scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology

FacilityYokosuka, Japan
About: Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology is a facility organization based out in Yokosuka, Japan. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Subduction & Sea surface temperature. The organization has 2367 authors who have published 10619 publications receiving 315918 citations. The organization is also known as: JAMSTEC & Dokuritsu-gyōsei-hōjin Kaiyō Kenkyū Kaihatsu Kikō.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
25 Aug 2006-Science
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors focus on the flow of water in natural and artificial reservoirs and reduce the vulnerability of people living under water stress to seasonal patterns and increasing probability of extreme events.
Abstract: Water is a naturally circulating resource that is constantly recharged. Therefore, even though the stocks of water in natural and artificial reservoirs are helpful to increase the available water resources for human society, the flow of water should be the main focus in water resources assessments. The climate system puts an upper limit on the circulation rate of available renewable freshwater resources (RFWR). Although current global withdrawals are well below the upper limit, more than two billion people live in highly water-stressed areas because of the uneven distribution of RFWR in time and space. Climate change is expected to accelerate water cycles and thereby increase the available RFWR. This would slow down the increase of people living under water stress; however, changes in seasonal patterns and increasing probability of extreme events may offset this effect. Reducing current vulnerability will be the first step to prepare for such anticipated changes.

2,814 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, eleven coupled climate-carbon cycle models were used to study the coupling between climate change and the carbon cycle. But, there was still a large uncertainty on the magnitude of these sensitivities.
Abstract: Eleven coupled climate–carbon cycle models used a common protocol to study the coupling between climate change and the carbon cycle. The models were forced by historical emissions and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) A2 anthropogenic emissions of CO2 for the 1850–2100 time period. For each model, two simulations were performed in order to isolate the impact of climate change on the land and ocean carbon cycle, and therefore the climate feedback on the atmospheric CO2 concentration growth rate. There was unanimous agreement among the models that future climate change will reduce the efficiency of the earth system to absorb the anthropogenic carbon perturbation. A larger fraction of anthropogenic CO2 will stay airborne if climate change is accounted for. By the end of the twenty-first century, this additional CO2 varied between 20 and 200 ppm for the two extreme models, the majority of the models lying between 50 and 100 ppm. The higher CO2 levels led to an additional climate warming ranging between 0.1° and 1.5°C. All models simulated a negative sensitivity for both the land and the ocean carbon cycle to future climate. However, there was still a large uncertainty on the magnitude of these sensitivities. Eight models attributed most of the changes to the land, while three attributed it to the ocean. Also, a majority of the models located the reduction of land carbon uptake in the Tropics. However, the attribution of the land sensitivity to changes in net primary productivity versus changes in respiration is still subject to debate; no consensus emerged among the models.

2,630 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the characteristics of tropical cyclones have changed or will change in a warming climate and if so, how, has been the subject of considerable investigation, often with conflicting results.
Abstract: Whether the characteristics of tropical cyclones have altered, or will alter, in a changing climate has been subject of considerable debate. An overview of recent research indicates that greenhouse warming will cause stronger storms, on average, but a decrease in the frequency of tropical cyclones. Whether the characteristics of tropical cyclones have changed or will change in a warming climate — and if so, how — has been the subject of considerable investigation, often with conflicting results. Large amplitude fluctuations in the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones greatly complicate both the detection of long-term trends and their attribution to rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Trend detection is further impeded by substantial limitations in the availability and quality of global historical records of tropical cyclones. Therefore, it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes. However, future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2–11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6–34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre. For all cyclone parameters, projected changes for individual basins show large variations between different modelling studies.

2,368 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors found that anomalous warming events different from conventional El Nino events occur in the central equatorial Pacific, where a horseshoe pattern is flanked by a colder sea surface temperature anomaly (SSTA) on both sides along the equator.
Abstract: [1] Using observed data sets mainly for the period 1979–2005, we find that anomalous warming events different from conventional El Nino events occur in the central equatorial Pacific. This unique warming in the central equatorial Pacific associated with a horseshoe pattern is flanked by a colder sea surface temperature anomaly (SSTA) on both sides along the equator. empirical orthogonal function (EOF) analysis of monthly tropical Pacific SSTA shows that these events are represented by the second mode that explains 12% of the variance. Since a majority of such events are not part of El Nino evolution, the phenomenon is named as El Nino Modoki (pseudo-El Nino) (“Modoki” is a classical Japanese word, which means “a similar but different thing”). The El Nino Modoki involves ocean-atmosphere coupled processes which include a unique tripolar sea level pressure pattern during the evolution, analogous to the Southern Oscillation in the case of El Nino. Hence the total entity is named as El Nino–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Modoki. The ENSO Modoki events significantly influence the temperature and precipitation over many parts of the globe. Depending on the season, the impacts over regions such as the Far East including Japan, New Zealand, western coast of United States, etc., are opposite to those of the conventional ENSO. The difference maps between the two periods of 1979–2004 and 1958–1978 for various oceanic/atmospheric variables suggest that the recent weakening of equatorial easterlies related to weakened zonal sea surface temperature gradient led to more flattening of the thermocline. This appears to be a cause of more frequent and persistent occurrence of the ENSO Modoki event during recent decades.

