sustaining earth’s life support systems – the challenge ...sustaining earth’s life support...

I G B P N E W S L E T T E R 4 1

1

The International Geosphere–Biosphere Programme (IGBP): A Study of Global Change

of the International Council for Science (ICSU)

May

2000No. 41

Sustaining Earth’s life support systems – the challengefor the next decade and beyond

by Berrien Moore III, Chair, IGBP

Integration, interdiscplinarity, and a sys-tems approach mark the emerging ethosin IGBP as the Programme evolves rap-idly into its second decade of internationalglobal change research.

In late February in Cuernavaca,Mexico, the Scientific Committee of theIGBP held a landmark meeting in whichit was decided that the strength and ma-turity of the Programme would allow anincreased emphasis on the systemic chal-lenges of Global Environmental Change.The strength has been made particularlyapparent in the developing Core Projectsyntheses.

This strength and capability of theIGBP at this point in time is extraordinar-ily valuable since the SC-IGBP also rec-ognised that the challenges of Global En-vironmental Change demand a treatmentof the full Earth System. It is simply a re-ality that a scientific understanding of theEarth System is required to help humansocieties develop in ways that sustain theglobal life support system.

The core of the IGBP Programme forthe next decade will be built around threeinterlocking and complementary struc-tures:

• Core projects that focus on keyprocesses will continue to bethe foundation for the IGBP;

• A formal integrated study ofthe Earth System as a whole, inits full functional andgeographical complexity overtime, and

• A focus on three cross-cuttingissues where advances in ourscientific understanding arerequired to help humansocieties develop in ways thatsustain the global life supportsystem.

The research will be undertaken in the con-text of an expanding and strengtheningcollaboration with the International Hu-man Dimensions Programme on GlobalEnvironmental Change (IHDP) and theWorld Climate Research Programme(WCRP). The new challenge is to build,on our collective scientific foundation, aninternational programme of Earth SystemScience. This effort will be driven by a com-mon mission and common questions,employing visionary and creative scien-tific approaches, and based on an ever-closer collaboration across disciplines, re-search themes, programmes, nations, andregions.

Driving the new structures and ap-proaches are two critical messages thathave become ever clearer through the pastdecade plus of global change research.

First, the Earth functions as a system,with properties and behaviour that arecharacteristic of the system as a whole.These include critical thresholds, ‘switch’or ‘control’ points, strong nonlinearities,teleconnections, and unresolvable uncer-tainties. Understanding components of theEarth System is critically important, but isinsufficient on its own to understand thefunctioning of the Earth System as awhole.

Contents

Sustaining Earth’s Life

Support Systems........... 1

The Waikiki Principles ...3

Earth-System Models

of Intermediate

Complexity .................... 4

The Flying Leap ............ 7

Understanding Earth’s

Metabolism ................... 9

Highlights of GAIM’s

First Phase ................... 11

The “Anthropocene” ......17

Regional Data

Bundles ........................ 18

People and events ........19


2

Second, humans are a significant forcein the Earth System, altering key processrates and absorbing the impacts of glo-bal environmental changes. In fact, the en-vironmental significance of human activi-ties is now so profound that the currentgeological era can be called the‘Anthropocene’ epoch (see article by PaulCrutzen and Eugene Stoermer in this is-sue of the NewsLetter).

Global biogeochemical cycling willremain at the core of IGBP research, butthe Programme will evolve towards amore systematic structure with major ac-tivities located in the three compartments– atmosphere, oceans, and land – and inthe three interfaces between them. Thesesix domains will more formally guide theemerging Core Projects for the next dec-ade. This theme is already apparentwithin the IGBP. For instance, LOICZ ispositioned well at the Land-Ocean inter-face, and the emerging Surface OceanLower Atmosphere Study (SOLAS) isclearly headed in this direction. We areasking, in this formulation, hard and chal-lenging questions. How can we join bet-ter JGOFS science with GLOBEC science?How can we bridge more strongly andwith less duplication the scientific agen-das of BAHC and the Global Energy Wa-ter Experiment (GEWEX) within theWCRP? Similarly, how do we better linkin the future IGAC with SPARC(Stratospheric Processes and their Role inClimate)? What should be the nature ofthe future GCTE, and how does it tie moreclosely with LUCC?

GAIM is being reoriented towardsintegrating across this structure to focuson the Earth System as a whole (see JohnSchellnhuber’s article in this issue of theNewsLetter). PAGES work provides anessential longer time context for the dy-namics of the Earth System as well as forparts of it. The accompanying figureshows the new structure.

It is hoped that at least three new jointprojects will be launched with WCRP andIHDP on crosscutting issues of majorsocietal relevance. Three linked issues arecurrently in the planning stages – the Glo-bal Carbon Cycle, Water Resources, andan initiative on Global Change and Foodand Fibre, with an emphasis on food vul-nerability/security and opportunityanalysis. Additional major issues, such ashuman health and ecosystem goods andservices, are under consideration.

These joint projects, which are clearlycrosscutting in nature, will depend criti-cally upon the research in the CoreProjects of the IGBP, IHDP and WCRPthat is already being undertaken or isplanned. Considerable co-ordination isneeded, however, to bring these elementsinto a more integrated framework, andsome new work will need to be initiated

where gaps are identified. Strategic part-nerships are being developed with otherresearch institutions outside the threeprogrammes and with policy and man-agement institutions to ensure that thework is designed and implemented inways that facilitate its application.

The Global Carbon Cycle joint projectis the most advanced, with a series of ac-tivities planned for the rest of 2000. Asmall scoping meeting in April developedmuch of the human dimensions contri-butions to the effort, while additionalmeetings in May (Lisbon, Portugal) andOctober (Durham, New Hampshire,USA) will complete the definition of acommon international framework to helpguide research at national, regional andglobal scales, and will design a series offocused activities for 2001 and beyond.

For the Food and Fibre joint project, ascoping meeting with IHDP and WCRPwas held in Paris in early March, whichbegan to defined the overall structure forthe research. Further planning meetingsare proposed for June/July (Reading,UK), October (London), November/De-cember (Stockholm) and February 2001(Washington) to complete the preparationof a science plan and implementationstrategy.

The initial co-ordination meeting forthe Water Resources joint project is ten-

tatively scheduled for September.These initiatives will place great de-

mands on the IGBP. The strength of theProgramme will be tested and new struc-tures will be demanded. The recently ex-panded role of the IGBP-DIS with its im-portant work in both regional and globalstudies will add essential new capabili-ties, including support for our key re-gional studies (see the article on The Re-gional Data Bundle Concept by WolfgangCramer in this NewsLetter).

This continuing evolution of the IGBPin concert with the WCRP and the IHDPis important and merits the thoughts ofall. We continue to welcome and needinsights on directions, processes, objec-tives, and goals and the processes bywhich they may be realised. These pagesare genuinely open to your contributions.The challenges of global environmentalchange are not going to vanish.

Berrien Moore III

Institute for the Study of Earth,Oceans and Space (EOS),

University of New Hampshire,39 College Road, 305 Morse Hall,

Durham, NH 03824-3524, USAE-mail: [email protected]

Figure 1.


3

The Waikiki Principles: rules for a new GAIMby John Schellnhuber Chair, GAIM

The first NewsLetter in the new millen-nium provides a convenient canvas forre-sketching the basic mission of GAIM,that is, pioneering Earth System scienceinto a state of novel quality. This soundsrather preposterous yet turns into a solidambition upon closer inspection of (i) thegiant explorative strides taken by the bigglobal research programmes (IGBP,WCRP, IHDP, etc.) during the last years,and (ii) the opportunities arising from thethink-tank character of GAIM. Let mebriefly elaborate on both aspects in thefollowing.

In a recent essay for the MillenniumSupplement of Nature (Vol. 402, Supp. 2Dec 1999, C19-C23) I argued that the “Sec-ond Copernican Revolution” is justaround the corner. This revolution re-verses, in a way, the glorious first one bylooking back on our planet from a (realor virtual) distance, striving to under-stand the so-perceived system as a wholeand to develop concepts for global envi-ronmental management. The scientifictrans-discipline thus emerging may becalled Earth Systems analysis; it is sup-posed to yield a unified formalism fordescribing the make-up and functioningof the ecosphere machinery as well as itssusceptibility to erratic or judicious hu-man interventions. Ultimately, Earth Sys-tem analysis will even be able to addressthe challenge of sustainable developmentin a no-nonsense way by deducing themacro-options for future ecosphere-antroposphere co-evolution from firstcognitive and ethical principles.

In order to achieve all this, we clearlystill have a long way to go, but the signsof hope accumulate at an ever increasingpace. Take, for instance, the growingstream of insights arising from the sepa-rate Core Projects of IGBP as highlightedat the Second IGBP Congress held in Ja-pan last May (see Berrien Moore’s key-note in Global Change Newsletter 38, andWill Steffen’s reflections in ResearchGAIM, Summer 1999). This breathtakingprogress was most impressively illus-trated by Hugh Ducklow’s lecture on theunravelling of the mysteries of the globaloceanic flux system. So it seems that “all”that remains to be done is to take the sci-entific bits and pieces and to put themtogether.

But integration is much more than asynthetic book-keeping exercise – re-member that it took evolution almost 4billion years to compose the human brainfrom macro-molecules available alreadyin the early days of life. The virtual scien-tific reconstruction of the planetary ma-chinery (“Gaia”) is not much smaller atask, although we expect it to be accom-plished in less than a couple of eons. Whatwill be needed, at any rate, is a sophisti-cated integration methodology as transpir-ing, e.g., from the modern theory of com-plex non-linear dynamic systems, and itwill be necessary to account for all sortsof deterministic and stochastic uncertain-ties.

This is the point where the NewGAIM enters the scene: During the recentmeeting of the Task Force in Waikiki,Hawaii (31 January – 2 February 2000),the integration challenge was intensivelydiscussed and identified as the centralresearch issue of the next decade of glo-bal change science. And the group, whichembraced the top representatives andexecutives of IGBP, concluded unani-mously that GAIM shall become the cen-tral driving force for Earth System analy-sis by fully utilizing the potential result-ing from its cross-sectoral design. In or-der to be specific, an explicit surveyamong the participants was conductedfor revealing individual priorities andsuggestions regarding the longer-termtargets to be met. A clear-cut pictureemerged which may be summarized inthe following three “Waikiki Principles”.

