Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

George Hurtt

Publications and source records attributed to George Hurtt.

7 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2022

Scientist-Stakeholder Relationships Drive Carbon Data Product Transfer Effectiveness within NASA Program

Carbon cycle science is at the heart of research on global climate change and its long-term impacts, as it examines the exchange of carbon between the atmosphere, oceans, land, and the impact of fossil fuel emissions on this cycling. Given the urgency of the climate challenge, NASA’s Carbon Monitoring System (CMS) requires all funded investigators to identify and work with stakeholder organizations at project inception to accelerate the transfer of the products developed by funded research into decision making systems. In this study, we contribute to the literature through the implementation of a quantitative analysis of 908 unique survey responses from funded investigators to explore the maturity of the scientist-stakeholder engagement. The paper employs multiple correspondence analysis to provide evidence to support policy options to increase stakeholder integration into research programs. Despite limitations of the dataset used, we demonstrated that multiple funding rounds, long-standing relationships between the stakeholder and scientist, and the scientific productivity of the PI, including the ability to produce datasets and research papers on these datasets, all contribute to carbon products moving from research to operational use. The maturity of relationships between scientists and stakeholders was shown to result improved stakeholder engagement. The use of carbon products should be identified in every stage of the program, and that capacity building is needed to support both existing and newly identified stakeholders better understand and use CMS products. As Federal, State, and local policy on climate adaptation and mitigation matures, the need for information on carbon will expand. Building of stakeholder-scientist relationships in CMS results in an effective generation and use of datasets to support this need and prototype ways that improved information needed for decision making can be created.

Monitoring↗
NASA NTRS2022

Scientist-Stakeholder Relationships Drive Carbon Data Product Transfer Effectiveness within NASA Program

Carbon cycle science is at the heart of research on global climate change and its long-term impacts, as it examines the exchange of carbon between the atmosphere, oceans, land, and the impact of fossil fuel emissions on this cycling. Given the urgency of the climate challenge, NASA's Carbon Monitoring System (CMS) requires all funded investigators to identify and work with stakeholder organizations at project inception to accelerate the transfer of the products developed by funded research into decision making systems. In this study, we contribute to the literature through the implementation of a quantitative analysis of 908 unique survey responses from funded investigators to explore the maturity of the scientist-stakeholder engagement. The paper employs multiple correspondence analysis to provide evidence to support policy options to increase stakeholder integration into research programs. Despite limitations of the dataset used, we demonstrated that multiple funding rounds, long-standing relationships between the stakeholder and scientist, and the scientific productivity of the Principal Investigator, including the ability to produce datasets and research papers on these datasets, all contribute to carbon products moving from research to operational use. The maturity of relationships between scientists and stakeholders was shown to result improved stakeholder engagement. The use of carbon products should be identified in every stage of the program, and that capacity building is needed to support both existing and newly identified stakeholders better understand and use CMS products. As federal, state, and local policy on climate adaptation and mitigation matures, the need for information on carbon will expand. Building of stakeholder-scientist relationships in CMS results in an effective generation and use of datasets to support this need and prototype ways that improved information needed for decision making can be created.

Molly E Brown↗
NASA NTRS2022

GEDI Launches a New Era of Biomass Inference from Space

Accurate estimation of aboveground forest biomass stocks is required to assess the impacts of land use changes such as deforestation and subsequent regrowth on concentrations of atmospheric CO 2 . The Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI) is a lidar mission launched by NASA to the International Space Station in 2018. GEDI was specifically designed to retrieve vegetation structure within a novel, theoretical sampling design that explicitly quantifies biomass and its uncertainty across a variety of spatial scales. In this paper we provide the estimates of pan-tropical and temperate biomass derived from two years of GEDI observations. We present estimates of mean biomass densities at 1 km resolution, as well as estimates aggregated to the national level for every country GEDI observes, and at the sub-national level for the United States. For all estimates we provide the standard error of the mean biomass. These data serve as a baseline for current biomass stocks and their future changes, and the mission’s integrated use of formal statistical inference points the way towards the possibility of a new generation of powerful monitoring tools from space.

