I G B P

N E W S L E T T E R

4 1

May
2000

No. 41The International Geosphere–Biosphere Programme (IGBP): A Study of Global Changeof the International Council for Science (ICSU)

Sustaining Earth’s life support systems – the challenge
for the next decade and beyond
by Berrien Moore III, Chair, IGBP

Integration, interdiscplinarity, and a systems approach mark the emerging ethos
in IGBP as the Programme evolves rapidly into its second decade of international
global change research.
In late February in Cuernavaca,
Mexico, the Scientific Committee of the
IGBP held a landmark meeting in which
it was decided that the strength and maturity of the Programme would allow anincreased emphasis on the systemic challenges of Global Environmental Change.
The strength has been made particularly
apparent in the developing Core Project
syntheses.
This strength and capability of the
IGBP at this point in time is extraordinarily valuable since the SC-IGBP also recognised that the challenges of Global Environmental Change demand a treatmentof the full Earth System. It is simply a reality that a scientific understanding of the
Earth System is required to help humansocieties develop in ways that sustain the
global life support system.
The core of the IGBP Programme forthe next decade will be built around threeinterlocking and complementary structures:•Core projects that focus on key
processes will continue to be
the foundation for the IGBP;•

A formal integrated study of
the Earth System as a whole, in
its full functional andgeographical complexity overtime, and•A focus on three cross-cutting
issues where advances in ourscientific understanding are
required to help humansocieties develop in ways thatsustain the global life support
system.
The research will be undertaken in the context of an expanding and strengthening
collaboration with the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global
Environmental Change (IHDP) and theWorld Climate Research Programme(WCRP). The new challenge is to build,on our collective scientific foundation, aninternational programme of Earth System
Science. This effort will be driven by a common mission and common questions,employing visionary and creative scientific approaches, and based on an evercloser collaboration across disciplines, research themes, programmes, nations, andregions.
Driving the new structures and approaches are two critical messages thathave become ever clearer through the past
decade 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 uncertainties. Understanding components of the
Earth 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 ................... 9Highlights of GAIM’sFirst Phase ................... 11
The “Anthropocene” ...... 17
Regional Data
Bundles ........................ 18
People and events ........ 191

I G B P

Second, humans are a significant force
in the Earth System, altering key processrates and absorbing the impacts of global environmental changes. In fact, the environmental significance of human activities is now so profound that the current
geological era can be called the‘Anthropocene’ epoch (see article by Paul
Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer in this issue of the NewsLetter).
Global biogeochemical cycling willremain at the core of IGBP research, but
the Programme will evolve towards amore systematic structure with major activities located in the three compartments– atmosphere, oceans, and land – and in
the three interfaces between them. Thesesix domains will more formally guide theemerging Core Projects for the next decade. This theme is already apparent
within the IGBP. For instance, LOICZ is
positioned well at the Land-Ocean interface, and the emerging Surface Ocean
Lower Atmosphere Study (SOLAS) is
clearly headed in this direction. We areasking, in this formulation, hard and challenging questions. How can we join better JGOFS science with GLOBEC science?
How can we bridge more strongly andwith less duplication the scientific agendas of BAHC and the Global Energy Water Experiment (GEWEX) within the
WCRP? Similarly, how do we better linkin the future IGAC with SPARC(Stratospheric Processes and their Role in
Climate)? What should be the nature of
the future GCTE, and how does it tie moreclosely with LUCC?
GAIM is being reoriented towards
integrating across this structure to focus
on the Earth System as a whole (see John
Schellnhuber’s article in this issue of the
NewsLetter). PAGES work provides anessential longer time context for the dynamics of the Earth System as well as forparts of it. The accompanying figure
shows the new structure.
It is hoped that at least three new joint
projects will be launched with WCRP and
IHDP on crosscutting issues of majorsocietal relevance. Three linked issues are
currently in the planning stages – the Global Carbon Cycle, Water Resources, andan initiative on Global Change and Foodand Fibre, with an emphasis on food vulnerability/security and opportunity
analysis. Additional major issues, such as
human health and ecosystem goods andservices, are under consideration.
These joint projects, which are clearlycrosscutting in nature, will depend critically upon the research in the Core
Projects of the IGBP, IHDP and WCRP
that is already being undertaken or isplanned. Considerable co-ordination isneeded, however, to bring these elements
into a more integrated framework, andsome new work will need to be initiated

2

N E W S L E T T E R

4 1

Figure 1.

where gaps are identified. Strategic partnerships are being developed with otherresearch institutions outside the threeprogrammes and with policy and management 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 activities planned for the rest of 2000. A
small scoping meeting in April developed
much of the human dimensions contributions to the effort, while additional
meetings in May (Lisbon, Portugal) andOctober (Durham, New Hampshire,USA) will complete the definition of acommon international framework to help
guide 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 WCRP
was held in Paris in early March, whichbegan to defined the overall structure forthe research. Further planning meetings
are proposed for June/July (Reading,UK), October (London), November/December (Stockholm) and February 2001
(Washington) to complete the preparationof a science plan and implementation
strategy.
The initial co-ordination meeting for
the Water Resources joint project is ten-tatively scheduled for September.
These initiatives will place great demands on the IGBP. The strength of theProgramme will be tested and new structures will be demanded. The recently expanded role of the IGBP-DIS with its important work in both regional and global
studies will add essential new capabilities, including support for our key regional studies (see the article on The Regional Data Bundle Concept by Wolfgang
Cramer in this NewsLetter).
This continuing evolution of the IGBP
in concert with the WCRP and the IHDP
is important and merits the thoughts ofall. We continue to welcome and needinsights on directions, processes, objectives, and goals and the processes bywhich they may be realised. These pages
are genuinely open to your contributions.
The challenges of global environmental
change 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, USA
E-mail: b.moore@unh.edu

I G B P

N E W S L E T T E R

4 1

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

The first NewsLetter in the new millennium provides a convenient canvas forre-sketching the basic mission of GAIM,
that is, pioneering Earth System science
into a state of novel quality. This sounds
rather preposterous yet turns into a solid
ambition upon closer inspection of (i) the
giant explorative strides taken by the big
global research programmes (IGBP,
WCRP, IHDP, etc.) during the last years,
and (ii) the opportunities arising from thethink-tank character of GAIM. Let me
briefly elaborate on both aspects in thefollowing.
In a recent essay for the Millennium
Supplement of Nature (Vol. 402, Supp. 2
Dec 1999, C19-C23) I argued that the “Second Copernican Revolution” is justaround the corner. This revolution reverses, in a way, the glorious first one bylooking back on our planet from a (realor virtual) distance, striving to understand the so-perceived system as a whole
and to develop concepts for global environmental management. The scientifictrans-discipline thus emerging may becalled Earth Systems analysis; it is supposed to yield a unified formalism fordescribing the make-up and functioningof the ecosphere machinery as well as its
susceptibility to erratic or judicious human interventions. Ultimately, Earth System analysis will even be able to address
the challenge of sustainable development
in a no-nonsense way by deducing themacro-options for future ecosphereantroposphere 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 increasing
pace. Take, for instance, the growing
stream of insights arising from the separate Core Projects of IGBP as highlighted
at the Second IGBP Congress held in Japan last May (see Berrien Moore’s keynote in Global Change Newsletter 38, andWill Steffen’s reflections in Research
GAIM, Summer 1999). This breathtaking
progress was most impressively illustrated by Hugh Ducklow’s lecture on theunravelling of the mysteries of the global
oceanic flux system. So it seems that “all”
that remains to be done is to take the scientific bits and pieces and to put them
together.

But integration is much more than asynthetic book-keeping exercise – remember that it took evolution almost 4
billion years to compose the human brain
from macro-molecules available alreadyin the early days of life. The virtual scientific reconstruction of the planetary machinery (“Gaia”) is not much smaller atask, although we expect it to be accomplished in less than a couple of eons. What
will be needed, at any rate, is a sophisticated integration methodology as transpiring, e.g., from the modern theory of complex non-linear dynamic systems, and it
will be necessary to account for all sorts
of deterministic and stochastic uncertainties.
This is the point where the New
GAIM enters the scene: During the recent
meeting of the Task Force in Waikiki,
Hawaii (31 January – 2 February 2000),
the integration challenge was intensively
discussed and identified as the central
research issue of the next decade of global change science. And the group, whichembraced the top representatives andexecutives of IGBP, concluded unanimously that GAIM shall become the central driving force for Earth System analysis by fully utilizing the potential resulting from its cross-sectoral design. In order to be specific, an explicit survey
among the participants was conducted
for revealing individual priorities andsuggestions regarding the longer-termtargets to be met. A clear-cut picture
emerged which may be summarized in
the following three “Waikiki Principles”.
I.

