Upload
shani
View
34
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
What’s going on in NA carbon cycle and climate change world… Syntheses Ongoing Assessments New Experiments/Assessments Proposals. Syntheses. North American Carbon Program Interim Synthesis. Site Leads : Peter Thornton, Kevin Schaefer, Dan Ricciuto, Ken Davis, and Bob Cook - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
• What’s going on in NA carbon cycle and climate change world…– Syntheses– Ongoing Assessments– New Experiments/Assessments– Proposals
Syntheses
North American Carbon ProgramInterim Synthesis
Site Leads: Peter Thornton, Kevin Schaefer, Dan Ricciuto, Ken Davis, and Bob Cook
Regional Leads: Mac Post, Debbie Huntzinger, Andy Jacobson, Yaxing Wei, Dan Hayes, and Bob Cook
MCI Leads: Stephen Ogle, Ken Davis, Scott Denning, and Andrew Schuh
Non-CO2 GHG: Steve Wofsy, Janusz Eluszkiewicz and Arlyn Andrews
3
• What are the magnitudes and spatial distribution of carbon sources and sinks, and their uncertainties?
• What is the spatial pattern and magnitude of interannual variation in carbon fluxes?
• What are the components of carbon fluxes and pools that contribute to this variation?
• Are the various observations and modeling estimates of carbon fluxes consistent with each other - and if not, why?
Interim Synthesis Framework
4
5
Information at multiple scales
site
continent
region
Spatial Scale
Observations Models
Flu
x to
wer
s
For
est,
Cro
p, a
nd S
oil
Inve
ntor
ies
Rem
ote
Sen
sing
P
rodu
ctiv
ity a
nd P
heno
logy
For
war
d M
odel
s (e
xist
ing
runs
)
Atm
osph
eric
Inve
rsio
ns
(exi
stin
g &
new
run
s)
For
wa
rd M
odel
s(w
ith t
ow
er
dri
vers
)
Regional Synthesis19 forward models, 22 Inverse Models, 7 papers
Regional Synthesis19 forward models, 22 Inverse Models, 7 papers
Site Synthesis47 towers, 22 forward models, 15 papers
Site Interim Synthesis: Selected Results
Schwalm et al:• 44 towers• 220 site-years• 10 biomes• 2 droughts• 22 models
Schwalm et al.•Model performance / skill highly variable•Data assimilation improves skill (LoTec)•Ensemble mean is next•Models that performed best (red box): Prescribed phenology, sub-daily time step, and NEE = GPP - R
Tay
lor
Ski
ll
Chi-Squared
6
Uncertainty in Flux Tower Measurements(Barr et al.)
• Compiled total uncertainty (random uncertainty and turbulence threshold uncertainty (u-star)) for annual NEE, Respiration, and GPP
7
Top: Results for all models that were run at these sites
Bottom: Results for all sites run by these models
Difference between model and observation is largest at annual time scale indicating problems with seasonal cycle
Dietze et al. Power Spectra Analysis
8
Fraction of NEE Error by Time Scale
MCI Inversion-Inventory Study
Research Interests
•Creation of a database with comprehensive C flux estimates based on C inventory stock changes (2007-2008).
•Inversion to Inventory comparisons across many inventories and inversions (2007, 2008 to come)
•Inversion sensitivity to prior flux assumptions and transport modeling
9
Example: Comparison of Inventory to Carbon Tracker 2009
• Inventory and Inversion comparisons are underway
• Spatial results are a function of prior inversion but are relatively consistent at large scales• i.e., entire region
• Differences exist at finer scales, e.g. NW-SE gradient from ND to IL
• Currently making similar comparisons w/ finer scale inversions.
10
Regional Synthesis: Participating Models
• 19 Terrestrial Biosphere Models – Models differ in:
• Prognostic versus diagnostic• Driver data• Vegetation and soil properties• Photosynthetic formulation• # of carbon pools, soil carbon decomp. dynamics• Processes included, etc.
• 27 Inverse Models– 22 models with TRANSCOM results– 8 models with post-TRANSCOM results resolved
to 1x1 degree
11
Terrestrial Biosphere Model Flux for North America
Across model mean net flux - 2000 - 2005
NCE = -0.66 PgC/yr (-1.8 to +0.25 PgC/yr)
NPP = 9.2 PgC/yr (6.2 to 13.8 Pg C/yr)
GPP = 18.4 PgC/yr (9.9 to 31.7 Pg C/yr)
Rh = 8.6 PgC/yr (5.8 to 13.1 Pg C/yr)
12
Regional Interim Synthesis: Seasonality
Evergreen & Needleleaf Evergreen & Needleleaf
Crops Crops
Mixed & Decid. Mixed & Decid
Gross primary productivity (2000-2005)
Seasonal patterns of model GPP:GPP (EK) > GPP (LUE)
When totaled over the growing season and annually, most models in this study estimate 1.2 to 2 times the GPP predicted by the MODIS product.