2,340 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Pierre Friedlingstein1, Pierre Friedlingstein2, Michael O'Sullivan1, Matthew W. Jones3, Robbie M. Andrew, Judith Hauck, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters4, Wouter Peters5, Julia Pongratz6, Julia Pongratz7, Stephen Sitch2, Corinne Le Quéré3, Josep G. Canadell8, Philippe Ciais9, Robert B. Jackson10, Simone R. Alin11, Luiz E. O. C. Aragão12, Luiz E. O. C. Aragão2, Almut Arneth, Vivek K. Arora, Nicholas R. Bates13, Nicholas R. Bates14, Meike Becker, Alice Benoit-Cattin, Henry C. Bittig, Laurent Bopp15, Selma Bultan7, Naveen Chandra16, Naveen Chandra17, Frédéric Chevallier9, Louise Chini18, Wiley Evans, Liesbeth Florentie4, Piers M. Forster19, Thomas Gasser20, Marion Gehlen9, Dennis Gilfillan, Thanos Gkritzalis21, Luke Gregor22, Nicolas Gruber22, Ian Harris23, Kerstin Hartung7, Kerstin Hartung24, Vanessa Haverd8, Richard A. Houghton25, Tatiana Ilyina6, Atul K. Jain26, Emilie Joetzjer27, Koji Kadono28, Etsushi Kato, Vassilis Kitidis29, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Peter Landschützer6, Nathalie Lefèvre30, Andrew Lenton31, Sebastian Lienert32, Zhu Liu33, Danica Lombardozzi34, Gregg Marland35, Nicolas Metzl30, David R. Munro11, David R. Munro36, Julia E. M. S. Nabel6, S. Nakaoka17, Yosuke Niwa17, Kevin D. O'Brien11, Kevin D. O'Brien37, Tsuneo Ono, Paul I. Palmer, Denis Pierrot38, Benjamin Poulter, Laure Resplandy39, Eddy Robertson40, Christian Rödenbeck6, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian27, Ingunn Skjelvan, Adam J. P. Smith3, Adrienne J. Sutton11, Toste Tanhua41, Pieter P. Tans11, Hanqin Tian42, Bronte Tilbrook31, Bronte Tilbrook43, Guido R. van der Werf44, N. Vuichard9, Anthony P. Walker45, Rik Wanninkhof38, Andrew J. Watson2, David R. Willis23, Andy Wiltshire40, Wenping Yuan46, Xu Yue47, Sönke Zaehle6 
École Normale Supérieure1, University of Exeter2, Norwich Research Park3, Wageningen University and Research Centre4, University of Groningen5, Max Planck Society6, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich7, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation8, Université Paris-Saclay9, Stanford University10, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration11, National Institute for Space Research12, Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences13, University of Southampton14, PSL Research University15, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology16, National Institute for Environmental Studies17, University of Maryland, College Park18, University of Leeds19, International Institute of Minnesota20, Flanders Marine Institute21, ETH Zurich22, University of East Anglia23, German Aerospace Center24, Woods Hole Research Center25, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign26, University of Toulouse27, Japan Meteorological Agency28, Plymouth Marine Laboratory29, University of Paris30, Hobart Corporation31, Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research32, Tsinghua University33, National Center for Atmospheric Research34, Appalachian State University35, University of Colorado Boulder36, University of Washington37, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory38, Princeton University39, Met Office40, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences41, Auburn University42, University of Tasmania43, VU University Amsterdam44, Oak Ridge National Laboratory45, Sun Yat-sen University46, Nanjing University47
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors describe and synthesize data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties, including emissions from land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models.
Abstract: Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in a changing climate – the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe and synthesize data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFOS) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade available (2010–2019), EFOS was 9.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 excluding the cement carbonation sink (9.4 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when the cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 1.6 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1. For the same decade, GATM was 5.1 ± 0.02 GtC yr−1 (2.4 ± 0.01 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN 2.5 ± 0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.4 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1, with a budget imbalance BIM of −0.1 GtC yr−1 indicating a near balance between estimated sources and sinks over the last decade. For the year 2019 alone, the growth in EFOS was only about 0.1 % with fossil emissions increasing to 9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 excluding the cement carbonation sink (9.7 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 1.8 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, for total anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 11.5 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1 (42.2 ± 3.3 GtCO2). Also for 2019, GATM was 5.4 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.5 ± 0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 2.6 ± 0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.1 ± 1.2 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 409.85 ± 0.1 ppm averaged over 2019. Preliminary data for 2020, accounting for the COVID-19-induced changes in emissions, suggest a decrease in EFOS relative to 2019 of about −7 % (median estimate) based on individual estimates from four studies of −6 %, −7 %, −7 % (−3 % to −11 %), and −13 %. Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2019, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. Comparison of estimates from diverse approaches and observations shows (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land-use change emissions over the last decade, (2) a persistent low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent discrepancy between the different methods for the ocean sink outside the tropics, particularly in the Southern Ocean. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Friedlingstein et al., 2019; Le Quere et al., 2018b, a, 2016, 2015b, a, 2014, 2013). The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2020 (Friedlingstein et al., 2020).

1,764 citations


Authors

Showing all 2437 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Kenneth H. Nealson10848351100
Shang-Ping Xie10544136437
Koki Horikoshi8460926944
Toshio Yamagata8329427890
Tao Jiang8294027018
Syukuro Manabe7612925366
Ken Takai7133017716
Tadashi Matsunaga6951117794
Taikan Oki6839727401
Hajime Akimoto6738516568
Kei Hirose6426115730
Daniel J. Lunt6221111168
Itsushi Uno6126511904
Ayako Abe-Ouchi5926413946
Shoji Arai5441611465
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
7.8K papers, 487.4K citations

91% related

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
18.3K papers, 1.2M citations

91% related

Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory
8K papers, 504.5K citations

90% related

Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research
10.7K papers, 499.6K citations

90% related

Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences
6.2K papers, 426.7K citations

89% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202358
2022119
2021701
2020653
2019691
2018705