GAIM is to explore andpromote cognitive
opportunities arising from theappropriate combination ofCore Project results and tools.
This means, in particular, toplay the role of a trans-project
topics scout and a feasibility
assessor.

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

and problems dimensions
primarily investigated by thesister programmes WCRP and
IHDP.
III. GAIM is to implement Earth
System analysis by organizing
the construction, evaluation andmaintenance of a hierarchy ofEarth System models. Thismeans, in particular, to help
generate models of different
degrees of complexity and to
employ the resulting
complementary ensemble for
conducting virtual planetary
experiments with respect topast, present, and future globalchanges.
As a consequence, the acronym GAIM
should from now on stand for “Global
Analysis, Integration and Modelling”.
Principle I is illustrated by the TRACES(Trace Gas and Aerosol Cycles in the
Earth System) Initiative; principle II by
the intra-IGBP Carbon Project and theenvisaged inter-programmatic cross-cutting themes like water and food and fibre; principle III by the EMIC (Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexity)
Initiative and the “Flying Leap” towards
a fully coupled state-of-the-art ocean-atmosphere-biosphere model. There is no
doubt that GAIM will keep on providing
the IGBP community with sophisticatedservices like well-designed model anddata intercomparisons, but its thrust will
be focussed on research at the Earth-system level.
It has to be emphasized that the
Waikiki Rules for the New GAIM have
yet to be approved by the “legislative andexecutive bodies” of IGBP, but I am confident that they will gladly help to open
up this avenue towards the scientific horizon.
Here end my pre-Cuernavaca contemplations on the New GAIM. In themeantime, the Scientific Committeee of
IGBP held a meeting which undoubtedly
deserves the qualification as a “landmark
event” (see Berrien Moore’s article in thisissue of the NewsLetter). I have to confess that I did not expect the SC to makeso far-reaching and far-sighted decisions

3

I G B P

about the next decade of planetary research. As a matter of fact, the systems
approach was adopted as the guiding research principle, and a strategic partnership with the international sister programmes was envisaged in order to create a joint venture that may be called “Integrated Earth Science”. All the crucial
points of this historical resolution are succinctly summarized in Berrien’s abovementioned contribution.
For GAIM, this is an extremely encouraging development that puts the Waikiki
Principles on a solid basis and into theright context. As a minor consequence, therenaming of GAIM into “Global Analysis, Integration and Modelling” has been
approved meanwhile. Much more important, however, is the induced mandate for
GAIM to explore from now on all intrinsic and extrinsic options for systems-analytic progress, both from the topical andthe methodological point of view. An ex-

N E W S L E T T E R

4 1

citing opportunity to demonstrate pertinent skills will be provided by the new
initiative on “Surprises and Nonlinearities
in Global Change”, recently launched by
GCTE. This is actually an issue of paramount importance for Earth System science as will be emphasized, i.a., by theThird Assessment Report of the IPCC. The
New GAIM has already started to think
about establishing an international
postdoc network for advancing researchon the “irregular side of Global Change”.
Let me conclude with two caveats.
First, we should not be carried away now
by a frenzy of integrationist enthusiasm.
I firmly believe that the so-called
reductionist approach to Earth Science
will 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 means
an easy exercise. We will need to employ

the most advanced methodologies available like the ones that have been developed by the complex dynamics community. It is high time for joining forces withthis cognitive community and similarones, yet this will become a rather challenging enterprise.
Compared with the opportunities
ahead, my caveats carry little weight
though. We are lucky to live in this era of
Global Scientific Change.
John Schellnhuber

Potsdam Inst for Climate Impact Research (PIK),PO Box 60 12 03,
D-14412 Potsdam,
GERMANY
E-mail: john@pik-potsdam.de

Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexity
by Martin Claussen, Andrey Ganopolski, John Schellnhuber and Wolfgang
CramerInvestigating the dynamic behavior of the
Earth system remains a “grand challenge”
for the scientific community. It is motivated by our limited knowledge about theconsequences of large-scale perturbationsof the Earth System by human activities,
such as fossil-fuel combus-tion or the fragmentation of terrestrial vegetation cover.
Will the system be resilient with respect
to such disturbances, or could it be driven
towards qualitatively new modes of planetary operation?
This question cannot be answered,however, without prior analysis of how
the unperturbed Earth System behavesand evolves in the absence of human influence. Such an analysis should, for example, provide answers to questions concerning the amplification of Milankovich
forcing to glaciation episodes or themechanisms behind the DansgaardOeschger oscillations. But also more general questions may be addressed: Does lifeon Earth subsist due to an accidental andfragile balance between the abiotic world(the geosphere) and a biosphere that has
emerged by chance? Or are there self-stabilizing feedback mechanisms at work as
proposed by the Gaia theory? And, if thelatter theory is valid, what is the role ofhumanity in Gaia’s universe?

4

Towards a Definition of
the Earth System andEarth System Models
Within IGBP at least, the following definition of the “Earth System”, which has
been proposed by Schellnhuber (1998,
1999) and Claussen (1998), for example,
seems to be generally accepted: The Earth
System encompasses the natural environment, i.e. the climate system according to
the definition by Peixoto and Oort (1992),
or sometimes referred to as the ecosphere,
and the anthroposphere. The climate system consists of the abiotic world, thegeosphere, and the living world, the biosphere. Geosphere and biosphere are further divided into components such as theatmosphere, hydrosphere, etc., which interact via fluxes of momentum, energy,
water, carbon, and other substances. The
anthroposphere can also be divided into
subcomponents such as socio- economy,
values and attitudes, etc.
So far, only simplified, more conceptual Earth System models exist. Whilemodels of the natural Earth System canbe built upon the thermodynamic approach, this does not seem to be feasible
for many components of theanthroposphere, in particular the psychosocial component. Hence development ofa model of the full Earth System has to beundertaken in cooperation between IGBP
and IHDP. For the time being, it will be
the task of IGBP to pursue models of thenatural Earth System in which anthropogenic activities are considered as exogenous forces and fluxes. Hence in the following, we consider only the natural
Earth System. Earth System models need
to 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 currently
open question is how much spatial (regional) resolution is required to appropriately capture processes with global significance. Earth System models probably
need not capture all aspects of interaction
between the spheres at the regional scale-although it will be interesting to test
whether certain regional processes nevertheless affect global feedbacks.

Models of Intermediate
Complexity
During the past decades marked progress

I G B P

Figure 1.

Tentative definition of EMIC’s

Figure 2.