I. GAIM is to explore andpromote cognitiveopportunities arising from theappropriate combination ofCore Project results and tools.This means, in particular, toplay the role of a trans-projecttopics scout and a feasibilityassessor.

II. GAIM is to advance theintegration of wisdom insideand outside IGBP. This means,on the one hand, to makeavailable the best integrativemethodologies and, on the otherhand, to include the systems

and problems dimensionsprimarily investigated by thesister programmes WCRP andIHDP.

III. GAIM is to implement EarthSystem analysis by organizingthe construction, evaluation andmaintenance of a hierarchy ofEarth System models. Thismeans, in particular, to helpgenerate models of differentdegrees of complexity and toemploy the resultingcomplementary ensemble forconducting virtual planetaryexperiments with respect topast, present, and future globalchanges.

As a consequence, the acronym GAIMshould from now on stand for “GlobalAnalysis, Integration and Modelling”.Principle I is illustrated by the TRACES(Trace Gas and Aerosol Cycles in theEarth System) Initiative; principle II bythe intra-IGBP Carbon Project and theenvisaged inter-programmatic cross-cut-ting themes like water and food and fi-bre; principle III by the EMIC (Earth Sys-tem Models of Intermediate Complexity)Initiative and the “Flying Leap” towardsa fully coupled state-of-the-art ocean-at-mosphere-biosphere model. There is nodoubt that GAIM will keep on providingthe IGBP community with sophisticatedservices like well-designed model anddata intercomparisons, but its thrust willbe focussed on research at the Earth-sys-tem level.

It has to be emphasized that theWaikiki Rules for the New GAIM haveyet to be approved by the “legislative andexecutive bodies” of IGBP, but I am con-fident that they will gladly help to openup this avenue towards the scientific ho-rizon.

Here end my pre-Cuernavaca con-templations on the New GAIM. In themeantime, the Scientific Committeee ofIGBP held a meeting which undoubtedlydeserves the qualification as a “landmarkevent” (see Berrien Moore’s article in thisissue of the NewsLetter). I have to con-fess that I did not expect the SC to makeso far-reaching and far-sighted decisions


4

Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexityby Martin Claussen, Andrey Ganopolski, John Schellnhuber and Wolfgang

Cramer

Investigating the dynamic behavior of theEarth system remains a “grand challenge”for the scientific community. It is moti-vated by our limited knowledge about theconsequences of large-scale perturbationsof the Earth System by human activities,such as fossil-fuel combus-tion or the frag-mentation of terrestrial vegetation cover.Will the system be resilient with respectto such disturbances, or could it be driventowards qualitatively new modes of plan-etary operation?

This question cannot be answered,however, without prior analysis of howthe unperturbed Earth System behavesand evolves in the absence of human in-fluence. Such an analysis should, for ex-ample, provide answers to questions con-cerning the amplification of Milankovichforcing to glaciation episodes or themechanisms behind the Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillations. But also more gen-eral questions may be addressed: Does lifeon Earth subsist due to an accidental andfragile balance between the abiotic world(the geosphere) and a biosphere that hasemerged by chance? Or are there self-sta-bilizing feedback mechanisms at work asproposed by the Gaia theory? And, if thelatter theory is valid, what is the role ofhumanity in Gaia’s universe?

Towards a Definition of

the Earth System and

Earth System ModelsWithin IGBP at least, the following defi-nition of the “Earth System”, which hasbeen proposed by Schellnhuber (1998,1999) and Claussen (1998), for example,seems to be generally accepted: The EarthSystem encompasses the natural environ-ment, i.e. the climate system according tothe definition by Peixoto and Oort (1992),or sometimes referred to as the ecosphere,and the anthroposphere. The climate sys-tem consists of the abiotic world, thegeosphere, and the living world, the bio-sphere. Geosphere and biosphere are fur-ther divided into components such as theatmosphere, hydrosphere, etc., which in-teract via fluxes of momentum, energy,water, carbon, and other substances. Theanthroposphere can also be divided intosubcomponents such as socio- economy,values and attitudes, etc.

So far, only simplified, more concep-tual Earth System models exist. Whilemodels of the natural Earth System canbe built upon the thermodynamic ap-proach, this does not seem to be feasiblefor many components of the

anthroposphere, in particular the psycho-social component. Hence development ofa model of the full Earth System has to beundertaken in cooperation between IGBPand IHDP. For the time being, it will bethe task of IGBP to pursue models of thenatural Earth System in which anthropo-genic activities are considered as exog-enous forces and fluxes. Hence in the fol-lowing, we consider only the naturalEarth System. Earth System models needto be globally comprehensive models,because the fluxes within the system areglobal (e.g. the hydrological cycle):changes in one region may well be causedby changes in a distant region. A currentlyopen question is how much spatial (re-gional) resolution is required to appropri-ately capture processes with global signifi-cance. Earth System models probablyneed not capture all aspects of interactionbetween the spheres at the regional scale-although it will be interesting to testwhether certain regional processes nev-ertheless affect global feedbacks.

Models of Intermediate

ComplexityDuring the past decades marked progress

about the next decade of planetary re-search. As a matter of fact, the systemsapproach was adopted as the guiding re-search principle, and a strategic partner-ship with the international sister pro-grammes was envisaged in order to cre-ate a joint venture that may be called “In-tegrated Earth Science”. All the crucialpoints of this historical resolution are suc-cinctly summarized in Berrien’s above-mentioned contribution.

For GAIM, this is an extremely encour-aging development that puts the WaikikiPrinciples on a solid basis and into theright context. As a minor consequence, therenaming of GAIM into “Global Analy-sis, Integration and Modelling” has beenapproved meanwhile. Much more impor-tant, however, is the induced mandate forGAIM to explore from now on all intrin-sic and extrinsic options for systems-ana-lytic progress, both from the topical andthe methodological point of view. An ex-

citing opportunity to demonstrate perti-nent skills will be provided by the newinitiative on “Surprises and Nonlinearitiesin Global Change”, recently launched byGCTE. This is actually an issue of para-mount importance for Earth System sci-ence as will be emphasized, i.a., by theThird Assessment Report of the IPCC. TheNew GAIM has already started to thinkabout establishing an internationalpostdoc network for advancing researchon the “irregular side of Global Change”.

Let me conclude with two caveats.First, we should not be carried away nowby a frenzy of integrationist enthusiasm.I firmly believe that the so-calledreductionist approach to Earth Sciencewill still have to constitute the backboneof our research body in the decades tocome: Yes, the whole is more than the sumof its parts, but the sum of zeros is zero.Second, systems science is by no meansan easy exercise. We will need to employ

the most advanced methodologies avail-able like the ones that have been devel-oped by the complex dynamics commu-nity. It is high time for joining forces withthis cognitive community and similarones, yet this will become a rather chal-lenging enterprise.

Compared with the opportunitiesahead, my caveats carry little weightthough. We are lucky to live in this era ofGlobal Scientific Change.

John Schellnhuber

Potsdam Inst for Climate Impact Re-search (PIK),

PO Box 60 12 03,D-14412 Potsdam,

GERMANYE-mail: [email protected]


5

Figure 2. Structure of an EMIC

Figure 1. Tentative definition of EMIC’s

has been achieved in modelling the sepa-rate elements of the geosphere and thebiosphere, focusing on atmospheric andocean circulation, and on land vegetationand ice-sheet dynamics. These develop-ments have stimulated first attempts toput all separate pieces together, first inform of comprehensive coupled modelsof atmospheric and oceanic circulation,and eventually as so-called climate sys-tem models which include also biologi-cal and geochemical processes. One ma-jor limitation in the application of suchcomprehensive Earth System modelsarises from their high computational cost.

On the other hand, simplified, moreor less conceptual models of the climatesystem are used for a variety of applica-tions, in particular paleoclimate studiesas well as climate change and climate im-pact projections. These models are spa-tially highly aggregated, for example,they represent atmosphere and ocean astwo boxes, and they describe only a verylimited number of processes and vari-ables. The applicability of this class ofmodel is limited not by computational


6

cost, but by the lack of many importantprocesses and feedbacks operating in thereal world. Moreover, the sensitivity ofthese models to external forcing is oftenprescribed rather than computed inde-pendently (e.g. Houghton et al., 1997).

To bridge the gap, Earth System Mod-els of Intermediate Complexity (EMICs)have been proposed which can be char-acterized in the following way. EMICs de-scribe most of the processes implicit incomprehensive models, albeit in a morereduced, i.e. a more parameterized form.They explicitly simulate the interactionsamong several components of the climatesystem including biogeochemical cycles.On the other hand, EMICs are simpleenough to allow for long-term climatesimulations over several 10,000 years oreven glacial cycles. Similar to those ofcomprehensive models, but in contrast toconceptual models, the degrees of free-dom of an EMIC exceed the number ofadjustable parameters by several ordersof magnitude. Tentatively, we may definean EMIC in terms of a three-dimensionalvector: Integration, i.e. number of com-ponents of the Earth System explicitlydescribed in the model, number of proc-esses explicitly described, and detail ofdescription of processes (See Figure 1).

Currently, there are several EMICs inoperation such as 2-dimensional, zonallyaveraged models (e.g. Gallée et al., 1991),2.5-dimensional models with a simple en-

ergy balance (e.g. Marchal et. al, 1998;Stocker et al., 1992), or with a statistical-dynamical atmospheric module (e.g.Petoukhov et al., 1999) , and reduced-form comprehensive models (e.g.Opsteegh et al., 1998).

EMICs have been used for a numberof palaeostudies, because they providethe unique opportunity for transient,long-term ensemble simulations (e.g.Claussen et al., 1999), in contrast to socalled time slice simulations in which theclimate system is implicitly assumed tobe in equilibrium with external forcings,which rarely is a realistic assumption.Also the climate system’s behaviour un-der various scenarios of greenhouse gasemissions has been investigated explor-ing the potential of abrupt changes in thesystem (e.g. Stocker and Schmittner, 1997;Rahmstorf and Ganopolski, 1999). To il-lustrate the complexity of EMICs wepresent - see Figure 2 - the structure ofCLIMBER 2.3, an EMIC developed inPotsdam by Petoukhov et al. (1999).