Ralph Dubayah↗
NASA NTRS2021

Climate model projections from the Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) of CMIP6

The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) defines and coordinates the main set of future climate projections, based on concentration-driven simulations, within the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6). This paper presents a range of its outcomes by synthesizing results from the participating global coupled Earth system models. We limit our scope to the analysis of strictly geophysical outcomes: mainly global averages and spatial patterns of change for surface air temperature and precipitation. We also compare CMIP6 projections to CMIP5 results, especially for those scenarios that were designed to provide continuity across the CMIP phases, at the same time highlighting important differences in forcing composition, as well as in results. The range of future temperature and precipitation changes by the end of the century (2081–2100) encompassing the Tier 1 experiments based on the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) scenarios (SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5) and SSP1-1.9 spans a larger range of outcomes compared to CMIP5, due to higher warming (by close to 1.5 °C) reached at the upper end of the 5 %–95 % envelope of the highest scenario (SSP5-8.5). This is due to both the wider range of radiative forcing that the new scenarios cover and the higher climate sensitivities in some of the new models compared to their CMIP5 predecessors. Spatial patterns of change for temperature and precipitation averaged over models and scenarios have familiar features, and an analysis of their variations confirms model structural differences to be the dominant source of uncertainty. Models also differ with respect to the size and evolution of internal variability as measured by individual models' initial condition ensemble spreads, according to a set of initial condition ensemble simulations available under SSP3-7.0. These experiments suggest a tendency for internal variability to decrease along the course of the century in this scenario, a result that will benefit from further analysis over a larger set of models. Benefits of mitigation, all else being equal in terms of societal drivers, appear clearly when comparing scenarios developed under the same SSP but to which different degrees of mitigation have been applied. It is also found that a mild overshoot in temperature of a few decades around mid-century, as represented in SSP5-3.4OS, does not affect the end outcome of temperature and precipitation changes by 2100, which return to the same levels as those reached by the gradually increasing SSP4-3.4 (not erasing the possibility, however, that other aspects of the system may not be as easily reversible). Central estimates of the time at which the ensemble means of the different scenarios reach a given warming level might be biased by the inclusion of models that have shown faster warming in the historical period than the observed. Those estimates show all scenarios reaching 1.5 °C of warming compared to the 1850–1900 baseline in the second half of the current decade, with the time span between slow and fast warming covering between 20 and 27 years from present. The warming level of 2 °C of warming is reached as early as 2039 by the ensemble mean under SSP5-8.5 but as late as the mid-2060s under SSP1-2.6. The highest warming level considered (5 °C) is reached by the ensemble mean only under SSP5-8.5 and not until the mid-2090s.d-2090s.

Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMI↗
NASA NTRS2019

Global Carbon Budget 2019

Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere – the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (E(FF)) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land use change (E(LUC)), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its growth rate (G(ATM)) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (S(OCEAN)) and terrestrial CO2 sink (S(LAND)) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (B(IM)), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade available (2009–2018), E(FF) was 9.5±0.5 GtC/yr, E(LUC) 1.5±0.7 GtC/yr, G(ATM) 4.9±0.02 GtC/yr (2.3±0.01 ppm/yr), S(OCEAN) 2.5±0.6 GtC/yr, and S(LAND) 3.2±0.6 GtC/yr, with a budget imbalance B(IM) of 0.4 GtC/yr indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2018 alone, the growth in E(FF) was about 2.1 % and fossil emissions increased to 10.0±0.5 GtC/yr, reaching 10 GtC/yr for the first time in history, E(LUC) was 1.5±0.7 GtC/yr, for total anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 11.5±0.9 GtC/yr (42.5±3.3 GtCO2). Also for 2018, G(ATM) was 5.1±0.2 GtC/yr (2.4±0.1 ppm/yr), S(OCEAN) was 2.6±0.6 GtC/yr, and S(LAND) was 3.5±0.7 GtC/yr, with a B(IM) of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 407.38±0.1 ppm averaged over 2018. For 2019, preliminary data for the first 6–10 months indicate a reduced growth in E(FF) of +0.6 % (range of −0.2 % to 1.5 %) based on national emissions projections for China, the USA, the EU, and India and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. Overall, the mean and trend in the five components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2018, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC/yr persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. A detailed comparison among individual estimates and the introduction of a broad range of observations shows (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land use change emissions over the last decade, (2) a persistent low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent underestimation of the CO2 variability by ocean models outside the tropics. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quéré et al., 2018a, b, 2016, 2015a, b, 2014, 2013).

global carbon budget 2019↗