13
Comparing Terrestrial Biosphere Models: Region and Site (Raczka et al.)
• Regional model runs are more positively biased for GPP• Site model runs closer to observations.
14
15
Hourly Methane Data from Fraserdale, Ontario: 2004, 49.88 N 81.57W 210m
Example footprint showing influence of US industrial areas; EDGAR 3.2
9/6
18
30
1
93
0
20
30
9/2 9/4 9/6 9/8 9/10 9/12 9/14
On the horizon …
• Many analyses in process, many manuscripts in preparation
• Fall AGU Meeting on Carbon Cycle:– Site, Regional, and MCI presentations
• Final MCI synthesis workshop in mid-January• Anticipate presentations/posters at NACP
investigators meeting in February• Planning for next series of Workshops /
activities
16
The North American Carbon Program (NACP) Multi-Scale Synthesis and Terrestrial
Model Intercomparison (MsTMIP) Project D. N. Huntzinger (Science PI), Anna Michalak (PI), Kevin Schaefer (Co-I), Andy Jacobson (Co-I), Mac Post (Co-I), Bob Cook (Co-I), Yaxing Wei
Collaborators: Forrest Hoffman, Peter Thornton, Rama Nemani
Sponsors: NASA Terrestrial Ecology Program and NOAA
Overview• Common input driver data sets, spin-up procedures, and
output parameter format • Differences in model results arise from models and their
implementation not from differences in their input.• Range of spatial scales (global, regional, site)• Rigorous model evaluation framework based on C-LAMP• Mini-grants for modeling teams selected to participate
17
Summary of prognostic syntheses
• CMIP5 – climate model intercomparison in support of IPCC AR5– Important dates
• 31 July 2012 – papers must be submitted for publication to be eligible for assessment by WG1
• 15 March 2013 – papers cited by WG1 must be published or accepted.
– Modeling groups have completed some simulations, many others still underway or queued.
– CMIP5 workshops in Oct 2011 and early 2012
Prognostic syntheses, cont’d
• C-LAMP (Carbon Land Model Intercomparison Project) contributions to AR5– New DOE BER project (Thornton PI,
Randerson and Hoffman among several Co-Is) supporting development of new metrics and application to CMIP5 results
– Quantify multiple land carbon models against multiple independent metrics
– International Land Model Benchmarking (ILAMP) workshop being planned for 2011.
Prognostic syntheses, cont’d
• Regional syntheses (Cook’s presentation)• Site-level model-data intercomparisons
– NACP site synthesis: 20+ models, 30+ sites, carbon, water, energy fluxes, and multiple ancillary ecological and biological observations
– FACE model-data intercomparison: ~15 models, 2 sites, many ecological and biological observations
– Integrated Network for Terrestrial Ecosystem Research on Feedbacks to the Atmosphere and. ClimatE (INTERFACE). NSF RCN, PI Jeff Dukes: experimentalists and ESMers
Prognostic syntheses, cont’d
• RECCAP (Davis presentation)• TRENDY – Global-scale model
intercomparison.– Historical offline simulations with land surface
components of ESMs– Consistent forcing (CRU-NCEP)– 0.5° grid– Results have been submitted, analysis
underway
• A priori simulations at large-scale manipulation sites (SPRUCE, more to come)
Assessments
www.globalcarbonproject.org/RECCAP
• To establish the mean carbon balance of large regions of the globe at the scale of continents and large ocean basins, including their component fluxes.
• To do it by comparing and reconciling multiple bottom-up estimates with the results of regional top-down atmospheric inversions, with attribution to main flux components.
• To evaluate the regional ‘hot-spots’ of interannual variability and possibly the trends and underlying processes over the past two (or more) decades by combining available long-term observations and modeling.
Scope
• Establishing a large global coordination effort.
How we expect to achieve it
• Developing of a “soft protocol” to guide and ensure consistency among regional syntheses (so they can be compared and add up at the end).
• Relying secondarily on:– the establishment of new synthesis teams in regions where there
is not an established carbon program.