PerspectiveEarth System analysis generally relies ona hierarchy of simulation models. De-pending on the nature of questions askedand the pertinent time scales, there are,on the one extreme, zero-dimensionaltutorial or conceptual models like thosein the “Daisyworld” family. At the other

extreme, three-dimensional comprehen-sive models, e.g. coupling atmosphericand oceanic circulation with explicit ge-ography and high spatio-temporal reso-lution, are under development in severalgroups. During the IGBP Congress inShonan Village, Japan, May 1999, and theIGBP workshop on EMICs in Potsdam,Germany, June 1999, it became morewidely recognized that models of in-termediate complexity could be veryvaluable in exploring the interactions be-tween all components of the natural EarthSystem, and that the results could bemore realistic than those from conceptualmodels. These meetings have pointed atthe potential that EMICs might have evenfor the policy guidance process, such asthe IPCC.

Finally, it should be emphasized thatEMICs are considered to be one part ofthe above mentioned hierarchy of simu-lation models. EMICs are not likely toreplace comprehensive nor conceptualmodels, but they offer a unique possibil-ity to investigate interactions andfeedbacks at the large scale while largelymaintaining the geographic integrity ofthe Earth System.

Martin Claussen

Potsdam-Institut fürKlimafolgenforschung e. V. (PIK),

Telegrafenberg C 4,14473 Potsdam,

GERMANY.E-mail: [email protected]

Andrey Ganopolski

Potsdam Institute for Climate ImpactResearch,

Telegrafenberg,PO Box 60 12 03,

D-144 12 Potsdam,GERMANY

E-mail: [email protected]

Wolfgang Cramer

Potsdam Inst for Climate ImpactResearch (PIK),


GERMANYE-mail: wolfgang.cramer@

pik-potsdam.de

John Schellnhuber



GERMANYE-mail: [email protected]

References

Claussen, M., 1998: Von der Klimamodellierung zur Erdsystemmodellierung: Konzepte und erste

Versuche. An-nalen der Meteorologie (NF) 36, 119-130.

Claussen, M., Brovkin, V., Ganopolski, A., Kubatzki, C., Petoukov, V., Rahmstorf, S., 1999: A new model

for cli-mate system analysis. Env. Mod.Assmt., im Druck.

Claussen, M., Kubatzki, C., Brovkin, V., Ganopolski, A., Hoelzmann, P., Pachur, H.J., 1999: Simulation

of an abrupt change in Saharan vegetation at the end of the mid-Holocene. Geophys. Res. Letters,

24 (No. 14), 2037- 2040.

Gallée, H., J.-P. van Ypersele, T. Fichefet, C. Tricot, and A. Berger, 1991: Simulation of the last glacial

cycle by a coupled, sectorially averaged climate–ice sheet model. I. The climate model, J. GeophysRes., 96, 13,139– 13,161.

Houghton, J.T., Meira, Filho, L.G., Griggs, D.J., Maskell, K., 1997: An introduction to simple climate

models used in the IPCC second assessment report. IPCC Technical Paper II 47 pp.

Marchal, O., T.F. Stocker, F. Joos, 1998: A latitude-depth, circulation-biogeochemical ocean model for

paleocli-mate studies: model development and sensitivities. Tellus 50B, 290-316.

Opsteegh, J. D., R. J. Haarsma, F. M. Selten, and A. Kattenberg, 1998: ECBILT: A dynamic alternative

to mixed boundary conditions in ocean models, Tellus, 50A, 348–367.

Peixoto, J.P., Oort, A.H., 1992: Physics of Climate. American Institute of Physics, New York

Petoukhov, V., Ganopolski, A., Brovkin, V., Claussen, M., Eliseev, A., Kubatzki, C., and Rahmstorf, S.,

2000: CLIMBER-2: a climate system model of intermediate complexity. Part I: Model description and

performance for present climate. Climate Dyn. 16 (No.1), 1-17.

Rahmstorf, S., Ganopolski, A., 1999: Long-term global warming scenarios computed with an efficient

coupled cli-mate model. Climatic Change, 43, 353-367.

Schellnhuber, H.J., 1998: Discourse: Earth System Analysis - The Scope of the Challenge. in:

Schellnhuber, H.-J., Wenzel, V. (eds.) Earth System Analysis - Integrating science for sustainability.

Springer, Heidelberg. 5-195.

Schellnhuber, H.J., 1999: ’Earth system’ analysis and the second Copernican revolution. Nature, 402,

C19 - C

Stocker T.F., Schmittner, A., 1997: Influence of CO 2 emission rates on the stability of the thermohaline

circulation. Nature, 388, 862-865.

Stocker,T.F., Wright, D.G., Mysak, L.A., 1992: A zonally averaged, coupled ocean-atmosphere model for

paleo-climate studies. J Climate, 5, 773-797


7

Investigating the dynamic behaviourand complexities of the Earth System re-mains a “grand challenge” for the scien-tific community. It is motivated by ourlimited knowledge about the conse-quences of large-scale perturbations ofthe Earth System by human activitiessuch as fossil-fuel combustion or thefragmentation of terrestrial vegetationcover. During the past decades markedprogress has been achieved in modellingthe separate elements of the geosphereand the biosphere, focusing on atmos-pheric and ocean circulation, and on landvegetation and ice-sheet dynamics.These developments have stimulatedpreliminary attempts to put all separatepieces together, first in form of compre-hensive coupled models of atmosphericand oceanic circulation, and eventuallyas so-called climate system modelswhich also include biological andgeochemical processes. It has been therule rather than the exception that sur-prising behaviour has emerged whenthese components are coupled.

Major challenges lie at the boundariesbetween subsystems with regard to ef-forts to couple models and develop inte-grated Earth System models. The devel-opment of a coupled model involves re-laxation of prescribed boundary condi-tions so that modelled subsystems caninteract directly. As such models are runover time, one measure of their success isthe stability with which they character-ize the Earth System without the need for“flux corrections” to adjust for model driftin an ad hoc manner.

In general, Earth System analysis re-lies on a hierarchy of simulation models.Depending on the nature of questionsasked and the pertinent time scales, thereare, on the one extreme, zero-dimensionaltutorial or conceptual models like thosein the “Daisyworld” family. At the inter-mediate level, “Earth-system Models ofIntermediate Complexity” (EMICs) canrun for long model times, and capturemost of the critical interactions betweensystem components, but do not includeall processes within each part of the EarthSystem. At the other extreme are three-dimensional full-form comprehensivemodels, e.g. coupling atmospheric andoceanic circulation with explicit geogra-phy and high spatio-temporal resolution,can be used to explore the detailed inter-

actions and feedbacks between processesthat operate primarily within subsystemssuch as the terrestrial ecosystem, atmos-phere, ocean, etc.

Each of these types of models can beuseful and full-form models are consid-ered to be one part of a hierarchy of simu-lation models. Information passes in bothdirections through this hierarchy. An ef-fect noted first in an EMIC should nor-mally be sought in a full-form model.Also, the candidate processes for a phe-nomenon noticed in a full-form modelshould be included in an EMIC to test ourunderstanding.

It would be unrealistic at present toexpect to be able to develop full-formmodels that can be used as workingsimulations of the Earth System. How-ever, for short time slices and under cer-tain conditions, such comprehensivemodels can be practical, and only suchmodels can answer certain key questionsabout the Earth System and our under-standing of the key processes that driveresponses of the system to anthropogenicperturbations. One such question is“How robust must our understanding beof the internal processes of subsystems(e.g. terrestrial ecosystems, atmosphericcirculation, marine productivity) beforecoupling subsystem models reduces un-certainty inherent in the coupled systemrather than increasing it?”

At the October 1998 meeting ofWCRP/WGCM (Working Group onCoupled Modelling) in Melbourne (chair:L. Bengtsson), a proposal from GAIM fora collaborative IGBP/GAIM – WCRP/WGCM project to investigate carbon-cli-mate interactions was discussed and ten-

tatively approved. The project would in-troduce terrestrial and oceanic carboncycle modules into coupled atmosphere-ocean-land climate models, in essence tointroduce CO

2 as a prognostic variable in

the climate model, to investigate the co-evolution of climate and CO

2 given emis-

sion scenarios (rather than concentra-tions) of the greenhouse gas. The excite-ment lies in the identification and inves-tigation of interactions in a climate spacebeyond known experience. The project isreferred to as “The Flying Leap” to em-phasize the uncertainties and excitementof the endeavour.

The “Flying Leap” experiment willfocus on CO

2 emissions and concentra-

tion and the response of the Earth Sys-tem to CO

2 forcing, given a fixed scenario

for future emissions. This experimentuses an emissions scenario that wouldgive an increase in atmospheric CO

2 con-

centration of 1%/yr without coupling orfeed backs.

While this may be a modest increaserelative to “business as usual” scenarios,it provides a useful baseline for this ini-tial development and application of a full-complexity model.

The protocol for the experiment wasdiscussed at the IGBP GAIM Task Forcemeeting in Honolulu, January 31-Febru-ary 2, 2000. The goal of the experiment isto evaluate the sensitivity of the coupledcarbon-climate system to anthropogenicperturbations. The procedure is to solvesimultaneously the coupled family ofequations for different specifications ofexternal source/sinks of CO

2 and other

greenhouse gases. See Figure 1.

Figure 1. Coupled equations describing climate -C02 interaction.

Full-Form Earth System Models:Coupled Carbon-Climate Interaction Experiment

(the “Flying Leap”)by Inez Fung, Peter Rayner, and Pierre Friedlingstein; Edited by Dork Sahagian

Where Fba

and Fab

are the fluxes of carbon between the terrestrial biosphere and the

atmosphere and Foa

and Fao

are the equivalent fluxes between the ocean and the

atmosphere.


