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.

Process-oriented analysis of dominant sources of uncertainty in the land carbon sink

Uncertainty in the response of terrestrial carbon sink to environmental drivers undermines carbon-climate feedback predictions.

Reducing Uncertainties of Future Global Soil Carbon Responses to Climate and Land Use Change with Emergent Constraints

Are terrestrial biosphere models fit for simulating the global land carbon sink?

Sources of Uncertainty in Regional and Global Terrestrial CO2 Exchange Estimates

The Knowns, Known Unknowns and Unknowns of Sequestration of Soil Organic Carbon

Historical CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; Emissions from Land Use and Land Cover Change and Their Uncertainty

Carbon cycle confidence and uncertainty: Exploring variation among soil biogeochemical models

Microsoft Word-nwaa145.docx

Historical CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions from land-use and land-cover change and their uncertainty

Sources of Uncertainty in Modeled Land Carbon Storage Within and Across Three MIPs: Diagnosis with Three New Techniques

Variations of Carbon Allocation and Turnover Time Across Tropical Forests

Diagnosing destabilization risk in global land carbon sinks

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

Trends and Drivers of Terrestrial Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide: An Overview of the TRENDY Project

Large Uncertainty in Carbon Uptake Potential of Land-Based Climate-Change Mitigation Efforts

Chapter Eighteen Uncertainty and Sensitivity Issues in Process-based Models of Carbon and Nitrogen Cycles in Terrestrial Ecosystems

Recent Trends and Drivers of Regional Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide

The Key Role of Forest Disturbance in Reconciling Estimates of the Northern Carbon Sink

Transient Dynamics of Terrestrial Carbon Storage: Mathematical Foundation and Its Applications

Carbon Residence Time Dominates Uncertainty In Terrestrial Vegetation Responses To Future Climate And Atmospheric Co2