Structure of an EMICN E W S L E T T E R

4 1

has been achieved in modelling the separate elements of the geosphere and thebiosphere, focusing on atmospheric andocean circulation, and on land vegetationand ice-sheet dynamics. These developments have stimulated first attempts to
put all separate pieces together, first inform of comprehensive coupled models
of atmospheric and oceanic circulation,and eventually as so-called climate system models which include also biological and geochemical processes. One major limitation in the application of suchcomprehensive Earth System models
arises from their high computational cost.
On the other hand, simplified, moreor less conceptual models of the climate
system are used for a variety of applications, in particular paleoclimate studies
as well as climate change and climate impact projections. These models are spatially highly aggregated, for example,
they represent atmosphere and ocean as
two boxes, and they describe only a very
limited number of processes and variables. The applicability of this class ofmodel is limited not by computational

5

I G B P

cost, but by the lack of many important
processes and feedbacks operating in thereal world. Moreover, the sensitivity ofthese models to external forcing is oftenprescribed rather than computed independently (e.g. Houghton et al., 1997).
To bridge the gap, Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexity (EMICs)
have been proposed which can be characterized in the following way. EMICs describe most of the processes implicit incomprehensive models, albeit in a more
reduced, i.e. a more parameterized form.
They explicitly simulate the interactions
among several components of the climate
system including biogeochemical cycles.
On the other hand, EMICs are simple
enough to allow for long-term climate
simulations over several 10,000 years oreven glacial cycles. Similar to those ofcomprehensive models, but in contrast toconceptual models, the degrees of freedom of an EMIC exceed the number ofadjustable parameters by several ordersof magnitude. Tentatively, we may define
an EMIC in terms of a three-dimensional
vector: Integration, i.e. number of components of the Earth System explicitly
described in the model, number of processes explicitly described, and detail ofdescription of processes (See Figure 1).
Currently, there are several EMICs in
operation such as 2-dimensional, zonallyaveraged models (e.g. Gallée et al., 1991),
2.5-dimensional models with a simple en-

N E W S L E T T E R

4 1

ergy balance (e.g. Marchal et. al, 1998;
Stocker et al., 1992), or with a statisticaldynamical atmospheric module (e.g.
Petoukhov et al., 1999) , and reducedform comprehensive models (e.g.
Opsteegh et al., 1998).
EMICs have been used for a numberof palaeostudies, because they provide
the 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 to
be in equilibrium with external forcings,
which rarely is a realistic assumption.
Also the climate system’s behaviour under various scenarios of greenhouse gas
emissions has been investigated exploring the potential of abrupt changes in thesystem (e.g. Stocker and Schmittner, 1997;
Rahmstorf and Ganopolski, 1999). To illustrate the complexity of EMICs we
present - see Figure 2 - the structure of
CLIMBER 2.3, an EMIC developed in
Potsdam by Petoukhov et al. (1999).

Perspective
Earth System analysis generally relies ona hierarchy of simulation models. Depending on the nature of questions asked
and the pertinent time scales, there are,on the one extreme, zero-dimensionaltutorial or conceptual models like thosein the “Daisyworld” family. At the other

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: Simulationof 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. Geophys
Res., 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 YorkPetoukhov, 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 andperformance 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

6extreme, three-dimensional comprehensive models, e.g. coupling atmosphericand oceanic circulation with explicit geography and high spatio-temporal resolution, are under development in several
groups. During the IGBP Congress in
Shonan Village, Japan, May 1999, and the
IGBP workshop on EMICs in Potsdam,
Germany, June 1999, it became more
widely recognized that models of intermediate complexity could be very
valuable in exploring the interactions between all components of the natural Earth
System, and that the results could be
more realistic than those from conceptualmodels. These meetings have pointed at
the potential that EMICs might have evenfor the policy guidance process, such as
the IPCC.
Finally, it should be emphasized that
EMICs are considered to be one part of
the above mentioned hierarchy of simulation models. EMICs are not likely toreplace comprehensive nor conceptualmodels, but they offer a unique possibility to investigate interactions andfeedbacks at the large scale while largely
maintaining the geographic integrity of
the Earth System.
Martin Claussen

Potsdam-Institut fürKlimafolgenforschung e. V. (PIK),
Telegrafenberg C 4,14473 Potsdam,
GERMANY.
E-mail: claussen@pik-potsdam.deAndrey Ganopolski

Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact
Research,
Telegrafenberg,
PO Box 60 12 03,
D-144 12 Potsdam,
GERMANY
E-mail: Andrey.Ganopolski@pikpotsdam.de
Wolfgang Cramer

Potsdam Inst for Climate Impact
Research (PIK),PO Box 60 12 03,
D-14412 Potsdam,
GERMANY
E-mail: wolfgang.cramer@
pik-potsdam.deJohn Schellnhuber

Potsdam Inst for Climate Impact
Research (PIK),PO Box 60 12 03,
D-14412 Potsdam,
GERMANY
E-mail: john@pik-potsdam.deI G B P

N E W S L E T T E R

4 1

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

Investigating the dynamic behaviour
and complexities of the Earth System remains a “grand challenge” for the scientific community. It is motivated by ourlimited knowledge about the consequences of large-scale perturbations of
the Earth System by human activities
such as fossil-fuel combustion or the
fragmentation of terrestrial vegetation
cover. During the past decades marked
progress has been achieved in modellingthe separate elements of the geosphereand the biosphere, focusing on atmospheric and ocean circulation, and on land
vegetation and ice-sheet dynamics.
These developments have stimulated
preliminary attempts to put all separate
pieces together, first in form of comprehensive coupled models of atmosphericand oceanic circulation, and eventually
as so-called climate system models
which also include biological andgeochemical processes. It has been therule rather than the exception that surprising behaviour has emerged whenthese components are coupled.
Major challenges lie at the boundaries
between subsystems with regard to efforts to couple models and develop integrated Earth System models. The development of a coupled model involves relaxation of prescribed boundary conditions so that modelled subsystems caninteract directly. As such models are runover time, one measure of their success isthe stability with which they characterize the Earth System without the need for“flux corrections” to adjust for model drift
in an ad hoc manner.
In general, Earth System analysis relies on a hierarchy of simulation models.
Depending on the nature of questions
asked and the pertinent time scales, there
are, on the one extreme, zero-dimensionaltutorial or conceptual models like thosein the “Daisyworld” family. At the intermediate level, “Earth-system Models ofIntermediate Complexity” (EMICs) can
run for long model times, and capture
most of the critical interactions between
system components, but do not include
all processes within each part of the Earth
System. At the other extreme are threedimensional full-form comprehensivemodels, e.g. coupling atmospheric andoceanic circulation with explicit geography and high spatio-temporal resolution,
can be used to explore the detailed inter-actions and feedbacks between processes
that operate primarily within subsystems
such as the terrestrial ecosystem, atmosphere, ocean, etc.
Each of these types of models can be
useful and full-form models are considered to be one part of a hierarchy of simulation models. Information passes in both
directions through this hierarchy. An effect noted first in an EMIC should normally be sought in a full-form model.
Also, the candidate processes for a phenomenon noticed in a full-form model
should be included in an EMIC to test our
understanding.
It would be unrealistic at present to
expect to be able to develop full-form
models that can be used as working
simulations of the Earth System. However, for short time slices and under certain conditions, such comprehensivemodels can be practical, and only suchmodels can answer certain key questions
about the Earth System and our understanding of the key processes that drive
responses of the system to anthropogenic
perturbations. One such question is“How robust must our understanding beof the internal processes of subsystems(e.g. terrestrial ecosystems, atmosphericcirculation, marine productivity) before
coupling subsystem models reduces uncertainty inherent in the coupled systemrather than increasing it?”At the October 1998 meeting of
WCRP/WGCM (Working Group on
Coupled Modelling) in Melbourne (chair:
L. Bengtsson), a proposal from GAIM fora collaborative IGBP/GAIM – WCRP/WGCM project to investigate carbon-climate interactions was discussed and ten-tatively approved. The project would introduce terrestrial and oceanic carbon
cycle modules into coupled atmosphereocean-land climate models, in essence tointroduce CO2 as a prognostic variable inthe climate model, to investigate the coevolution of climate and CO2 given emission scenarios (rather than concentrations) of the greenhouse gas. The excitement lies in the identification and investigation of interactions in a climate spacebeyond known experience. The project isreferred to as “The Flying Leap” to emphasize the uncertainties and excitementof the endeavour.
The “Flying Leap” experiment will
focus on CO2 emissions and concentration and the response of the Earth System to CO2 forcing, given a fixed scenario
for future emissions. This experimentuses an emissions scenario that would
give an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration of 1%/yr without coupling or
feed backs.
While this may be a modest increase
relative to “business as usual” scenarios,
it provides a useful baseline for this initial development and application of a fullcomplexity model.
The protocol for the experiment was
discussed at the IGBP GAIM Task Forcemeeting in Honolulu, January 31-February 2, 2000. The goal of the experiment isto evaluate the sensitivity of the coupledcarbon-climate system to anthropogenic
perturbations. The procedure is to solve
simultaneously the coupled family ofequations for different specifications ofexternal source/sinks of CO2 and othergreenhouse gases. See Figure 1.

Where Fba and Fab are the fluxes of carbon between the terrestrial biosphere and theatmosphere and Foa and Fao are the equivalent fluxes between the ocean and theatmosphere.

