• 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)