8

The experiments will involve a con-trol for the pre-industrial era with no ex-ternal sources/sinks of CO

2, and a for-

ward integration from the pre-industrialto beyond AD2000 for a specified emis-sion scenario for CO

2 and the other green-

house gases. No trace gas cycles will beincluded for the other greenhouse gases.Instead, they will be converted to CO

2-

equivalents and added to the radiativelyactive CO

2 in the atmosphere. The CO

2-

equivalents will not be interactive withthe terrestrial and oceanic carbon dynam-ics.

To start, CO2 release from fossil fuel

combustion would be specified as a glo-bal value (PgC/yr) as a function of timebased on a scenario that would havegiven a 1%/y increase in the absence ofclimate feedbacks on the carbon uptake.The terrestrial and oceanic moduleswould be geographically resolving, totake account of the differential ecosys-tem/circulation effects on the carbon ex-change. The terrestrial and oceanic up-take would be summed over area to yieldannual values (PgC/yr) of their uptakes.

Carbon uptake by the biosphere andoceans would respond to the instantane-ously simulated climate. In this way, car-bon-climate interactions are included todetermine the rate of CO

2 increase and

consequently the rate of climate warm-ing.

The experimental protocol identifiesthe principal fully coupled carbon-cli-mate calculations as well as several off-line calculations that help to isolate theimportance of the processes. If atmos-pheric composition feedbacks signifi-cantly modify rates of climate change inthe simulations, the mechanistic under-standing will suggest regions and proc-esses to monitor in the real world.

The experiment is in three generalphases.

1) Spin-up and stability. Here weequilibrate the various carboncycle components forced withpre-industrial atmospheric

concentrations and climatebefore coupling the subsystems.The coupled system should bestable but slow drift hascharacterized many other suchcoupled systems and must notbe discounted.

2) Historical period. Withprescribed emissions of CO

2

and other gases, we run themodels from about 1800 until2000. We can test theatmospheric concentration anddistribution of CO

2 and its

isotopes in such models againstice core and direct atmosphericdata.

3) Beyond 2000. We use projectedemissions with atmosphericcomposition feedbacks turnedon or off to investigate theirmagnitude. Also we useclimates produced by thefeedback or no feedback casesto investigate the impact of suchfeedbacks on permissibleemissions for stabilization. Off-line experiments will elucidatewhich processes contribute tothe feedbacks. It is important tonote here that the experimentwill draw on previousexperience so that, for example,the different climate sensitivitiesof the participating models canbe accounted for.

In the contemporary carbon budget, thefossil fuel source is ~5% of the one-waygross terrestrial or oceanic flux. Smallannual carbon flux imbalances or errors,like air-sea heat and freshwater flux er-rors, if sustained over a long-enoughtime, may lead to significant climatic mi-grations. Other likely surprises may comefrom nonlinearities in terrestrial and oce-anic carbon dynamics or in the climatesystem. Hence the experiments should

viewed as one exploration of thenonlinearities inherent in the Earth Sys-tem.

One should treat the “Flying Leap”as a grand challenge to our understand-ing of the carbon cycle as well as of car-bon-climate interactions. It should be thestimulus to take the models to anotherlevel. Glimpses of realism should behoped for, but their absence should notbe causes for despair. Much can belearned during the process of model de-velopment, intercomparison, and refine-ment.

Inez Fung

Center for Atmospheric Sciences,University of California, Berkeley,

301 McCone Hall #4767,Berkeley, CA 94720-4767,

USAE-mail: [email protected]

Peter Rayner

CSIRO-DAR,PMB #1,

Aspendale, Vic 3195AUSTRALIAE-mail: pjr@

vortex.shm.monash.edu.au

Pierre Friedlingstein

Unite mixte CEA-CNRS,91191 Gif sur Yvette,

FRANCEE-mail: [email protected]

Dork Sahagian

Executive Director, IGBP/GAIMClimate Change Research Center and

Dept. of Earth SciencesInstitute for the Study of Earth, Oceans,

and SpaceUniversity of New Hampshire

Durham NH 03824USA

Email: [email protected]

Global

Change

Open

Science

Conference

www.sciconf.igbp.kva.se

The Earth's environment and habitability are now,

as never before, affected by human activities. This

conference will present the latest scientific

understanding of natural and human-driven

changes on our planet. It will examine the effects

on our societies and lives, and explore what the

future may hold.

Amsterdam

10-13 July, 2001

Amsterdam

10-13 July, 2001


9

Ice core and other palaeo records providea fascinating window on the metabolismof Earth over hundreds of thousands ofyears. No record is more intriguing thanthe rhythmic ‘breathing’ of the planet asrevealed in the Vostok ice core records oftemperature and CO

2 and CH

4 concen-

trations (Petit et al., 1999, and Figure 1).The highly regular waxing and wan-

ing of Earth’s climate and atmosphericcomposition through the glacial-intergla-cial cycles provided the thematic contextfor a recent meeting of the IGBP CarbonWorking Group. The workshop was thefirst in a series of five workshops, co-sponsored by the IGBP, the Royal Swed-ish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm Uni-versity, and the Swedish University ofAgricultural Sciences, aimed at address-ing focused topics in the IGBP synthesisproject. The objective of the October 1999meeting was to synthesis our current un-derstanding of nutrient interactions withthe carbon cycle in terrestrial, marine andcoastal systems.

An integrated approach to understanding Earth’smetabolism

by Will Steffen

Although the workshop participantsdiscussed and debated many aspects ofcarbon-nutrient interactions, the remark-ably regular planetary metabolic patternembodied in the Vostok ice core recordheld a particular fascination. It is a clas-sic example of ‘control theory’. It showscyclic variations of relatively long cold(glacial) periods interrupted by shorterwarm (interglacial) periods. The atmos-pheric CO

2 concentration varied from

180-200 ppmV during the glacial periodsto 265-280 during the interglacials. Thepalaeo records show other interestingdetails in the pattern: (i) during the gla-cial terminations, the increase in atmos-pheric CO

2 is in phase with southern

hemisphere warming; melting of thenorthern hemisphere ice caps lags bythousands of years; (ii) the strong cou-pling between temperature and atmos-pheric CO

2 suggests that the latter is prob-

ably the primary amplifier of climatechange during glacial terminations; and(iii) the periodicity of the cycles shows a

strong correspondence to the cyclic vari-ations in the Earth’s orbit, although theassociated changes in incoming solar en-ergy are not enough to drive the glacial-interglacial cycling on their own.

Many hypotheses have been put for-ward to explain the glacial-interglacialcycling, but most remain essentially dis-ciplinary, usually based on one aspect ofthe Earth system such as ocean-atmos-phere dynamics. The aim of the IGBPCarbon Working Group was not to de-velop yet another hypothesis or to pro-vide ‘the answer’ to the glacial-intergla-cial puzzle, but rather to show that whenthe Earth system behaves in such a highlyregular and reproducible fashion, astrongly integrated, interdisciplinary ap-proach offers the best chance to advanceour understanding.

The explanation developed at the Oc-tober workshop goes something like this:

The precise nature of the upper andlower limits of atmospheric CO

2 concen-

tration are evidence of strong controlmechanisms – both terrestrial and oceanic

biological processes are critical el-ements of the control loop.Biogeochemical interactions be-tween land and ocean transfer con-trol from one to the other on a peri-odic basis.

How do the control loopswork? The lower level of ca. 180ppmV for atmospheric CO

2 repre-

sents something of an ‘ecosystem/biome compensation point’. Belowthat level systems lose almost asmuch carbon through respirationas they can take up through pho-tosynthesis in the cold, dry CO

2-de-

pleted climate. As we see below,this has implications for the trans-fer of nutrients between land andocean. The upper limit (280 ppmV)is the point at which the solubility-driven flux of CO

2 from the ocean

to the atmosphere is balanced bythe uptake of CO

2 by the terrestrial

and oceanic biota.How is control passed between

terrestrial and ocean systems?There is strong evidence that theglacial phase (terrestrial control) isterminated initially by an increasein solar radiation due to a changein the Earth’s orbit (Milankovich

Figure 1. Glacial-interglacial dynamics of the Earth system as recorded in the

Vostok ice core. Adated from Petit et al. 1999


10

forcing); this could trigger a reorganisa-tion of oceanic circulation and stimulatethe hydrological cycle. The initial warm-ing would start to accumulate green-house gases such as H

2O, CO

2 and CH

4

in the atmosphere, due to, for example,the reduced solubility of CO

2 in warmer

water. Also, melting icecaps in the north-ern hemisphere and the northwards ex-pansion of forests would reduce theEarth’s albedo, absorbing more incidentsolar radiation and further warming theplanet, releasing even more oceanic CO

2

in a positive feedback loop.But as the climate warms and CO

2

concentration increases, the increasing ac-tivity of the terrestrial biosphere acceler-ates the mobilisation of elements such asP, Si and Fe from the geosphere throughenhanced root activity. These elementseventually leak from the terrestrial bio-sphere into rivers and to the coastal ocean.Over thousands of years these nutrientsare entrained into the oceanic circulationand, in areas of upwelling, stimulate oce-anic net primary production and increasethe drawdown of CO

2 from the atmos-

phere. The increasing biotic uptake of CO2

in both oceans and land eventuallymatches the solubility-driven outgassingof CO

2 and the system reaches a balance

at an atmospheric concentration of CO2

of about 280 ppm.But the invigorated activity of the ter-

restrial biosphere is already sowing theseeds of its own “destruction”. The inter-glacial balance appears to be precarious,and the vigour of terrestrial and marinebiological uptake overtakes theoutgassing from the oceans. This triggers

a set of feedbacks – initial cooling, increas-ing solubility of CO

2, increasing sea ice

and further cooling – which drive the sys-tem towards the glaciated state. Althoughthe terrestrial biosphere is taking up lessCO

2, it also releases P that was tied up in

This article continues onpage 16.

Figure 2. Cartoon illustrating glacial-interglacial hypothesis on linked ocean -land biogeochemical cycling.


11

Figure 1a. Annual net primary production (g C m-2 yr-1) estimated as the average of all model NPP estimates.

Figure 1b. Spatial distribution of the variability in NPP estimates among the models as represented by the standard deviation of

model NPP estimated in a grid cell.