Figure 1.

Coupled equations describing climate -C02 interaction.

7

I G B P

The experiments will involve a control for the pre-industrial era with no external sources/sinks of CO2, and a forward integration from the pre-industrial
to beyond AD2000 for a specified emission scenario for CO2 and the other greenhouse gases. No trace gas cycles will be
included for the other greenhouse gases.
Instead, they will be converted to CO2equivalents and added to the radiatively
active CO2 in the atmosphere. The CO2equivalents will not be interactive withthe terrestrial and oceanic carbon dynamics.
To start, CO2 release from fossil fuelcombustion would be specified as a global value (PgC/yr) as a function of time
based on a scenario that would havegiven a 1%/y increase in the absence ofclimate feedbacks on the carbon uptake.
The terrestrial and oceanic modules
would be geographically resolving, totake account of the differential ecosystem/circulation effects on the carbon exchange. The terrestrial and oceanic uptake would be summed over area to yield
annual values (PgC/yr) of their uptakes.
Carbon uptake by the biosphere andoceans would respond to the instantaneously simulated climate. In this way, carbon-climate interactions are included todetermine the rate of CO2 increase andconsequently the rate of climate warming.
The experimental protocol identifies
the principal fully coupled carbon-climate calculations as well as several offline calculations that help to isolate theimportance of the processes. If atmospheric composition feedbacks significantly modify rates of climate change inthe simulations, the mechanistic understanding will suggest regions and processes to monitor in the real world.
The experiment is in three generalphases.
1) Spin-up and stability. Here weequilibrate the various carbon
cycle components forced with
pre-industrial atmosphericGlobalChangeOpen
Science
Conference

N E W S L E T T E R

4 1

concentrations and climate
before coupling the subsystems.
The coupled system should bestable but slow drift has
characterized many other suchcoupled systems and must not
be discounted.
2) Historical period. Withprescribed emissions of CO2
and other gases, we run themodels from about 1800 until
2000. We can test theatmospheric concentration anddistribution of CO2 and its
isotopes in such models against
ice core and direct atmosphericdata.

Inez Fung

Center for Atmospheric Sciences,
University of California, Berkeley,
301 McCone Hall #4767,
Berkeley, CA 94720-4767,
USAE-mail: ifung@uclink4.berkely.edu

3) Beyond 2000. We use projected
emissions with atmosphericcomposition feedbacks turnedon or off to investigate theirmagnitude. Also we use
climates produced by the
feedback or no feedback cases
to investigate the impact of such
feedbacks on permissible
emissions for stabilization. Offline experiments will elucidate
which processes contribute to
the feedbacks. It is important tonote here that the experimentwill draw on previous
experience 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-way
gross terrestrial or oceanic flux. Smallannual carbon flux imbalances or errors,
like air-sea heat and freshwater flux errors, if sustained over a long-enoughtime, may lead to significant climatic migrations. Other likely surprises may comefrom nonlinearities in terrestrial and oceanic carbon dynamics or in the climate
system. Hence the experiments shouldPeter Rayner

CSIRO-DAR,
PMB #1,
Aspendale, Vic 3195
AUSTRALIA
E-mail: pjr@
vortex.shm.monash.edu.au
Pierre Friedlingstein

Unite mixte CEA-CNRS,
91191 Gif sur Yvette,
FRANCE
E-mail: pierre@lsce.saclay.cea.fr
Dork Sahagian

Executive Director, IGBP/GAIMClimate Change Research Center andDept. of Earth Sciences
Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans,
and Space
University of New Hampshire
Durham NH 03824
USA
Email: gaim@unh.edu

The Earth's environment and habitability are now,as never before, affected by human activities. Thisconference will present the latest scientificunderstanding of natural and human-drivenchanges on our planet. It will examine the effects
on our societies and lives, and explore what the
future may hold.

www.sciconf.igbp.kva.se
8

viewed as one exploration of thenonlinearities inherent in the Earth System.
One should treat the “Flying Leap”
as a grand challenge to our understanding of the carbon cycle as well as of carbon-climate interactions. It should be thestimulus to take the models to anotherlevel. Glimpses of realism should be
hoped for, but their absence should not
be causes for despair. Much can belearned during the process of model development, intercomparison, and refinement.

Amsterdam
Amsterdam
10-13
July, 2001
2001
10-13 July,I G B P

N E W S L E T T E R

4 1

An integrated approach to understanding Earth’s
metabolism
by Will Steffen

Ice core and other palaeo records provide
a fascinating window on the metabolismof Earth over hundreds of thousands ofyears. No record is more intriguing than
the rhythmic ‘breathing’ of the planet as
revealed in the Vostok ice core records oftemperature and CO2 and CH4 concentrations (Petit et al., 1999, and Figure 1).
The highly regular waxing and waning of Earth’s climate and atmosphericcomposition through the glacial-interglacial cycles provided the thematic context
for a recent meeting of the IGBP Carbon
Working Group. The workshop was thefirst in a series of five workshops, cosponsored by the IGBP, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm University, and the Swedish University ofAgricultural Sciences, aimed at addressing focused topics in the IGBP synthesis
project. The objective of the October 1999
meeting was to synthesis our current understanding of nutrient interactions withthe carbon cycle in terrestrial, marine andcoastal systems.

Figure 1.

Although the workshop participants
discussed and debated many aspects ofcarbon-nutrient interactions, the remarkably regular planetary metabolic pattern
embodied in the Vostok ice core record
held a particular fascination. It is a classic example of ‘control theory’. It showscyclic variations of relatively long cold
(glacial) periods interrupted by shorter
warm (interglacial) periods. The atmospheric CO2 concentration varied from180-200 ppmV during the glacial periods
to 265-280 during the interglacials. The
palaeo records show other interestingdetails in the pattern: (i) during the glacial terminations, the increase in atmospheric CO2 is in phase with southernhemisphere warming; melting of thenorthern hemisphere ice caps lags by
thousands of years; (ii) the strong coupling between temperature and atmospheric CO2 suggests that the latter is probably the primary amplifier of climatechange during glacial terminations; and(iii) the periodicity of the cycles shows a

Glacial-interglacial dynamics of the Earth system as recorded in the
Vostok ice core. Adated from Petit et al. 1999

strong correspondence to the cyclic variations in the Earth’s orbit, although theassociated changes in incoming solar energy are not enough to drive the glacialinterglacial cycling on their own.
Many hypotheses have been put forward to explain the glacial-interglacial
cycling, but most remain essentially disciplinary, usually based on one aspect of
the Earth system such as ocean-atmosphere dynamics. The aim of the IGBP
Carbon Working Group was not to develop yet another hypothesis or to provide ‘the answer’ to the glacial-interglacial puzzle, but rather to show that when
the Earth system behaves in such a highly
regular and reproducible fashion, astrongly integrated, interdisciplinary approach offers the best chance to advanceour understanding.
The explanation developed at the October workshop goes something like this:The precise nature of the upper andlower limits of atmospheric CO2 concentration are evidence of strong control
mechanisms – both terrestrial and oceanic
biological processes are critical elements of the control loop.
Biogeochemical interactions between land and ocean transfer control from one to the other on a periodic basis.
How do the control loops
work? The lower level of ca. 180
ppmV for atmospheric CO2 represents something of an ‘ecosystem/
biome compensation point’. Belowthat level systems lose almost as
much carbon through respiration
as they can take up through photosynthesis in the cold, dry CO2-depleted climate. As we see below,
this has implications for the transfer of nutrients between land andocean. The upper limit (280 ppmV)is the point at which the solubilitydriven flux of CO2 from the ocean
to the atmosphere is balanced by
the uptake of CO2 by the terrestrial
and oceanic biota.
How is control passed between
terrestrial and ocean systems?
There is strong evidence that theglacial phase (terrestrial control) is
terminated initially by an increasein solar radiation due to a change
in the Earth’s orbit (Milankovich

9I G B P

Figure 2.