• Relying primarily on:– existing analyses, – ongoing analyses from regional and national programs (eg, North
American Carbon Plan, CarboEurope, Australian NCAS),– global modeling and assessment efforts (eg, GCP Carbon
Budget, GCP-TRENDY, TRANSCOM, SOCAT).
Regional fluxesAtmospheric CO2
Inversion ModelsTransCom
(Low resolution)
+ Global Obs. Network
Regional fluxesAtmospheric CO2
Inversion ModelsTransCom
(Low resolution)
+ Global Obs. Network
Regional application
Atmospheric CO2 Inversions Model
(High resolution)
+ Regional ghg obs.
Regional application
Atmospheric CO2 Inversions Model
(High resolution)
+ Regional ghg obs.
Regional specific
observations (fluxes, pCO2,
remote sensing, forest inv., others)
Regional specific
observations (fluxes, pCO2,
remote sensing, forest inv., others)
Regional specificModels
(continental, ocean basin, biome,
land use change, others)
Regional specificModels
(continental, ocean basin, biome,
land use change, others)
Regional cuts from global land & ocean models
(Low resolution)
Regional cuts from global land & ocean models
(Low resolution)
Regional cutsfrom global
data products
Regional cutsfrom global
data products
+ + +
Regional Carbon Balance
+
Global Products Regional-Specific ProductsTier 1 Tier 2
Components of Regional Synthesis
Tier 1 model outputs are coordinated by RECCAP
Global Model Outputs for Regional Syntheses
Product Specifications Coordinator
Atmospheric CO2 inversions
TransCom (12 models), 1° x 1° grid, regional integrated fluxes according to RECCAP mask. To 2008
Kevin Gurney, Rachel Law, Philippe Peylin
Ocean forward biogeochemical models
Five global models at 1° x 1° for all major flux components. To 1958-2009
Corinne Le Quere
Ocean inversion 1 model. Niki Grubber
Terrestrial biogeochemical models and NEP-flux model
Five Dynamic Global Vegetation Models, gridded output for all major flux components. To 2009.GPP and NEP from eddy flux data-driven model
Stephen Sitch, Pierre Friedlingstein, Markus Reichstein
Fire emissions 0.5° x 0.5°, monthly, burned area and fire emissions (C,CO2,CO,CH4,NOx, N2O, BC
others) 1997-2009.
Guido van Werf
RECCAP period
Variable but centered around:
• Budget period: 1990-2007/9• Trend analyses: 1958-2007/9• 1983-2007/9 (ocean trends observations)
Products
• Scoping paper for EOS or “News” in Science: 'An international endeavour to tackle regional carbon fluxes'
• Special Journal Issue/s (online eg, Biogeosciences, IF=3-4) with all regional and global syntheses.
• 2-4 high-level syntheses papers reporting key results (eg, Special feature in Nature-Geosciences, or Nature-Climate Change).
• Summary for Policy Makers.
• Distributed Data Repository (to be updated in the future) of C fluxes from regional and global estimates available for further research and publications.
Timetable
Draft & Scope
Last Consultation at ICDC8, Jena
Sept.2009
Aug.2007
Invitation to Lead-authors
Dec.2009
April 2008 Sept. 2009
Community and Programs’ consultation
RECCAP Session AGU Fall Meeting
Dec.2010
First Draft Mss. submitted
April2011
Nov.2011
Syntheses of Syntheses submitted
Pro
gres
s
May.2011
2nd All-Lead Authors Meeting
1st All-Lead Authors Meeting
May-Oct.2010
Global Products Available
USGS National Assessment of Biological Carbon Sequestration Capacities and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes (the LandCarbon Project) – an Update for NACP SSG
(October 13, 2010)
Objective: a periodic update and check with NACP SSG- Legislative requirements, DOI and USGS responses
- Major questions the assessment is designed to answer
- Technical plan (methodology) for the assessment
- Issues and opportunities
Major questions to be addressed …Major questions to be addressed …
What may be the current and future trend of ecosystem carbon sequestration capacity and GHG flux, considering their controlling processes?
Will the future trend be different if we manage ecosystems differently (i.e. evaluating mitigation actions)?
How are the GHG fluxes/C sequestration distributed over space and time?
What are the effects and effectiveness of various controlling processes such as climate change, land use change, wildland fire, or land management activities?
