Abstract:The spatial and temporal variations in terrestrial carbon storage play a pivotal role in regulating future climate change. However, Earth system models (ESMs), which have coupled the terrestrial biosphere and atmosphere, show great uncertainty in simulating the global land carbon storage. Here, based on multiple global datasets and a traceability analysis, we diagnosed the uncertainty source of terrestrial carbon storage in 22 ESMs that participated in phases 5 and 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5 and CMIP6). The modeled global terrestrial carbon storage has converged among ESMs from CMIP5 (1936.9 ± 739.3 PgC) to CMIP6 (1774.4 ± 439.0 PgC) but is persistently lower than the observation-based estimates (2285 ± 669 PgC). By further decomposing terrestrial carbon storage into net primary production (NPP) and ecosystem carbon residence time ( τ E ), we found that the decreased intermodel spread in land carbon storage primarily resulted from more accurate simulations on NPP among ESMs from CMIP5 to CMIP6. The persistent underestimation of land carbon storage was caused by the biased τ E . In CMIP5 and CMIP6, the modeled τ E was far shorter than the observation-based estimates. The potential reasons for the biased τ E could be the lack of or incomplete representation of nutrient limitation, vertical soil biogeochemistry, and the permafrost carbon cycle. Moreover, the modeled τ E became the key driver for the intermodel spread in global land carbon storage in CMIP6. Overall, our study indicates that CMIP6 models have greatly improved the terrestrial carbon cycle, with a decreased model spread in global terrestrial carbon storage and less uncertain productivity. However, more efforts are needed to understand and reduce the persistent data–model disagreement on carbon storage and residence time in the terrestrial biosphere. The spatial and temporal variations in terrestrial carbon storage play a pivotal role in regulating future climate change. However, Earth system models (ESMs), which have coupled the terrestrial biosphere and atmosphere, show great uncertainty in simulating the global land carbon storage. Here, based on multiple global datasets and a traceability analysis, we diagnosed the uncertainty source of terrestrial carbon storage in 22 ESMs that participated in phases 5 and 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5 and CMIP6). The modeled global terrestrial carbon storage has converged among ESMs from CMIP5 (1936.9 ± 739.3 PgC) to CMIP6 (1774.4 ± 439.0 PgC) but is persistently lower than the observation-based estimates (2285 ± 669 PgC). By further decomposing terrestrial carbon storage into net primary production (NPP) and ecosystem carbon residence time ( τ E ), we found that the decreased intermodel spread in land carbon storage primarily resulted from more accurate simulations on NPP among ESMs from CMIP5 to CMIP6. The persistent underestimation of land carbon storage was caused by the biased τ E . In CMIP5 and CMIP6, the modeled τ E was far shorter than the observation-based estimates. The potential reasons for the biased τ E could be the lack of or incomplete representation of nutrient limitation, vertical soil biogeochemistry, and the permafrost carbon cycle. Moreover, the modeled τ E became the key driver for the intermodel spread in global land carbon storage in CMIP6. Overall, our study indicates that CMIP6 models have greatly improved the terrestrial carbon cycle, with a decreased model spread in global terrestrial carbon storage and less uncertain productivity. However, more efforts are needed to understand and reduce the persistent data–model disagreement on carbon storage and residence time in the terrestrial biosphere.

Compensatory effects conceal large uncertainties in the modelled processes behind the ENSO-CO2 relationship

Large spread in interannual variance of atmospheric CO2 concentration across CMIP6 Earth System Models

Diagnosing the Quasi-Equilibrium Response of ENSO Variability under a Range of CO2 Levels

ENSO phase locking, asymmetry and predictability in the INMCM Earth system model

Towards understanding the robust strengthening of ENSO and more frequent extreme El Niño events in CMIP6 global warming simulations

Hysteresis of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation to CO 2 forcing

Comparison of past and future simulations of ENSO in CMIP5/PMIP3 and CMIP6/PMIP4 models

Intermodel Uncertainty in Enso Amplitude Change Tied to Pacific Ocean Warming Pattern

Asymmetric ENSO teleconnections in a symmetric CO2 concentration pathway

Land temperature : a key factor linking the El Niño / Southern Oscillation to multi-year fluctuations in carbon dioxide

The Impact of Climate Forcing Biases and the Nitrogen Cycle on Land Carbon Balance Projections

Diverse Relationship Between ENSO and the Northwest Pacific Summer Climate among CMIP5 Models: Dependence on the ENSO Decay Pace

Impact of the 2015/2016 El Niño on the terrestrial carbon cycle constrained by bottom-up and top-down approaches

Mechanism and Prediction Studies of the ENSO

Impact of equatorial Atlantic variability on ENSO predictive skill

Revisiting the inconsistent influence of El Niño-Southern Oscillation on the equatorial Atlantic

Evolution of Uncertainty in Terrestrial Carbon Storage in Earth System Models from CMIP5 to CMIP6

ENSO skewness hysteresis and associated changes in strong El Niño under a CO 2 removal scenario

Nonlinearity and Asymmetry of the ENSO Stratospheric Pathway to North Atlantic and Europe, Revisited

Uncertainties in Simulated El Niño–Southern Oscillation Arising from Internal Climate Variability

Contrasting behaviors of the atmospheric CO 2 interannual variability during two types of El Niños