4 1

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

forcing); this could trigger a reorganisation of oceanic circulation and stimulate
the hydrological cycle. The initial warming would start to accumulate greenhouse gases such as H2O, CO2 and CH4
in the atmosphere, due to, for example,
the reduced solubility of CO2 in warmer
water. Also, melting icecaps in the northern hemisphere and the northwards expansion of forests would reduce theEarth’s albedo, absorbing more incident
solar radiation and further warming theplanet, releasing even more oceanic CO2
in a positive feedback loop.
But as the climate warms and CO2
concentration increases, the increasing activity of the terrestrial biosphere accelerates the mobilisation of elements such asP, Si and Fe from the geosphere throughenhanced root activity. These elements
eventually leak from the terrestrial biosphere into rivers and to the coastal ocean.
Over thousands of years these nutrientsare entrained into the oceanic circulation
and, in areas of upwelling, stimulate oceanic net primary production and increase
the drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere. The increasing biotic uptake of CO2
in both oceans and land eventuallymatches the solubility-driven outgassingof CO2 and the system reaches a balance
10

N E W S L E T T E R

at an atmospheric concentration of CO2
of about 280 ppm.
But the invigorated activity of the terrestrial biosphere is already sowing theseeds of its own “destruction”. The interglacial balance appears to be precarious,and the vigour of terrestrial and marine
biological uptake overtakes theoutgassing from the oceans. This triggers

a set of feedbacks – initial cooling, increasing solubility of CO2, increasing sea ice
and further cooling – which drive the system towards the glaciated state. Although
the terrestrial biosphere is taking up less
CO2, it also releases P that was tied up inThis article continues on
page 16.

I G B P

N E W S L E T T E R

4 1

Highlights of GAIM’s first phase: building towards
Earth System Scienceby Dork SahagianThe ‘New GAIM’, as described in John
Schellnhuber’s article in this issue, is oriented strongly towards an integrative
systems approach to studying the global
environment. This is not a completely
novel 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 advance the study of the coupled dynamics
of the Earth System using as tools bothdata and models. The challenge to GAIM
has been to initiate activities that will leadto the rapid development and applicationof a suite of Global Prognostic
Biogeochemical Models. In GAIM’s first
several years, attention was focused on

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 ofmodel NPP estimated in a grid cell.

11

I G B P

Figure 2.

12

4 1

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

developing the conceptual and procedural tools necessary to meet this challenge. This entailed scrutiny of each of thethree main subsystems on the Earth, andthe development and refinement of terrestrial, marine, and atmospheric carbon
models in preparation for integrated

Figure 3.

N E W S L E T T E R

Earth System model development. Muchof the progress to date in modelling specific components within the global
biogeochemical subsystems sets the context for modelling activities within thevarious IGBP Core Projects. The GAIM
activity is by definition cross-cutting;Model simulation of the distribution of SF6 emissions for 1992.

therefore, the activities of GAIM intersect
fundamentally with all the IGBP Core
Projects.
During the last decade, there has beenenormous progress in the developmentof biogeochemical models for significant
components of the Earth System. Build-I G B P

ing upon process-based models for ecosystem metabolism in a variety of terrestrial systems, the scientific community
began to extend these models to global
scales. Ocean carbon cycle models weredeveloped, compared and evaluated byincorporating carbon chemistry andcrude biological concepts in ocean general circulation models; atmospheric
tracer transport models were developedand evaluated on the basis of comparison of inversion results and observed atmospheric tracer concentrations andsources; and finally, the initial steps weretaken to begin to link these component
models with atmospheric GCMs. This has
set the stage for a more comprehensive
Earth System approach to global
biogeochemical cycling and the development of prognostic models at various levels of complexity.
As part of its “Analysis” program,
GAIM devoted considerable effort in
identifying gaps in both conceptual understanding and data that would be necessary for modelling purposes. Working
toward filling those gaps, GAIM has convened a number of targeted workshops
ontopicssuch
as
Wetland
Biogeochemical Functioning (GAIM report #2), Regional Interactions between
Climate and Ecosystems (GAIM Report#3), and Sea Level and Global Hydrology (GAIM Report #8). In addition,outreach programs such as the African
GAIM Modelling Workshop (GAIM Report #1), targeted at entraining more of
the developing world into international
global change research, have added to ourpool of expertise. All of these activities
are aimed toward placing the researchcommunity in a stronger position to develop
theglobalprognostic
biogeochemical models that are the ultimate goal of GAIM.
Among the most significant results
produced by GAIM to date is a set of techniques for comparing and assessing complex model performance. Without theability to assess models developed by the
global change research community, there
will be no basis for making reliable projections regarding future system responses to anthropogenic forcing, and noway for the community to properly contribute to the IPCC process beyond broad
scenario-based projections. Whereas individual scientists or modelling groups
can and do develop numerical models of
various aspects of the Earth System, thevalue of the results of isolated models isgreatly enhanced by comparison withother models. The discrepancies in model
results between different approaches tothe same problem provide critical insights
into model shortcomings, and pave theway for model refinement and improvement.

N E W S L E T T E R

4 1

GAIM’s techniques for assessing
model performance emerged from a setof model intercomparison activities, beginning with the Net Primary Productivity (NPP) model intercomparison. Prior
to the NPP Intercomparison project, several different terrestrial ecosystem models existed nationally and internationally,
but their results were vastly different. This
was alarming, given that they were describing the same system. Through themodel intercomparison process developed by the GAIM Task Force, techniques
were devised to both compare model results in an objective manner, and to determine the sources of model result differences. This process made it possible forindividual model developers to return totheir labs and refine or correct their models on the basis of what was learned at
the intercomparison workshops. The
same type of process was applied toocean models in the Ocean Carbon-Cycle Model Intercomparison Project(OCMIP), and to the atmosphere in the
Atmospheric Tracer Transport Model
Intercomparison Project (TransCom).
GAIM’s three major sub-system level
model intercomparison projects are described below. Each of the three werehighlighted as special sessions at the lastIUGG meeting (July 23, 1999 Birmingham, UK). The tools devised throughthese activities will be applied to the interpretation and assessment of thebroader Earth System models now being
developed (e.g. EMIC, Flying Leap. Seeother articles in this NewsLetter).

Global Net Primary
Productivity: A modelintercomparison
Task Leaders: Wolfgang
Cramer, Kathy Hibbard
Global primary production of ecosystems
on land and in the oceans is a crucial component of biogeochemical model development within IGBP. As key components
in the terrestrial carbon cycle, geographically referenced net primary productivity (NPP) and gross primary productivity (GPP) and their corresponding seasonal variation are needed to enhance
understanding of both the function of living ecosystems and also their effects on
the environment. Productivity is also a
key variable for the sustainability of human use of the biosphere by, for example, agriculture and forestry. Recently, it
has become possible to investigate themagnitude and geographical distributionof these processes on a global scale by a
combination of ecosystem process modelling and monitoring by remote sensing.

Since agricultural and forestry production provide the principal food and fuelresources for the world, monitoring andmodelling of biospheric primary production are important to support global economic and political policy making.
For estimates of the global carbon balance, a large amount of uncertainty
centers on the role of terrestrial ecosystems. Geographically referenced grossprimary productivity (GPP), net primary
productivity (NPP), and heterotrophic
respiration (Rh) and their corresponding
seasonal variation are key components inthe terrestrial carbon cycle. At least two
factors govern the level of terrestrial carbon storage. First and most obvious is theanthropogenic alteration of the Earth’s
surface, such as through the conversionof forest to agriculture, which can resultin a net release of CO2 to the atmosphere.
Second, and more subtle, are the possible changes in net ecosystem production
resulting from changes in atmosphericCO2, other global biogeochemical cycles,
and/or the physical climate system. The
significant influence of the terrestrial biosphere on the global carbon balance andhence on the problem of climate change
has become more widely recognized during the past two decades, and now therole of terrestrial ecosystems is recognized
to be an important factor influencing theconcentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
One of the early results that emerged
from the first of a series of NPP modelintercomparison workshops, “Potsdam‘94”, was that a major reason for differences between outputs of the same variable between different models was thatthe input data for the same variable werefrom different sources and carried different uncertainties (this was true for both
ground-based observations such as climatic data and for remote sensing datasuch as AVHRR-derived NDVI). Consequently, many of these data were standardized for the second workshop,“Potsdam ’95.” The composite results ofthe models are illustrated in Fig 1a, inwhich the NPP values are averaged
amongst the 17 participating models.
While the results appear reasonable, it
should be stressed that there were large
differences between models (Figure. 1b).
The NPP model intercomparison has
made it clear that existing data must be
chosen and used in a standardized way
if like models are to be compared, andultimately, if complementary models areto coupled. It has also clarified data gaps
which can now be filled before models
can reliably simulate the role of terrestrial
ecosystems in the global carbon cycle.
However, it is not necessary for model
development to wait until all gaps in the
global observing systems are closed.