Timeline and Milestones
Public Review Draft: A Method for Assessing Carbon Stocks, Carbon Sequestration, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Ecosystems of the United States Under Present Conditions and Future Scenarios. Z. Zhu (ed.), U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report
Summer 2009-summer 2010
Development of assessment methodology
July - September, 2010
Methodology and project plan open for public comments
October, 2010 Begin the national assessment – will take 3-4 years to complete
Current technical plan
Carbon and GHG measuresEcosystems
Forest Cropland Shrub/grassland Wetland AquaticCarbon stocksNECBC fluxN2O fluxCH4 fluxLateral C flux (DOC, DIC, POC)GWP
An example table reporting assessment results
Results summarized by pools, scenarios and time dimension
Baseline Projections
Scale IssuesScale Issues
Scenarios, validation, uncertainty analysis are conducted at the scale of EPA ecoregion level II; assessment reported for the ecoregions
Terrestrial methods use a common 250-m pixel size to produce a series of GIS maps
Aquatic methods are run by major watersheds for rivers, lakes/reservoirs, and estuaries
Resulting GIS maps and datasets will likely be distributed – users will need to determine how they will use the data
Current LimitationsCurrent Limitations
Given the current resource and time constraints, the assessment has the following major limitations
The assessment does not contain additional research or data collection components (will rely on existing data and R&D efforts)
Is not “bottom-up”, does not consider land use trade-offs or economic driving forces to arrive at an equilibrium solution
Provides a range of scenarios and effects supporting policies, but does not estimate economic values or management costs
Additionality, leakage, and avoided loss are addressed at a regional scale via scenarios
Life-cycle emissions will have high uncertainties and will rely on existing tools (e.g. Forest Service algorithms)
Project-level restoration activities not included
New Assessments/Projects
http://cce.nasa.gov/terrestrial_ecology/scoping.html
http://cce.nasa.gov/cce/cms/index.html
http://cce.nasa.gov/cce/cms/index.html
The National Climate AssessmentOctober 13, 2010
Kathy JacobsAssistant Director for Climate Assessments and Adaptation, OSTP
Office of Science & Technology PolicyExecutive Office of the President
Climate Change: National Policy, Reserve InitiativesAnd How the Two May Meet
Interagency Adaptation Task ForceChaired by CEQ, OSTP, NOAAReport due to President that provides
recommendations towards a National StrategyFocused on the role of the federal government23 AgenciesMainstream adaptation planning within agenciesFacilitate the science – policy interfaceCross-cutting issues: water, public health, insurance,
communitiesSupport international adaptation effortsAlign the efforts of federal agencies, eg climate
services, assessment, adaptation effortsNext steps: expanding partnerships beyond the
federal government
• Mandated by Congress in the Global Change Research Act of 1990• Goals:
-To improve understanding of uncertainties in climate science
-To expand the global observing systems
-To develop science-based resources to support policymaking
and resource management
-To communicate findings among scientific and stakeholder communities
U.S. Global Change Research Program
Climate Change Mitigation
(mitigation & response)
Climate Change Science
(understanding & forecasting)
Climate Change Adaptation
(assessment & response)
Office of Science & Technology Policy Executive Office of the President
The National Climate Assessment
Section 106 GCRA: Scientific AssessmentOn a periodic basis (not less frequently than every 4 years), the Council, through the Committee, shall prepare and submit to the President and the Congress an assessment which –
• integrates, evaluates, and interprets the findings of the Program and discusses the scientific uncertainties associated with such findings;
• analyzes the effects of global change on the natural environment, agriculture, energy production and use, land and water resources, transportation, human health and welfare, human social systems, and biological diversity; and
• analyzes current trends in global change, both human- induced and natural, and projects major trends for the subsequent 25 to 100 years.
Tony JanetosTony Janetos
The First National Assessment Completed in 2000
The New National Climate Assessment
• Sustainable process with multiple products over time (not just every four years)• New topics, cross-sectoral studies• Consistent national indicators to measure changes• Permanent central coordination office• Regional and sectoral networks to engage stakeholders as partners; building assessment capacity• Recognizes international context• Education and communications focus• Web-based data and tools• Process workshops to establish methodologies
Proposals
• USFA NIFA (4 institutes on climate, bioenergy, environment)– 2012 = Mixed hardwood
• NSF Earth System Modeling• NOAA – in review (48 submitted, $9M/$3m avail)• NOAA NCS FY2012• DOE TES 2012, Manipulative experiment• NASA FY11 Climate Initiative (satellite)• NSF Marcosystems Ecology (April)