Skip to content
See the World Through ScienceA project of ALLATRA
Source: Peer-reviewedCommunications Earth & Environment1 source

What Climate Models Miss About the Land Makes the Carbon Budget Look Bigger

Environment

Republish this story

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons BY-NC 4.0. You may republish this piece for free — with credit to ALLATRA Media and a link to the original, unedited beyond length trims, and not for commercial use.

Read the full license

Widely spaced spruce trees and low shrubs in autumn color spread across a northern boreal landscape under a cloudy sky.
Fire and nitrogen-limited plant growth help set how much carbon land like this holds, and both sit among the processes many of the tested models leave out (illustrative)."Sparse Boreal Forest" by MikoFox, via flickr, BY-NC-SA

A Met Office and University of Exeter team has estimated what 11 of the climate models behind global carbon budgets would do if they included six land carbon processes those models leave out. In the emulation, published Oct. 24, 2026, in Communications Earth & Environment, each unit of emitted CO2 produces 21.4% more warming in those models, on average, which the authors say implies a carbon budget 16.0% ± 0.8% smaller for the step from 1.5 °C to 2 °C.

The recalculated quantity is the Transient Climate Response to cumulative Emissions, or TCRE: the near-linear link between total CO2 emitted and global average temperature. The paper calls TCRE the cornerstone of estimates of how much carbon can still be emitted before a warming target is passed, and notes that some of the Earth system models it comes from leave out processes known to have a large effect on it.

The team ran several configurations of UKESM, a full-complexity Earth system model that already carries the six processes, and used those runs to estimate what each of those models, all of them from the sixth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, would have given with the processes added. Among the six, the authors name the limit nitrogen supply places on photosynthesis and the two-way interaction between fire and vegetation. No model was rebuilt and nothing was newly measured, so the smaller budget is what the emulation implies rather than a revision drawn from observations.

Spencer K. Liddicoat of the Met Office and the University of Exeter is the paper's first author and Andy Wiltshire of the same two institutions its last, with colleagues at the University of Bristol and the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. The journal accepted the work Sept. 19, 2026, and released this accepted version early with a permanent DOI, open access under a CC BY 4.0 license, with a transparent peer review file alongside.

The work was funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 program, the Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme and the UK Natural Environment Research Council.

Sources

Spot an error?

Spot an error?

Report an error

Spotted a mistake on this page? Tell us what's wrong and our editors will take a look.

What kind of problem?

Only if you'd like us to be able to follow up. We won't use it for anything else.

We correct mistakes openly. Select any text to flag it. Fixes are logged under our Corrections Policy.

Report an error

Reporting on

What Climate Models Miss About the Land Makes the Carbon Budget Look Bigger

What kind of problem?

Only if you'd like us to be able to follow up. We won't use it for anything else.

We read every report. Corrections are logged publicly.