13

I G B P

Rather, IGBP can take the lead in coordinating existing and future data sourcesin a way that will optimize their utility
throughout the global change researchcommunity.
The NPP intercomparison activity revealed a strong need to not only compare
models to each other, but to some objective measure of performance. This measure can only come from validation datathat is difficult to obtain directly for NPP.
However, indirect information is available that bears on NPP, and this was compiled in a “Gross Primary Productivity
Data Initiative (GPPDI), which then led
to the current effort to assess model performance using data from specific key
sites from around the world in a new Ecosystem Model-Data Intercomparison(EMDI).
The objective of EMDI is to compare
model estimates of terrestrial carbon
fluxes (NPP and net ecosystem production (NEP), where available) to estimatesfrom ground-based measurements, andimprove our understanding of environmental controls of carbon allocation. The
primary questions to be addressed by thisactivity are to test simulated controls andmodel formulation on the water, carbon,
and nutrient budgets with the observed
NPP data providing the constraint for
autotrophic fluxes and the integrity of
scaled biophysical driving variables. The
experimental design consists of a multitiered approach to make maximum useof the available NPP and NEE measurements. These tiers include site modeldata comparisons, grid-cell model-datacomparisons, global model-data comparisons, and flux data. The NPP data sets
emerging from GPPDI are derived fromboth point and spatially explicit sampling
designs, thus enabling a valid comparison between point and area-based models and data. Analyses and visualizations
are being carried out within each tier toinvestigate the model controls on NPP
and their underlying formulations. Initial
results showed general agreement between models and data but with obvious
differences that indicate areas for potential 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 global carbon budget because the solubilityof CO2 in seawater provides an enormous
reservoir for sequestration (or release) of
atmospheric CO2. Thus, the goal of the14

N E W S L E T T E R

4 1

Ocean
Carbon-Cycle
Model
Intercomparison Project (OCMIP) is to
identify the principal differences between
global-scale, three-dimensional, ocean
carbon-cycle models, to accelerate theirdevelopment, and to improve their predictive capacity.
OCMIP’s primary concern has been
to focus on the abilities of models to predict ocean carbon distributions and airsea fluxes of CO2. 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 CO2 fluxes, with simulations
which were allowed to reach equilibriumwith pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 (at278 ppm), and (2) anthropogenic CO2
fluxes, with simulations forced by observed atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial time to present. In addition, to evaluate model behaviour, OCMIP-1 compared simulated vs. observed 14C distribution. A global network of 14C samples
was taken during GEOSECS in the 1970s
and more recent sections from WOCE are
now available. Natural 14C offers a powerful test of an ocean model’s deep ocean
circulation; “bomb 14C” helps constrain
the modelled circulation of surface andintermediate waters. Bomb 14C also appears to exhibit similar behaviour to anthropogenic CO2 under certain conditions. Exploiting the 14C- CO2 relationship,
when appropriate, offers one way to circumvent the difficulty of directly measuring 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 models differ regionally by a substantial
amount, particularly in the Southern
Ocean, where modelled air-sea fluxes ofanthropogenic CO2 are also largest (Fig.
2). The recently launched OCMIP-2 involves 13 models and additional
simulations. The focus remains on CO2,
but OCMIP-2 also includes emphasis on
new circulation tracers, such as CFC-11
and CFC-12, and new biogeochemical
tracers such as O2. OCMIP-2 also includes
simulations
withacommonbiogeochemical model so that participants
can better study effects due to differences
in modelled ocean circulation. OCMIP-2
also includes data specialists who are leading the JGOFS and WOCE synthesis for
CO2, 14C, and CFCs, thus strengthening
model validation efforts.
Standard simulations for CFC-11 andCFC-12 have been completed by all 13
participating OCMIP-2 model groups. The
AJAX section for CFC-11 reveals large differences between storage of that tracer in
the Southern Ocean, e.g., south of 50˚S.

Almost all other forward models struggle
to get adequate CFC-11 vertical penetration in the south. Only the models with acoupled sea-ice model do a reasonable job.
An interesting feature is the observed
bump at around 40oS which is characteristic of formation of intermediate waters.
Models with explicit mixing along surfacesof constant density (isopycnals) do a reasonable job of capturing this feature; othermodels with only horizontal and verticalmixing do a much poorer job.
Studies during the first two phases of
OCMIP have relied on ocean models run
under present climatological conditions,where circulation patterns do not evolvewith time. Beyond OCMIP-2, future work
will probably focus on the impact ofchanging climate on marine biogeochemistry as well as the feedback of changes
in marine biogeochemistry on climate. To
validate such simulations, it will be crucial to focus on how well models are able
to reproduce observed interannual variability.

Atmospheric Tracer
Transport Model
Intercomparison Project(TRANSCOM)
Task Leader: Scott Denning
The Atmospheric Tracer Transport Model
Intercomparison Project (TransCom) ispart of a larger GAIM research program
focused on the development of coupledecosystem-atmosphere models that describe the time evolution of trace gaseswith changing climate and changes inanthropogenic forcing. Much of our current understanding about the global carbon cycle has come from observing thechanges in atmospheric CO2 concentrations over time. Time series (e.g., Mauna
Loa record) provide insight into the seasonal cycle as well as global source/sink
and interannual variations. Additionally,
existing flask networks (e.g. CMDL,CSIRO, etc.) provide information about
the distribution of atmospheric CO2. For
example, a disproportionate amount offossil fuel emissions occur in the northern hemisphere, and a large terrestrial
CO2 sink is required to explain the weakobserved north-south gradient. However,an accurate quantitative interpretation of
the spatial structure requires realistic
models of trace gas transport.
Chemical tracer transport models(CTMs) are used to study atmospheric
CO2 and can be characterized by themechanisms they incorporate to transport
tracers horizontally and vertically acrossthe globe. One class of CTMs transport

I G B P

CO2 using offline analyzed winds fromweather forecast centers or Global Circulation Models (GCMs), others actuallycalculate tracer concentrations with a
GCM internal to the transport model.
There are considerable model-dependent
differences in simulating the global movement of atmospheric tracers.
The goal of TransCom is to quantify
and diagnose the uncertainty in inversion
calculations of the global carbon budgetthat result from errors in the simulatedtransport. An important source of uncertainty in these calculations is the simulated transport itself, which varies among
the many transport models used by thecommunity. TransCom investigators
have conducted a series of 3-dimensional
tracer model intercomparison experiments which are intended to (1) quantify
the degree of uncertainty in current carbon budget estimates that results fromuncertainty in model transport; (2) identify the specific sources of uncertainties
in the models; and (3) identify key areas
to focus future transport model development and improvements in the global observing system that will reduce the uncertainty in carbon budget inversion calculations.
The first phase of TransCom compared model performance for two salientfeatures of atmospheric CO2: the annual
mean north-south gradient (dominatedby fossil fuel emissions), and the seasonal
cycle (dominated by exchange with terrestrial ecosystems). Twelve modellinggroups from four continents participated;
many of the models have been used extensively in carbon cycle research. The experimental design for both the annual
and seasonal simulations consisted ofmodel runs for at least three years froman initial atmosphere with uniform CO2,
providing sufficient time for the model
atmosphere to establish an “equilibrium”(annually repeating) concentration distributions. Each set of model results werenormalized such that the January global
three-dimensional mean was zero. Results showed a surprising degree of variance among models with regard to meridional north-south gradient at the surface, and especially aloft.
To understand the performance ofthe various models with respect to theinter-hemispheric gradients of passive
tracers, TransCom needed to move beyond the simulations of unobserved(and unobservable) fossil fuel CO2 to a
tracer that is well observed and whose
atmospheric budget is not complicatedby missing sinks. This required a tracer
with well-documented concentrations
around the world, with a quantifiable
emissions field, and preferably with insignificant sinks. For TransCom Phase II,
sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), a non-reactive