The ‘New GAIM’, as described in JohnSchellnhuber’s article in this issue, is ori-ented strongly towards an integrativesystems approach to studying the globalenvironment. This is not a completelynovel task for GAIM, however; over the

past decade much work has been doneto lay a solid foundation on which tobuild an Earth System Science effort.

The goal of GAIM has been to ad-vance the study of the coupled dynamicsof the Earth System using as tools both

data and models. The challenge to GAIMhas been to initiate activities that will leadto the rapid development and applicationof a suite of Global PrognosticBiogeochemical Models. In GAIM’s firstseveral years, attention was focused on

Highlights of GAIM’s first phase: building towardsEarth System Science

by Dork Sahagian


12

developing the conceptual and proce-dural tools necessary to meet this chal-lenge. This entailed scrutiny of each of thethree main subsystems on the Earth, andthe development and refinement of ter-restrial, marine, and atmospheric carbonmodels in preparation for integrated

Earth System model development. Muchof the progress to date in modelling spe-cific components within the globalbiogeochemical subsystems sets the con-text for modelling activities within thevarious IGBP Core Projects. The GAIMactivity is by definition cross-cutting;

therefore, the activities of GAIM intersectfundamentally with all the IGBP CoreProjects.

During the last decade, there has beenenormous progress in the developmentof biogeochemical models for significantcomponents of the Earth System. Build-

Figure 3. Model simulation of the distribution of SF6 emissions for 1992.

Figure 2. Annual mean air-sea flux of anthropogenic CO2 in 1990.


13

ing upon process-based models for eco-system metabolism in a variety of terres-trial systems, the scientific communitybegan to extend these models to globalscales. Ocean carbon cycle models weredeveloped, compared and evaluated byincorporating carbon chemistry andcrude biological concepts in ocean gen-eral circulation models; atmospherictracer transport models were developedand evaluated on the basis of compari-son of inversion results and observed at-mospheric tracer concentrations andsources; and finally, the initial steps weretaken to begin to link these componentmodels with atmospheric GCMs. This hasset the stage for a more comprehensiveEarth System approach to globalbiogeochemical cycling and the develop-ment of prognostic models at various lev-els of complexity.

As part of its “Analysis” program,GAIM devoted considerable effort inidentifying gaps in both conceptual un-derstanding and data that would be nec-essary for modelling purposes. Workingtoward filling those gaps, GAIM has con-vened a number of targeted workshopson topics such as WetlandBiogeochemical Functioning (GAIM re-port #2), Regional Interactions betweenClimate and Ecosystems (GAIM Report#3), and Sea Level and Global Hydrol-ogy (GAIM Report #8). In addition,outreach programs such as the AfricanGAIM Modelling Workshop (GAIM Re-port #1), targeted at entraining more ofthe developing world into internationalglobal change research, have added to ourpool of expertise. All of these activitiesare aimed toward placing the researchcommunity in a stronger position to de-velop the global prognosticbiogeochemical models that are the ulti-mate goal of GAIM.

Among the most significant resultsproduced by GAIM to date is a set of tech-niques for comparing and assessing com-plex model performance. Without theability to assess models developed by theglobal change research community, therewill be no basis for making reliable pro-jections regarding future system re-sponses to anthropogenic forcing, and noway for the community to properly con-tribute to the IPCC process beyond broadscenario-based projections. Whereas in-dividual scientists or modelling groupscan and do develop numerical models ofvarious aspects of the Earth System, thevalue of the results of isolated models isgreatly enhanced by comparison withother models. The discrepancies in modelresults between different approaches tothe same problem provide critical insightsinto model shortcomings, and pave theway for model refinement and improve-ment.

GAIM’s techniques for assessingmodel performance emerged from a setof model intercomparison activities, be-ginning with the Net Primary Productiv-ity (NPP) model intercomparison. Priorto the NPP Intercomparison project, sev-eral different terrestrial ecosystem mod-els existed nationally and internationally,but their results were vastly different. Thiswas alarming, given that they were de-scribing the same system. Through themodel intercomparison process devel-oped by the GAIM Task Force, techniqueswere devised to both compare model re-sults in an objective manner, and to de-termine the sources of model result dif-ferences. This process made it possible forindividual model developers to return totheir labs and refine or correct their mod-els on the basis of what was learned atthe intercomparison workshops. Thesame type of process was applied toocean models in the Ocean Carbon-Cy-cle Model Intercomparison Project(OCMIP), and to the atmosphere in theAtmospheric Tracer Transport ModelIntercomparison Project (TransCom).GAIM’s three major sub-system levelmodel intercomparison projects are de-scribed below. Each of the three werehighlighted as special sessions at the lastIUGG meeting (July 23, 1999 Birming-ham, UK). The tools devised throughthese activities will be applied to the in-terpretation and assessment of thebroader Earth System models now beingdeveloped (e.g. EMIC, Flying Leap. Seeother articles in this NewsLetter).

Global Net Primary

Productivity: A model

intercomparison

Task Leaders: Wolfgang

Cramer, Kathy Hibbard

Global primary production of ecosystemson land and in the oceans is a crucial com-ponent of biogeochemical model devel-opment within IGBP. As key componentsin the terrestrial carbon cycle, geographi-cally referenced net primary productiv-ity (NPP) and gross primary productiv-ity (GPP) and their corresponding sea-sonal variation are needed to enhanceunderstanding of both the function of liv-ing ecosystems and also their effects onthe environment. Productivity is also akey variable for the sustainability of hu-man use of the biosphere by, for exam-ple, agriculture and forestry. Recently, ithas become possible to investigate themagnitude and geographical distributionof these processes on a global scale by acombination of ecosystem process mod-elling and monitoring by remote sensing.

Since agricultural and forestry produc-tion provide the principal food and fuelresources for the world, monitoring andmodelling of biospheric primary produc-tion are important to support global eco-nomic and political policy making.

For estimates of the global carbon bal-ance, a large amount of uncertaintycenters on the role of terrestrial ecosys-tems. Geographically referenced grossprimary productivity (GPP), net primaryproductivity (NPP), and heterotrophicrespiration (R

h) and their corresponding

seasonal variation are key components inthe terrestrial carbon cycle. At least twofactors govern the level of terrestrial car-bon storage. First and most obvious is theanthropogenic alteration of the Earth’ssurface, such as through the conversionof forest to agriculture, which can resultin a net release of CO

2 to the atmosphere.

Second, and more subtle, are the possi-ble changes in net ecosystem productionresulting from changes in atmosphericCO

2, other global biogeochemical cycles,

and/or the physical climate system. Thesignificant influence of the terrestrial bio-sphere on the global carbon balance andhence on the problem of climate changehas become more widely recognized dur-ing the past two decades, and now therole of terrestrial ecosystems is recognizedto be an important factor influencing theconcentration of carbon dioxide in the at-mosphere.

One of the early results that emergedfrom the first of a series of NPP modelintercomparison workshops, “Potsdam‘94”, was that a major reason for differ-ences between outputs of the same vari-able between different models was thatthe input data for the same variable werefrom different sources and carried differ-ent uncertainties (this was true for bothground-based observations such as cli-matic data and for remote sensing datasuch as AVHRR-derived NDVI). Conse-quently, many of these data were stand-ardized for the second workshop,“Potsdam ’95.” The composite results ofthe models are illustrated in Fig 1a, inwhich the NPP values are averagedamongst the 17 participating models.While the results appear reasonable, itshould be stressed that there were largedifferences between models (Figure. 1b).

The NPP model intercomparison hasmade it clear that existing data must bechosen and used in a standardized wayif like models are to be compared, andultimately, if complementary models areto coupled. It has also clarified data gapswhich can now be filled before modelscan reliably simulate the role of terrestrialecosystems in the global carbon cycle.However, it is not necessary for modeldevelopment to wait until all gaps in theglobal observing systems are closed.


14

Rather, IGBP can take the lead in coordi-nating existing and future data sourcesin a way that will optimize their utilitythroughout the global change researchcommunity.

The NPP intercomparison activity re-vealed a strong need to not only comparemodels to each other, but to some objec-tive measure of performance. This meas-ure can only come from validation datathat is difficult to obtain directly for NPP.However, indirect information is avail-able that bears on NPP, and this was com-piled in a “Gross Primary ProductivityData Initiative (GPPDI), which then ledto the current effort to assess model per-formance using data from specific keysites from around the world in a new Eco-system Model-Data Intercomparison(EMDI).

The objective of EMDI is to comparemodel estimates of terrestrial carbonfluxes (NPP and net ecosystem produc-tion (NEP), where available) to estimatesfrom ground-based measurements, andimprove our understanding of environ-mental controls of carbon allocation. Theprimary questions to be addressed by thisactivity are to test simulated controls andmodel formulation on the water, carbon,and nutrient budgets with the observedNPP data providing the constraint forautotrophic fluxes and the integrity ofscaled biophysical driving variables. Theexperimental design consists of a multi-tiered approach to make maximum useof the available NPP and NEE measure-ments. These tiers include site model-data comparisons, grid-cell model-datacomparisons, global model-data com-parisons, and flux data. The NPP data setsemerging from GPPDI are derived fromboth point and spatially explicit samplingdesigns, thus enabling a valid compari-son between point and area-based mod-els and data. Analyses and visualizationsare being carried out within each tier toinvestigate the model controls on NPPand their underlying formulations. Initialresults showed general agreement be-tween models and data but with obviousdifferences that indicate areas for poten-tial data and model improvement.

Ocean Carbon-Cycle

Model Intecomparison

Project (OCMIP)

Task Leaders: Jim Orr, Patrick

Monfray, Ray Najjar

The ocean plays a critical role in the glo-bal carbon budget because the solubilityof CO

2 in seawater provides an enormous

reservoir for sequestration (or release) ofatmospheric CO

2. Thus, the goal of the

Ocean Carbon-Cycle ModelIntercomparison Project (OCMIP) is toidentify the principal differences betweenglobal-scale, three-dimensional, oceancarbon-cycle models, to accelerate theirdevelopment, and to improve their pre-dictive capacity.

