate Change: Science and Ethics 2021/2022 Group 20

• A1B: 0.391

• B1: 0.321

The airborne fraction is much higher for the AR5 simulation, when the CO2 emissions are higher.
It’s more comparable with RCP2.6 and RCP4.5. Which is different than for CO2 emission. The AR5
simulation also has a decrease in CO2 storage when the emissions increase, this is not the case for the
AR4 model, which results in the lower values for CO2.

2.3.2 Does the land remain a sink of carbon in your model? Compare this with AR5
results (Executive Summary of Chapter 6 and Figure 6.26).
The land does remain a sink of Carbon, this is due to the positive values. This is the case most of
the time in the AR5 model, however it could be possible that the land becomes a source, this happens
when the values are negative. This only happens a small part of the time.

2.4 Parameter sensitivity: photosynthesis, soil respiration

2.4.1 How much does atmospheric CO2 change by 2100 if Tsens p was negative (that is,
photosynthesis decreases with the warming)? To answer this, try with two negative
values and construct a table showing the change in global mean temperature,
atmospheric CO2 and in photosynthesis rate.

Tsensp (Gt/yr/K) 0.07 (default) -0.07

Warming (K) 3.68 5.22
pCo2 (ppmv) 775 1200
Photosynthesis rate (Gt/yr) 147 76,6

The CO2 value increases almost the double amount when making the Tsens value negative. This
makes sense, since with global warming the overall temperature increases due to the increase of CO2
levels present in the atmosphere. Photosynthesis will decrease, this is due that when temperatures
rises the phytoplankton in the waters will die faster and because of this the photosythesis rate will
decrease.

2.4.2 What would be the land storage between 1880 and 2100 if we don’t consider the
land response to climate change? Hint: land storage is the sum of soil change and
land biota change. Alternatively, you can calculate it as the change in the reservoir
“Land Biota”.

Tsensp (Gt/yrperK) 0.07 (default) -0.07

Warming (K) 3.68 5.22
pCo2(ppmv) 775 1200
Land Bio change 230 -149
Soil change 349 -348
Land biota 579 -199

2.4.3 Why does the land carbon increase in time (with respect to 1880) in this simulation
regardless of having suppressed the dependence with climate change?
With respect to 1880 the carbon content in the atmosphere is increased. This increase caused
the plants to grow faster, since plants use carbon dioxide to breath. Eventually with faster growing
plants this means more water. However with temperatures increasing there is a limit on water sources.
Causing the soil to dry out, this leads to plants dying. Resulting in the high peak of land carbon,

7
Climate Change: Science and Ethics 2021/2022 Group 20

however some carbon content is let go out of the soil, look at the permafrost, this causes the decrease
again in the land carbon and the increase in the carbon content in the atmosphere.

8
Climate Change: Science and Ethics 2021/2022 Group 20

3 Part 3. Geo-engineering the carbon cycle

Figure 6 shows that the increase of the bio-pump results in a lower temperature rise and figure 7
shows that the increase of the bio-pump results in a decrease of the pH of the water, so it becomes
less basic. In table 3 is shown that in 2100 the increased bio-pump results in a higher pCO2 value in
the ocean and a larger pH (just like shown in figure 7.

Figure 6: The effect of the bio-pump increase on the global temperature.

Figure 7: The effect of the bio-pump increase on the pH of the ocean

Legend
Run 1: Default bio-pump value of 10 Gt/yr
Run 2: Increased bio-pump value of 12 Gt/yr

9
Climate Change: Science and Ethics 2021/2022 Group 20
Table 3: Results of the pCO2 and pH of the ocean for a bio pump value of 10 Gt/yr and an
increased value of 12 Gt/yr for the years 1880 and 2100

with geo-engineering
Default (Bio pump= 10 Gt/yr)
(Bio pump = 12 Gt/yr)
290 (in 1880) 290 (in 1880)
pCO2 Oc (ppmv)
711 (in 2100) 789 (in 2100)
8.25 (in 1880) 8.25 (in 1880)
pH
7.89 (in 2100) 7.93 (in 2100)

10
Climate Change: Science and Ethics 2021/2022 Group 20

4 Contributions

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

Niels Koldewijn Josephine van Ruiten Niels Koldewijn
Alice Caseiro Juliette Bruining -

A Appendix
A.1 Global carbon budget 1980-1989
A.1.1 Compare sources and sinks of anthropogenic CO2 for the period (1980-1989) in
the model with data from AR5 (Chapter 6, Table 6.1)
Method: calculate the change in the reservoirs fossil fuels, atmosphere, land and ocean and in total
anthropogenic emissions between 1980 and 1989, divide by a decade to get the rates per year. You
will see that the land reservoir grows regardless of the land use emission. Add the compensated land
use emission to this growth to get the total land sink.

Table 4: Sources and sinks of anthropogenic carbon in the period 1980-1989, and percentage of total
anthropogenic emission in parenthesis. Source: AR5

Sources Contributions Sinks Contributions

Fossil fuel combustion 5.5 ± 0.4 (80 %) Atmosphere 3.4 ± 0.2 (50 %)
Land use 1.4 ± 0.8 (20%) Land 1.5 ± 1.1 (22%)
- - Ocean 2.0 ± 0.7(28%)

Table 5: Bice’s model simulated sources and sinks of anthropogenic carbon in the period 1980-1989
(Gt/yr), and percentage of total anthropogenic emission in parenthesis

Sources Contributions Sinks Contributions

Fossil fuel combustion 5.7 (72.15%) Atmosphere 3.3 (42%)
Land use 2.2 (27.85%) Land 2.95 (37.3%)
- - Ocean 1.025 (13%)

Calculations for Table 5: Between the years 1980 and 1990 the total anthropogenic emissions
change by 79 Gt. Subtracting the fossil fuel reservoir change with a value of 57Gt, we can calculate
the cumulative land emission which is equal to 22Gt. Furthermore, to obtain the total land sink we
deduce the change in the land reservoir (7.5Gt) and add the 22Gt from the compensated land use
emissions, which gives a net of 29.5Gt.
Analysis: As the soil (contributes approx. 8%) was not considered as a sink the sum of the sink
contributions in Table 5 does not reach 100%. Additionally the given model overestimates the land
emissions and the land use in comparison to the data from AR5. On the other hand, the model also
underestimates the ocean contribution. Atmosphere’s contribution as a sink, as well as the fossil fuel
contribution as a source, is very similar in both tables and therefore realistic in the model.

11