N E W S L E T T E R

4 1

anthropogenic tracer which is released
primarily from electrical distribution
equipment with a spatial pattern characteristic of fossil fuel emissions, waschosen. Because the emissions and concentration field for SF6 are much better
known than for CO2, the results of this“calibration experiment” were used toevaluate the realism of the large-scaleinter-hemispheric transport characteristics of each model in a context for which
the “right answer” was known. In addition, the calibration experiment included
the calculation of transport diagnostics
designed to help elucidate the mechanisms by which the various models produced their different tracer distributions.
Results from Phase II indicated closer
model agreement than in Phase 1, partly
due to a slightly different suite of models, and perhaps partly reflecting model
improvement (Figure 3). One very significant conclusion is that the differencesamong the simulated north-south hemispheric gradients across models (which
is used to interpret the strength of themeridional CO2 sink in inverse calculations) depends very strongly on the details of the sub-grid scale vertical mixing. Again, the models could be classified into two categories: the first simulated relatively weak vertical gradientsover the northern extra tropics (SF6source region), whereas the second
group of models simulated stronger vertical gradients over the source region.
This breakdown is likely the result ofdifferent model formulations with regard to how transport by convection anddiffusion is parameterized at the subgrid
scale.
The third phase of TransCom is presently underway and involves
intercomparison of inversion calculationsof the carbon budget of the atmosphere,with the objective of quantifying the uncertainty in such calculations that arises
directly from uncertainty in the simulatedtransport. Computation of the contemporary carbon budget of the atmosphereusing the suite of calibrated and improved models will provide both morereliable estimates of the terrestrial sink
and a better set of tracer transport models for future research.

score the uncertainties and excitement ofattempting to run fully coupled Earth
System models into the future. While
GAIM will continue the carbon cycle related subsystem model intercomparisonsthat have been its hallmark to date, its
forays into the broader scope of Earth
System modelling will require a higher
level of integration of IGBP science thanever before. In response to this shift inemphasis, and by agreement of the Scientific 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 coherent
conceptualization of the Earth System.
We are approaching a threshold in ourabilities as a research community to address whole-system level problems, andthe results that emerge in the next few
years will surely contain some importantanswers to long-standing questions, andeven a few surprises regarding the functioning of the Earth System.
Dork Sahagian

Executive Director, IGBP/GAIMClimate Change Research Center andDept. of Earth Sciences
Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans,
and Space
University of New Hampshire
Durham NH 03824
USA
Email: gaim@unh.edu

GAIM in the future
The activities of the last few years havebeen directed toward laying the groundwork for the development of Earth System models of various levels of complexity. GAIM is now turning its attention to
focus on Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexity (EMICs), and fullform Coupled Earth System Models, referred to as our “Flying Leap” to under-

15

I G B P

N E W S L E T T E R

4 1

References

Erratum

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 the
Biosphere, 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 Assessment
J. 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 theEnvironmental 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.

In the previous edition of the Global
Change NewsLetter (Vol 40, December1999) on page 15 we erroneously statedthat 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 Bankand its funding does not come from theWorld 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, climatechange, degradation of international
waters, and depletion of the ozone layer.
The GEF is jointly implemented by theUnited Nations Development Program,the United Nations Environment Program,and the World Bank.

...continued from page 11.
internal cycling. This P finds its way into
the ocean and stimulates productivity
there. At several points during the longslide into glaciation, pulses of aeolian Fefrom the drying terrestrial biosphere further stimulate ocean productivity. Ice
cover begins to advance as the climate
cools and ocean circulation reorganises to
its glacial state.
As cooling and drying proceeds, terrestrial biotic activity continues to decline,
and the flux of nutrients from the land into
the ocean eventually grinds to a halt. Oceanic uptake of CO2 then starts to decline
as well, and the system eventually reaches
and bounces along its ‘floor’ at 180 ppm
CO2, effectively controlled by a quiescentterrestrial biosphere until the next cyclicchange in the Earth’s orbit jolts it back into
the 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 biota
in the control loops.
Again, the purpose of this explanation
is not to provide the ultimate explanationof glacial-interglacial cycling; that will require much further work. Rather, we want
to demonstrate the complexity of the issues we are facing and the absolute ne-

16

cessity of working across disciplines and‘compartments’ to address them. The hypothesis put forward above could nothave been developed by one discipline
within the Earth sciences working alone.
It required scientists from climatology,
oceanography, geochemistry and terrestrial and marine ecology, and it required
understanding of physical, chemical andbiological processes.
The Stockholm workshop was evidence of the trend highlighted at the Second IGBP Congress at Shonan Village, Japan, earlier this year. Building on a soundbase of compartment and process-level
understanding in the core projects, we are
now moving rapidly to build up expertise and activity in Earth System science,both in modelling and in analysis, as outlined in this article. This is truly a community effort, across all of IGBP. Both asound understanding of basic processes
AND the interactions and feedbacks
among processes and compartments are
required to even begin to understand thefunctioning of the Earth.
Finally, returning to the glacial-interglacial rhythm of the past 400,000 years,
it is fascinating to put the very recent human 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 ‘domain of attraction’ above about 280 ppmV.
Furthermore, the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 is about two orders of magnitude larger than that during the glacial terminations. The rate of increase of mean
global temperature over the past several
decades also appears to be without precedent 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 planet
and our role in it.
Extracted from: IGBP Carbon Working Group (2000) Integrated understanding of the global carbon cycle: A test of
our knowledge. Science, submitted. IGBP
Carbon 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 Synthesis
Workshop and Lecture Series is provided
by the Swedish Millenium Committee
and MISTRA, the Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research.

I G B P

N E W S L E T T E R

4 1

Will Steffen

ReferencesMann, 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.

IGBP Secretariat, The Royal Swedish
Academy of Sciences, S104 05
Stockholm,
SWEDENE-mail: will@igbp.kva.se

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

The name Holocene (“Recent Whole”)forthe post-glacial geological epoch of thepast ten to twelve thousand years seems
to have been proposed for the first timeby Sir Charles Lyell in 1833, and adopted
by the International Geological Congress
in Bologna in 1885 (1). During the
Holocene mankind’s activities gradually
grew into a significant geological, morphological force, as recognised early on
by a number of scientists. Thus, G.P.
Marsh already in 1864 published a bookwith the title “Man and Nature”, more
recently reprinted as “The Earth as Modified by Human Action” (2). Stoppani in
1873 rated mankind’s activities as a “newtelluric force which in power and universality may be compared to the greater
forces of earth” [quoted from Clark (3)].
Stoppani already spoke of theanthropozoic era. Mankind has now inhabited or visited almost all places on
Earth; he has even set foot on the moon.
The great Russian geologist
V.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 towards increasing consciousness andthought, and forms having greater andgreater influence on their surroundings”.
He, the French Jesuit P. Teilhard de
Chardin and E. Le Roy in 1924 coined theterm “noösphere”, the world of thought,
to mark the growing role played by mankind’s brainpower and technological talents in shaping its own future and environment.
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 increased tenfold to 6000 million, accom-