OCMIP’s primary concern has beento focus on the abilities of models to pre-dict ocean carbon distributions and air-sea fluxes of CO

2. The first phase of

OCMIP is complete (GAIM Report #7,1998), and OCMIP-2 is now underway(http://www.ipsl.jussieu.fr/OCMIP/).The OCMIP-1 strategy was to study (1)natural CO

2 fluxes, with simulations

which were allowed to reach equilibriumwith pre-industrial atmospheric CO

2 (at

278 ppm), and (2) anthropogenic CO2

fluxes, with simulations forced by ob-served atmospheric CO

2 from pre-indus-

trial time to present. In addition, to evalu-ate model behaviour, OCMIP-1 com-pared simulated vs. observed 14C distri-bution. A global network of 14C sampleswas taken during GEOSECS in the 1970sand more recent sections from WOCE arenow available. Natural 14C offers a pow-erful test of an ocean model’s deep oceancirculation; “bomb 14C” helps constrainthe modelled circulation of surface andintermediate waters. Bomb 14C also ap-pears to exhibit similar behaviour to an-thropogenic CO

2 under certain condi-

tions. Exploiting the 14C- CO2 relationship,

when appropriate, offers one way to cir-cumvent the difficulty of directly meas-uring the small anthropogenic change indissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) in theocean, relative to the large DIC poolwhich is naturally present.

OCMIP Phase 1 demonstrated thatpredictions from ocean carbon-cycle mod-els differ regionally by a substantialamount, particularly in the SouthernOcean, where modelled air-sea fluxes ofanthropogenic CO

2 are also largest (Fig.

2). The recently launched OCMIP-2 in-volves 13 models and additionalsimulations. The focus remains on CO

2,

but OCMIP-2 also includes emphasis onnew circulation tracers, such as CFC-11and CFC-12, and new biogeochemicaltracers such as O

2. OCMIP-2 also includes

simulations with a commonbiogeochemical model so that participantscan better study effects due to differencesin modelled ocean circulation. OCMIP-2also includes data specialists who are lead-ing the JGOFS and WOCE synthesis forCO

2, 14C, and CFCs, thus strengthening

model validation efforts.Standard simulations for CFC-11 and

CFC-12 have been completed by all 13participating OCMIP-2 model groups. TheAJAX section for CFC-11 reveals large dif-ferences between storage of that tracer inthe Southern Ocean, e.g., south of 50˚S.

Almost all other forward models struggleto get adequate CFC-11 vertical penetra-tion in the south. Only the models with acoupled sea-ice model do a reasonable job.An interesting feature is the observedbump at around 40oS which is character-istic of formation of intermediate waters.Models with explicit mixing along surfacesof constant density (isopycnals) do a rea-sonable job of capturing this feature; othermodels with only horizontal and verticalmixing do a much poorer job.

Studies during the first two phases ofOCMIP have relied on ocean models rununder present climatological conditions,where circulation patterns do not evolvewith time. Beyond OCMIP-2, future workwill probably focus on the impact ofchanging climate on marine biogeochem-istry as well as the feedback of changesin marine biogeochemistry on climate. Tovalidate such simulations, it will be cru-cial to focus on how well models are ableto reproduce observed interannual vari-ability.

Atmospheric Tracer

Transport Model

Intercomparison Project

(TRANSCOM)

Task Leader: Scott Denning

The Atmospheric Tracer Transport ModelIntercomparison Project (TransCom) ispart of a larger GAIM research programfocused on the development of coupledecosystem-atmosphere models that de-scribe the time evolution of trace gaseswith changing climate and changes inanthropogenic forcing. Much of our cur-rent understanding about the global car-bon cycle has come from observing thechanges in atmospheric CO

2 concentra-

tions over time. Time series (e.g., MaunaLoa record) provide insight into the sea-sonal cycle as well as global source/sinkand interannual variations. Additionally,existing flask networks (e.g. CMDL,CSIRO, etc.) provide information aboutthe distribution of atmospheric CO

2. For

example, a disproportionate amount offossil fuel emissions occur in the north-ern hemisphere, and a large terrestrialCO

2 sink is required to explain the weak

observed north-south gradient. However,an accurate quantitative interpretation ofthe spatial structure requires realisticmodels of trace gas transport.

Chemical tracer transport models(CTMs) are used to study atmosphericCO

2 and can be characterized by the

mechanisms they incorporate to transporttracers horizontally and vertically acrossthe globe. One class of CTMs transport


15

CO2 using offline analyzed winds from

weather forecast centers or Global Circu-lation Models (GCMs), others actuallycalculate tracer concentrations with aGCM internal to the transport model.There are considerable model-dependentdifferences in simulating the global move-ment of atmospheric tracers.

The goal of TransCom is to quantifyand diagnose the uncertainty in inversioncalculations of the global carbon budgetthat result from errors in the simulatedtransport. An important source of uncer-tainty in these calculations is the simu-lated transport itself, which varies amongthe many transport models used by thecommunity. TransCom investigatorshave conducted a series of 3-dimensionaltracer model intercomparison experi-ments which are intended to (1) quantifythe degree of uncertainty in current car-bon budget estimates that results fromuncertainty in model transport; (2) iden-tify the specific sources of uncertaintiesin the models; and (3) identify key areasto focus future transport model develop-ment and improvements in the global ob-serving system that will reduce the un-certainty in carbon budget inversion cal-culations.

The first phase of TransCom com-pared model performance for two salientfeatures of atmospheric CO

2: the annual

mean north-south gradient (dominatedby fossil fuel emissions), and the seasonalcycle (dominated by exchange with ter-restrial ecosystems). Twelve modellinggroups from four continents participated;many of the models have been used ex-tensively in carbon cycle research. The ex-perimental design for both the annualand seasonal simulations consisted ofmodel runs for at least three years froman initial atmosphere with uniform CO

2,

providing sufficient time for the modelatmosphere to establish an “equilibrium”(annually repeating) concentration distri-butions. Each set of model results werenormalized such that the January globalthree-dimensional mean was zero. Re-sults showed a surprising degree of vari-ance among models with regard to me-ridional north-south gradient at the sur-face, and especially aloft.

To understand the performance ofthe various models with respect to theinter-hemispheric gradients of passivetracers, TransCom needed to move be-yond the simulations of unobserved(and unobservable) fossil fuel CO

2 to a

tracer that is well observed and whoseatmospheric budget is not complicatedby missing sinks. This required a tracerwith well-documented concentrationsaround the world, with a quantifiableemissions field, and preferably with in-significant sinks. For TransCom Phase II,sulfur hexafluoride (SF

6), a non-reactive

anthropogenic tracer which is releasedprimarily from electrical distributionequipment with a spatial pattern char-acteristic of fossil fuel emissions, waschosen. Because the emissions and con-centration field for SF

6 are much better

known than for CO2, the results of this

“calibration experiment” were used toevaluate the realism of the large-scaleinter-hemispheric transport characteris-tics of each model in a context for whichthe “right answer” was known. In addi-tion, the calibration experiment includedthe calculation of transport diagnosticsdesigned to help elucidate the mecha-nisms by which the various models pro-duced their different tracer distributions.

Results from Phase II indicated closermodel agreement than in Phase 1, partlydue to a slightly different suite of mod-els, and perhaps partly reflecting modelimprovement (Figure 3). One very sig-nificant conclusion is that the differencesamong the simulated north-south hemi-spheric gradients across models (whichis used to interpret the strength of themeridional CO

2 sink in inverse calcula-

tions) depends very strongly on the de-tails of the sub-grid scale vertical mix-ing. Again, the models could be classi-fied into two categories: the first simu-lated relatively weak vertical gradientsover the northern extra tropics (SF

6

source region), whereas the secondgroup of models simulated stronger ver-tical gradients over the source region.This breakdown is likely the result ofdifferent model formulations with re-gard to how transport by convection anddiffusion is parameterized at the subgridscale.

The third phase of TransCom is pres-ently underway and involvesintercomparison of inversion calculationsof the carbon budget of the atmosphere,with the objective of quantifying the un-certainty in such calculations that arisesdirectly from uncertainty in the simulatedtransport. Computation of the contempo-rary carbon budget of the atmosphereusing the suite of calibrated and im-proved models will provide both morereliable estimates of the terrestrial sinkand a better set of tracer transport mod-els for future research.

GAIM in the futureThe activities of the last few years havebeen directed toward laying the ground-work for the development of Earth Sys-tem models of various levels of complex-ity. GAIM is now turning its attention tofocus on Earth System Models of Inter-mediate Complexity (EMICs), and full-form Coupled Earth System Models, re-ferred to as our “Flying Leap” to under-

score the uncertainties and excitement ofattempting to run fully coupled EarthSystem models into the future. WhileGAIM will continue the carbon cycle re-lated subsystem model intercomparisonsthat have been its hallmark to date, itsforays into the broader scope of EarthSystem modelling will require a higherlevel of integration of IGBP science thanever before. In response to this shift inemphasis, and by agreement of the Sci-entific Committee of the IGBP, GAIM haschanged its name to Global Analysis,INTEGRATION, and Modelling.

Truly exciting times are ahead, as theefforts of the various parts of IGBP arebrought together to form a coherentconceptualization of the Earth System.We are approaching a threshold in ourabilities as a research community to ad-dress whole-system level problems, andthe results that emerge in the next fewyears will surely contain some importantanswers to long-standing questions, andeven a few surprises regarding the func-tioning of the Earth System.

Dork Sahagian

Executive Director, IGBP/GAIMClimate Change Research Center and

Dept. of Earth SciencesInstitute for the Study of Earth, Oceans,

and SpaceUniversity of New Hampshire

Durham NH 03824USA

Email: [email protected]


16

References

1. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Micropaedia, IX, (1976).

2. G.P. Marsh, The Earth as Modified by Human Action, Belknap Press,

Harvard University Press, 1965.

3. W. C. Clark, in Sustainable Development of the Biosphere, W. C. Clark

and R. E. Munn, Eds., (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986),

chapt. 1.

4. V. I. Vernadski, The Biosphere, translated and annotated version fromthe original of 1926, (Copernicus, Springer, New York, 1998).

5. B.L. Turner II et al., The Earth as Transformed by Human Action,

Cambridge University Press, 1990.

6. P. J. Crutzen and T. E. Graedel, in Sustainable Development of theBiosphere, W. C. Clark and R. E. Munn, Eds., (Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, 1986). chapt. 9.