panied e.g. by a growth in cattle population to 1400 million (6) (about one cow
per average size family). Urbanisation
has even increased tenfold in the past
century. In a few generations mankind
is exhausting the fossil fuels that weregenerated over several hundred million
years. The release of SO2, globally about
160 Tg/year to the atmosphere by coaland oil burning, is at least two times
larger than the sum of all natural emissions, occurring mainly as marine dimethyl-sulfide from the oceans (7); from
Vitousek et al. (8) we learn that 30-50%
of the land surface has been transformedby human action; more nitrogen is now
fixed synthetically and applied as fertilizers in agriculture than fixed naturally
in all terrestrial ecosystems; the escape
into the atmosphere of NO from fossil
fuel and biomass combustion likewiseis larger than the natural inputs, giving
rise to photochemical ozone (“smog”)
formation in extensive regions of theworld; more than half of all accessible
fresh water is used by mankind; humanactivity has increased the species extinction rate by thousand to ten thousand
fold in the tropical rain forests (9) andseveral climatically important “greenhouse” gases have substantially increased in the atmosphere: CO2 by morethan 30% and CH4 by even more than
100%. Furthermore, mankind releases
many toxic substances in the environment
and
even
some,
the
chlorofluorocarbon gases, which are nottoxic at all, but which nevertheless have
led to the Antarctic “ozone hole” andwhich would have destroyed much of
the ozone layer if no international regulatory measures to end their production
had been taken. Coastal wetlands arealso affected by humans, having resulted
in the loss of 50% of the world’s man-groves. Finally, mechanized human predation (“fisheries”) removes more than
25% of the primary production of theoceans in the upwelling regions and 35%
in the temperate continental shelf regions (10). Anthropogenic effects are also
well illustrated by the history of biotic
communities that leave remains in lake
sediments. The effects documented include modification of the geochemical
cycle in large freshwater systems and occur in systems remote from primarysources (11-13).
Considering these and many othermajor and still growing impacts of human activities on earth and atmosphere,
and at all, including global, scales, it
seems to us more than appropriate toemphasize the central role of mankind
in geology and ecology by proposing to
use the term “anthropocene” for the current geological epoch. The impacts ofcurrent human activities will continue
over long periods. According to a study
by Berger and Loutre (14), because of theanthropogenic emissions of CO2, climate
may depart significantly from natural
behaviour over the next 50,000 years.
To assign a more specific date to theonset of the “anthropocene” seems
somewhat arbitrary, but we propose thelatter part of the 18th century, although
we are aware that alternative proposals
can 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 clearly
noticeable. This is the period when data
retrieved from glacial ice cores show the
beginning of a growth in the atmospheric concentrations of several “greenhouse gases”, in particular CO2 and CH4(7). Such a starting date also coincides
with James Watt´s invention of the steam17

I G B P

engine in 1784. About at that time, biotic assemblages in most lakes began toshow large changes (11-13).
Without major catastrophes like anenormous volcanic eruption, an unexpected epidemic, a large-scale nuclear
war, an asteroid impact, a new ice age, or
continued plundering of Earth’s resources by partially still primitive technology (the last four dangers can, however, be prevented in a real functioning
noösphere) mankind will remain a major geological force for many millennia,
maybe millions of years, to come. To develop a world-wide accepted strategy
leading to sustainability of ecosystems

N E W S L E T T E R

4 1

against human induced stresses will be
one of the great future tasks of mankind,requiring intensive research efforts andwise application of the knowledge thus
acquired in the noösphere, better known
as knowledge or information society. An
exciting, but also difficult and daunting
task lies ahead of the global research andengineering community to guide mankind towards global, sustainable, environmental management (15).

Paul J. Crutzen

Max-Planck-Institute for Chemistry
Division of Atmospheric Chemistry
P.O. Box 3060
D-55020 Mainz
GERMANY
Email: air@mpch-mainz.mpg.de
Eugene F. Stoermer

Center for Great Lakes and Aquatic
Sciences
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1090
USA

We thank the many colleagues, especiallythe members of the IGBP Scientific Committee, for encouraging correspondence
and advice.

Contribution to the regional data bundle concept: The
IGBP-DIS – MEDIAS-France partnershipby Wolfgang Cramer, Chair, IGBP-DIS

There is little doubt of the importance ofthe regional scale for Earth System Science and the need to study systemic features of Earth System functioning at thatscale. A variety of tools are required for
integrated regional studies, but a crucial
element in the strategy is the development and application of regional ‘data
bundles’.
The concept of regional data bundles
was first proposed at the 1998 DIS SSC
meeting in Toulouse, and has now beendeveloped further as a major activity
aimed at promoting an integrated suiteof regional studies. The implementationof the regional data bundle concept will
be undertaken, inter alia, as a partnership
between IGBP-DIS, START and MEDIASFRANCE.
Regional data bundles consist of aconsistent collection of databases, data
products, in-situ measurements as well
as remotely sensed data. Data bundles
may include models and/or model output at regional scale. Special attention is
given to the presentation of the various
data sets in order to facilitate their visualization and interpretation for research
purposes.
Considerable work on regional
databases has already been undertaken
in association with IGBP:•

18

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

bundle but is essentially a‘one-off’.
•

LBA (the Large-scale
Biosphere-Atmosphere
Experiment in Amazonia) has
its own data and information
system, well developed and agood model for other large
regional studies.

•

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

•

The IGBP Terrestrial Transects
have developed their own
data sets.

However, these initiatives are largely
independent of one another, making comparability across regions virtually impossible. What is needed now is coordination of these data activities to build up acoherent global picture from the various
regional studies. This requires much moreconsistency and coherence across thevarious data initiatives, as well as a common framework for process studies andmodelling.
MEDIAS-FRANCE is well placed tocontribute to the implementation of a coordinated approach to the regional data
bundle initiative. MEDIAS has acted as aregional coordinating secretariat for
START, acting through projects funded by
the EU’s ENRICH programme andthrough the START Fellowship/Visiting

Scientist Programme. MEDIAS also
works in close cooperation with PASS
(Pan African START Secretariat), its counterpart regional structure in Africa.
In addition, MEDIAS-FRANCE is already involved with several IGBP core
projects – PAGES, JGOFS, IGAC - to develop computer tools for the generationof new databases for IGBP research
projects. More recently, MEDIASFRANCE has been asked by IGAC todevelop an original tool to assist its Synthesis and Integration project. MEDIAS
also maintains a “mirror” site of the global PAGES database belonging to the
World
Data
Center-A
forpaleoclimatology in Boulder, USA.
Based on these existing strengths of
MEDIAS, its experience in regional data
development, and its knowledge of IGBP,
the French space agency CNES has offered to allocate resources via MEDIAS
to support a major effort over the next 23 years to produce a coherent set of regional data bundles. IGBP-DIS will provide guidance for the effort, and will rely
on input from START, GAIM and the core
projects, many of which have their own
sets of regional studies.
Wolfgang Cramer

Potsdam Inst for Climate Impact
Research (PIK),PO Box 60 12 03,
D-14412 Potsdam,
GERMANY
E-mail: wolfgang.cramer@
pik-potsdam.deI G B P

N E W S L E T T E R

4 1

People and events
Neil Swanberg Sails On…….
An era in IGBP ended recently with the resignationof 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) andunder all four Executive Directors (Thomas
Rosswall, John Marks, Chris Rapley and Will
Steffen).
For the past seven years, Neil has been amainstay and pillar of strength in the IGBP
Secretariat. He has helped to keep the officeticking over efficiently, has become a master attrouble-shooting (often anticipating problems
before they occur), dealt effectively withbureaucracies on both sides of the Atlantic, andnavigated our small Macintosh computer network
throughout the sometimes turbulent waters of aPC-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
Neil, right, farewells his colleagues João Morais and Elise Wännman
out of small ones. He has always dropped
during his last day in the Secretariat.
whatever he is doing to come to the aid of his coworkers 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, andthat 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 instrumentalrole in working with the GLOBEC community to guide the development and publication of both the scienceand implementation plans. His nous and understanding both of the science and the science politics ininternational marine science has been a major factor in the smooth transition now underway within theoceanic components of IGBP.
Perhaps Neil’s least known contribution to IGBP, but his most important, has been his broad understandingof 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 beencharacteristic 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 thespirit 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 andCarl, all the very best for their life in the US.

19

I G B P

N E W S L E T T E R

4 1

New members of the Scientific Committee of the IGBP
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 thatthe theoretical physics approach may have there. Having accomplishedseveral 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 chemistryfrom 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 of
210
Pb method to date lake sediments, which has found extensive
applications to chronologically decipher historical records of natural andanthropogenic events stored in them.
Krishnaswami
isageochemist, focusing on theapplications of environmental
isotopes,
stableandradioactive, to study earth
surface processes. Hisinterests include soluteparticle interactions and particle dynamics in the ocean,sedimentation and authigenic mineral formation in the lakes anddeep 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.

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: sec@igbp.kva.se)

Currently, Krishnawami is a professor at the Physical ResearchLaboratory, 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.

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
E-mail: sec@igbp.kva.se
http://www.igbp.kva.se

ISSN 0284-5865
20

The IGBP Report Series is published inannex to the Global Change Newsletter