7. R. T. Watson, et al, in Climate Change. The IPCC Scientific AssessmentJ. T. Houghton, G. J. Jenkins and J. J. Ephraums, Eds., (Cambridge

University Press, 1990), chapt. 1.

8. P. M. Vitousek et al., Science, 277, 494, (1997).

9. E.O. Wilson, The Diversity of Life, Penguin Books, 1992.

10. D. Pauly and V. Christensen, Nature, 374, 255-257, 1995.

11. E. F. Stoermer and J. P. Smol Eds. The Diatoms: Applications for the

Environmental and Earth Sciences (Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, 1999).

12. C. L. Schelske and E. F. Stoermer, Science, 173, (1971); D. Verschuren

et al. J. Great Lakes Res., 24, (1998).

13. M. S. V. Douglas, J. P. Smol and W. Blake Jr., Science 266 (1994).

14. A. Berger and M.-F. Loutre, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 323, II A, 1-16, 1996.

15. H.J. Schellnhuber, Nature, 402, C19-C23, 1999.

ErratumIn the previous edition of the Global

Change NewsLetter (Vol 40, December

1999) on page 15 we erroneously stated

that the Global Environment Facility (GEF)

was funded by the World Bank. This is

not the case. The Global Environment

Facility is independent of the World Bank

and its funding does not come from the

World Bank. We apologise for this error.

The GEF is a multilateral financial

mechanism that assists developing

countries to protect the global environment

in four areas: biodiversity loss, climate

change, degradation of international

waters, and depletion of the ozone layer.

The GEF is jointly implemented by the

United Nations Development Program,

the United Nations Environment Program,

and the World Bank.

...continued from page 11.

internal cycling. This P finds its way intothe ocean and stimulates productivitythere. At several points during the longslide into glaciation, pulses of aeolian Fefrom the drying terrestrial biosphere fur-ther stimulate ocean productivity. Icecover begins to advance as the climatecools and ocean circulation reorganises toits glacial state.

As cooling and drying proceeds, ter-restrial biotic activity continues to decline,and the flux of nutrients from the land intothe ocean eventually grinds to a halt. Oce-anic uptake of CO

2 then starts to decline

as well, and the system eventually reachesand bounces along its ‘floor’ at 180 ppmCO

2, effectively controlled by a quiescent

terrestrial biosphere until the next cyclicchange in the Earth’s orbit jolts it back intothe glacial termination phase and thewhole intertwined loop of forcings andfeedbacks starts over.

The cartoon in Figure 2 shows the suiteof processes that link land and ocean biotain the control loops.

Again, the purpose of this explanationis not to provide the ultimate explanationof glacial-interglacial cycling; that will re-quire much further work. Rather, we wantto demonstrate the complexity of the is-sues we are facing and the absolute ne-

cessity of working across disciplines and‘compartments’ to address them. The hy-pothesis put forward above could nothave been developed by one disciplinewithin the Earth sciences working alone.It required scientists from climatology,oceanography, geochemistry and terres-trial and marine ecology, and it requiredunderstanding of physical, chemical andbiological processes.

The Stockholm workshop was evi-dence of the trend highlighted at the Sec-ond IGBP Congress at Shonan Village, Ja-pan, earlier this year. Building on a soundbase of compartment and process-levelunderstanding in the core projects, we arenow moving rapidly to build up exper-tise and activity in Earth System science,both in modelling and in analysis, as out-lined in this article. This is truly a com-munity effort, across all of IGBP. Both asound understanding of basic processesAND the interactions and feedbacksamong processes and compartments arerequired to even begin to understand thefunctioning of the Earth.

Finally, returning to the glacial-inter-glacial rhythm of the past 400,000 years,it is fascinating to put the very recent hu-man perturbations to the Earth System inthe context of this highly regular pattern.The current concentration of atmospheric

CO2 of 365 ppmV is well above the upper

control limit of the Earth’s recent past;there is no evidence of a stable state or ‘do-main of attraction’ above about 280 ppmV.Furthermore, the rate of increase of atmos-pheric CO

2 is about two orders of magni-

tude larger than that during the glacial ter-minations. The rate of increase of meanglobal temperature over the past severaldecades also appears to be without prec-edent in the recent past (Mann et al. 1998).In terms of Earth’s metabolism, we aresailing into terra incognita. Now more thanever, we must build a truly integrated,interdisciplinary Earth System science tounderstand the evolution of our planetand our role in it.

Extracted from: IGBP Carbon Work-ing Group (2000) Integrated understand-ing of the global carbon cycle: A test ofour knowledge. Science, submitted. IGBPCarbon Working Group: P. Falkowski, R.J.Scholes, E. Boyle, J. Canadell, D. Canfield,J. Elser, N. Gruber, K. Hibbard, P. Högberg,S. Linder, F.T. Mackenzie, B. Moore III, J.Raven, Y. Rosenthal, S. Seitzinger, V.Smetacek, W. Steffen.

Funding for the Stockholm SynthesisWorkshop and Lecture Series is providedby the Swedish Millenium Committeeand MISTRA, the Foundation for Strate-gic Environmental Research.


17

The name Holocene (“Recent Whole”)forthe post-glacial geological epoch of thepast ten to twelve thousand years seemsto have been proposed for the first timeby Sir Charles Lyell in 1833, and adoptedby the International Geological Congressin Bologna in 1885 (1). During theHolocene mankind’s activities graduallygrew into a significant geological, mor-phological force, as recognised early onby a number of scientists. Thus, G.P.Marsh already in 1864 published a bookwith the title “Man and Nature”, morerecently reprinted as “The Earth as Modi-fied by Human Action” (2). Stoppani in1873 rated mankind’s activities as a “newtelluric force which in power and univer-sality may be compared to the greaterforces of earth” [quoted from Clark (3)].Stoppani already spoke of theanthropozoic era. Mankind has now in-habited or visited almost all places onEarth; he has even set foot on the moon.

The great Russian geologistV.I.Vernadsky (4) in 1926 recognized theincreasing power of mankind as part ofthe biosphere with the following excerpt“... the direction in which the processesof evolution must proceed, namely to-wards increasing consciousness andthought, and forms having greater andgreater influence on their surroundings”.He, the French Jesuit P. Teilhard deChardin and E. Le Roy in 1924 coined theterm “noösphere”, the world of thought,to mark the growing role played by man-kind’s brainpower and technological tal-ents in shaping its own future and envi-ronment.

The expansion of mankind, both innumbers and per capita exploitation ofEarth’s resources has been astounding(5). To give a few examples: During thepast 3 centuries human population in-creased tenfold to 6000 million, accom-

panied e.g. by a growth in cattle popu-lation to 1400 million (6) (about one cowper average size family). Urbanisationhas even increased tenfold in the pastcentury. In a few generations mankindis exhausting the fossil fuels that weregenerated over several hundred millionyears. The release of SO

2, globally about

160 Tg/year to the atmosphere by coaland oil burning, is at least two timeslarger than the sum of all natural emis-sions, occurring mainly as marine dime-thyl-sulfide from the oceans (7); fromVitousek et al. (8) we learn that 30-50%of the land surface has been transformedby human action; more nitrogen is nowfixed synthetically and applied as ferti-lizers in agriculture than fixed naturallyin all terrestrial ecosystems; the escapeinto the atmosphere of NO from fossilfuel and biomass combustion likewiseis larger than the natural inputs, givingrise to photochemical ozone (“smog”)formation in extensive regions of theworld; more than half of all accessiblefresh water is used by mankind; humanactivity has increased the species extinc-tion rate by thousand to ten thousandfold in the tropical rain forests (9) andseveral climatically important “green-house” gases have substantially in-creased in the atmosphere: CO

2 by more

than 30% and CH4 by even more than

100%. Furthermore, mankind releasesmany toxic substances in the environ-ment and even some, thechlorofluorocarbon gases, which are nottoxic at all, but which nevertheless haveled to the Antarctic “ozone hole” andwhich would have destroyed much ofthe ozone layer if no international regu-latory measures to end their productionhad been taken. Coastal wetlands arealso affected by humans, having resultedin the loss of 50% of the world’s man-

groves. Finally, mechanized human pre-dation (“fisheries”) removes more than25% of the primary production of theoceans in the upwelling regions and 35%in the temperate continental shelf re-gions (10). Anthropogenic effects are alsowell illustrated by the history of bioticcommunities that leave remains in lakesediments. The effects documented in-clude modification of the geochemicalcycle in large freshwater systems and oc-cur in systems remote from primarysources (11-13).

Considering these and many othermajor and still growing impacts of hu-man activities on earth and atmosphere,and at all, including global, scales, itseems to us more than appropriate toemphasize the central role of mankindin geology and ecology by proposing touse the term “anthropocene” for the cur-rent geological epoch. The impacts ofcurrent human activities will continueover long periods. According to a studyby Berger and Loutre (14), because of theanthropogenic emissions of CO

2, climate

may depart significantly from naturalbehaviour over the next 50,000 years.

To assign a more specific date to theonset of the “anthropocene” seemssomewhat arbitrary, but we propose thelatter part of the 18th century, althoughwe are aware that alternative proposalscan be made (some may even want toinclude the entire holocene). However,we choose this date because, during thepast two centuries, the global effects ofhuman activities have become clearlynoticeable. This is the period when dataretrieved from glacial ice cores show thebeginning of a growth in the atmos-pheric concentrations of several “green-house gases”, in particular CO

2 and CH

4

(7). Such a starting date also coincideswith James Watt´s invention of the steam

The “Anthropocene”by Paul J. Crutzen and Eugene F. Stoermer

References

Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K. (1998) Global-scale temperature patterns and climate

forcing over the past six centuries. Nature 392: 779-787

Petit, J.R., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Barkov, N.I., Barnola, J.-M., Basile, I., Bender, M., Chappellaz, J.,

Davis, M., Delaygue, G., Delmotte, M., Kotlyakov, V.M., Legrand, M., Lipenkov, V.Y., Lorius, C., Pepin, L.,

Ritz, C., Saltzman, E. and Stievenard, M. (1999) Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000

years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436.

Will Steffen

IGBP Secretariat, The Royal SwedishAcademy of Sciences, S104 05

Stockholm,SWEDEN



18

bundle but is essentially a‘one-off’.

• LBA (the Large-scaleBiosphere-AtmosphereExperiment in Amazonia) hasits own data and informationsystem, well developed and agood model for other largeregional studies.

• Specific data functions havebeen established in someSTART regional secretariats,such as Nairobi (Pan-African)and Bangkok (Southeast Asia).

• The IGBP Terrestrial Transectshave developed their owndata sets.

However, these initiatives are largelyindependent of one another, making com-parability across regions virtually impos-sible. What is needed now is coordina-tion of these data activities to build up acoherent global picture from the variousregional studies. This requires much moreconsistency and coherence across thevarious data initiatives, as well as a com-mon framework for process studies andmodelling.

MEDIAS-FRANCE is well placed tocontribute to the implementation of a co-ordinated approach to the regional databundle initiative. MEDIAS has acted as aregional coordinating secretariat forSTART, acting through projects funded bythe EU’s ENRICH programme andthrough the START Fellowship/Visiting

Scientist Programme. MEDIAS alsoworks in close cooperation with PASS(Pan African START Secretariat), its coun-terpart regional structure in Africa.

In addition, MEDIAS-FRANCE is al-ready involved with several IGBP coreprojects – PAGES, JGOFS, IGAC - to de-velop computer tools for the generationof new databases for IGBP researchprojects. More recently, MEDIAS-FRANCE has been asked by IGAC todevelop an original tool to assist its Syn-thesis and Integration project. MEDIASalso maintains a “mirror” site of the glo-bal PAGES database belonging to theWorld Data Center-A forpaleoclimatology in Boulder, USA.

Based on these existing strengths ofMEDIAS, its experience in regional datadevelopment, and its knowledge of IGBP,the French space agency CNES has of-fered to allocate resources via MEDIASto support a major effort over the next 2-3 years to produce a coherent set of re-gional data bundles. IGBP-DIS will pro-vide guidance for the effort, and will relyon input from START, GAIM and the coreprojects, many of which have their ownsets of regional studies.

Wolfgang Cramer



GERMANYE-mail: wolfgang.cramer@

pik-potsdam.de

There is little doubt of the importance ofthe regional scale for Earth System Sci-ence and the need to study systemic fea-tures of Earth System functioning at thatscale. A variety of tools are required forintegrated regional studies, but a crucialelement in the strategy is the develop-ment and application of regional ‘databundles’.

The concept of regional data bundleswas first proposed at the 1998 DIS SSCmeeting in Toulouse, and has now beendeveloped further as a major activityaimed at promoting an integrated suiteof regional studies. The implementationof the regional data bundle concept willbe undertaken, inter alia, as a partnershipbetween IGBP-DIS, START and MEDIAS-FRANCE.

Regional data bundles consist of aconsistent collection of databases, dataproducts, in-situ measurements as wellas remotely sensed data. Data bundlesmay include models and/or model out-put at regional scale. Special attention isgiven to the presentation of the variousdata sets in order to facilitate their visu-alization and interpretation for researchpurposes.

Considerable work on regionaldatabases has already been undertakenin association with IGBP:

• The Miombo CD-ROM,coordinated by START, LUCCand IGBP-DIS, is an earlyversion of a regional data

engine in 1784. About at that time, bi-otic assemblages in most lakes began toshow large changes (11-13).

Without major catastrophes like anenormous volcanic eruption, an unex-pected epidemic, a large-scale nuclearwar, an asteroid impact, a new ice age, orcontinued plundering of Earth’s re-sources by partially still primitive tech-nology (the last four dangers can, how-ever, be prevented in a real functioningnoösphere) mankind will remain a ma-jor geological force for many millennia,maybe millions of years, to come. To de-velop a world-wide accepted strategyleading to sustainability of ecosystems

against human induced stresses will beone of the great future tasks of mankind,requiring intensive research efforts andwise application of the knowledge thusacquired in the noösphere, better knownas knowledge or information society. Anexciting, but also difficult and dauntingtask lies ahead of the global research andengineering community to guide man-kind towards global, sustainable, envi-ronmental management (15).

We thank the many colleagues, especiallythe members of the IGBP Scientific Com-mittee, for encouraging correspondenceand advice.

Paul J. Crutzen

Max-Planck-Institute for ChemistryDivision of Atmospheric Chemistry

P.O. Box 3060D-55020 Mainz

GERMANYEmail: [email protected]

Eugene F. Stoermer

Center for Great Lakes and AquaticSciences

University of MichiganAnn Arbor, Michigan 48109-1090

USA

Contribution to the regional data bundle concept: TheIGBP-DIS – MEDIAS-France partnership

by Wolfgang Cramer, Chair, IGBP-DIS


19

Neil Swanberg Sails On…….

An era in IGBP ended recently with the resignation

of Neil Swanberg from his position of Deputy

Executive Director, to take up a position with the

National Science Foundation in the United States.

Neil joined the IGBP Secretariat in 1993, while

the programme was still in its early implementation

phase. He has served under all three Chairs (Jim

McCarthy, Peter Liss and Berrien Moore) and

under all four Executive Directors (Thomas

Rosswall, John Marks, Chris Rapley and Will

Steffen).

For the past seven years, Neil has been a

mainstay and pillar of strength in the IGBP

Secretariat. He has helped to keep the office

ticking over efficiently, has become a master at

trouble-shooting (often anticipating problems

before they occur), dealt effectively with

bureaucracies on both sides of the Atlantic, and

navigated our small Macintosh computer network

throughout the sometimes turbulent waters of a

PC-oriented host institution.

I’m sure one of Neil’s biggest frustrations has been

trying to cope with computer-illiterate colleagues

in the Secretariat making big computer problems

out of small ones. He has always dropped

whatever he is doing to come to the aid of his co-

workers and has invariably solved problems quicker than professional computer consultants could manage.

Only one incident stopped Neil – a beer-soaked keyboard and disk drive on a certain laptop – but that is

another story……

Neil was particularly well-known in the marine components of IGBP. He is a marine biologist by training, and

that coupled with his broad understanding of international science has enabled him to make valuable

contributions to JGOFS, LOICZ and, more recently, GLOBEC and SOLAS. In fact, Neil played an instrumental

role in working with the GLOBEC community to guide the development and publication of both the science

and implementation plans. His nous and understanding both of the science and the science politics in

international marine science has been a major factor in the smooth transition now underway within the

oceanic components of IGBP.

Perhaps Neil’s least known contribution to IGBP, but his most important, has been his broad understanding

of the programme as a whole and his vision for where IGBP should be going. His article in NewsLetter 40

is a good summary of his views on how the pieces of the puzzle should fit together. But this view has been

characteristic of Neil for quite some time. Well before the recent push in the Programme towards a more

integrated Earth System Science approach, Neil has been quietly but effectively promoting a more systemic

and logical structure and approach for IGBP’s science. The process is now coming to fruition, and he has

made strong and consistent intellectual contributions to it over a number of years.

Neil has always maintained that about five or six years is long enough in the job. So he leaves IGBP in the

spirit of ‘job well done’ and of making major contributions to a complex scientific endeavour.

All of us throughout the IGBP community wish Neil, his lovely wife Inger and their two lively sons, Kevin and

Carl, all the very best for their life in the US.

People and events

Neil, right, farewells his colleagues João Morais and Elise Wännman

during his last day in the Secretariat.


20

Upon graduating from Leningrad State University, Faculty of Physics,

in 1953, Victor Gorshkov worked in the field of physics of elementary

particles, high-energy physics and atomic physics, with about 60 papers

published in leading journals. At present, he is Professor of Theoretical

Physics and works in Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute,

St.-Petersburg, Russia.

In the early eighties Victor gradually turned to global ecological problems,

being impressed by their importance and by the potential impact that

the theoretical physics approach may have there. Having accomplished

several studies in such diverse fields as the global carbon cycle, ecology

of locomotive animals, evolutionary genetics and informatics, Victor

formulated the concept of biotic regulation of the environment, a concept

around which his own work and that of his group is devoted (see, e.g.,

Gorshkov et al. (2000) Biotic Regulation of the Environment: Key Issue

of Global Change. Springer, Praxis).

In his free time, Victor enjoys field research in the wilderness areas of Siberia and the north of European

Russia. Closer to home, he often enjoys a keen game of tennis.

S. Krishnaswami was born and brought up at Thiruvananthapuram,

the southernmost city of India. He received his B.Sc. degree in chemistry

from the University College, Thiruvananthapuram. He began his

research career in 1964 at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,

Bombay and obtained his Ph.D. degree in 1974 from the Bombay

University. A part of his thesis was on the successful development of210Pb method to date lake sediments, which has found extensive

applications to chronologically decipher historical records of natural and

anthropogenic events stored in them.

New members of the Scientific Committee of the IGBP

Krishnaswami is a

geochemist, focusing on the

applications of environmental

isotopes, stable and

radioactive, to study earth

surface processes. His

interests include solute-

particle interactions and particle dynamics in the ocean,

sedimentation and authigenic mineral formation in the lakes and

deep sea, nuclide mobility (contaminant transport) in sub-surface

aquifers and more recently chemical weathering of the Himalaya

and its impact on the chemical and isotopical budget of the oceans.

Currently, Krishnawami is a professor at the Physical Research

Laboratory, Ahmedabad, where he has been working for the past

25 years. He has served as a member of the JGOFS SSC and as

one of the Vice-Presidents of SCOR. This year he was elected as

one of the Vice-Presidents of IAPSO.

Edited by Will Steffen

Layout by John Bellamy

Requests for reproduction of articles

appearing in this distribution should be

addressed to the Editor:

(E-mail: [email protected])

Newsletter requests and change of address

information should be sent to:

IGBP Secretariat

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Box 50005,S-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden

Tel: (+46-8) 16 64 48

Fax: (+46-8) 16 64 05


http://www.igbp.kva.se

The IGBP Report Series is published in

annex to the Global Change NewsletterISSN 0284-5865

sustaining earth’s life support systems – the challenge ...sustaining earth’s life support...

Documents