Engineering topics

Lienert, Sebastian

Publications and source records attributed to Lienert, Sebastian.

10 records

DOE OSTI2024

The Modeled Seasonal Cycles of Surface N 2 O Fluxes and Atmospheric N 2 O

Nitrous oxide (N 2 O) is a greenhouse gas and stratospheric ozone-depleting substance with large and growing anthropogenic emissions. Previous studies identified the influx of N 2 O-depleted air from the stratosphere to partly cause the seasonality in tropospheric N 2 O (aN 2 O), but other contributions remain unclear. Here, we combine surface fluxes from eight land and four ocean models from phase 2 of the Nitrogen/N 2 O Model Intercomparison Project with tropospheric transport modeling to simulate aN 2 O at eight remote air sampling sites for modern and pre-industrial periods. Models show general agreement on the seasonal phasing of zonal-average N 2 O fluxes for most sites, but seasonal peak-to-peak amplitudes differ several-fold across models. The modeled seasonal amplitude of surface aN 2 O ranges from 0.25 to 0.80 ppb (interquartile ranges 21%–52% of median) for land, 0.14–0.25 ppb (17%–68%) for ocean, and 0.28–0.77 ppb (23%–52%) for combined flux contributions. The observed seasonal amplitude ranges from 0.34 to 1.08 ppb for these sites. The stratospheric contributions to aN 2 O, inferred by the difference between the surface-troposphere model and observations, show 16%–126% larger amplitudes and minima delayed by ~1 month compared to Northern Hemisphere site observations. Land fluxes and their seasonal amplitude have increased since the pre-industrial era and are projected to grow further under anthropogenic activities. Our results demonstrate the increasing importance of land fluxes for aN 2 O seasonality. Considering the large model spread, in situ aN 2 O observations and atmospheric transport-chemistry models will provide opportunities for constraining terrestrial and oceanic biosphere models, critical for projecting carbon-nitrogen cycles under ongoing global warming.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2024

Global Carbon Budget 1800-2018 Loss of Additional Sink Capacity and Present Transient Difference

A dataset of two global carbon fluxes: the loss of additional sink capacity (LASC) and present versus transient difference (PTD). The loss of additional sink capacity is the loss of indirect anthropogenic sink capacity in land ecosystems caused by the loss of ecosystems that can increase carbon in response to changing environments, primarily forests. The present transient difference refers to the direct anthropogenic flux in land ecosystems (from land cover and land use change) and the difference in that flux when calculated assuming "present day" (actually more like 1980) ecosystem carbon stocks or when calculated assuming transient carbon stocks (i.e. caused by environmental change). In this dataset, the LASC and PTD fluxes were calculated using the TRENDY ensemble of Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs; Sitch et al., 2024) following the methods described therein and in Obermeier et al. (2021). For further details see Obermeier et al. (2021), Friedlingstein et al. (2019), Sitch et al. (2024), and Walker et al. (2025). The dataset includes ensemble means and standard deviations for annual fluxes, fluxes cumulated annually over the whole time period, and cumulated since 1959. These data were originally collected to compare different approaches (DGVMs versus bookkeeping models) for estimating land use and land cover change (LULCC) emissions (Obermeier et al. 2021). More recently, and similarly, these data were used to harmonize the estimates of the direct and indirect anthropogenic fluxes in the global carbon cycle and to recalculate the global carbon budget (Walker et al., 2025).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

A Process‐Model Perspective on Recent Changes in the Carbon Cycle of North America

Continental North America has been found to be a carbon (C) sink over recent decades by multiple studies employing a variety of estimation approaches. However, several key questions and uncertainties remain with these assessments. Here we used results from an ensemble of 19 state-of-the-art dynamic global vegetation models from the TRENDYv9 project to improve these estimates and study the drivers of its interannual variability. Our results show that North America has been a C sink with a magnitude of 0.37 ± 0.38 (mean and one standard deviation) PgC year —1 for the period 2000–2019 (0.31 and 0.44 PgC year —1 in each decade); split into 0.18 ± 0.12 PgC year —1 in Canada (0.15 and 0.20), 0.16 ± 0.17 in the United States (0.14 and 0.17), 0.02 ± 0.05 PgC year —1 in Mexico (0.02 and 0.02) and 0.01 ± 0.02 in Central America and the Caribbean (0.01 and 0.01). About 57% of the new C assimilated by terrestrial ecosystems is allocated into vegetation, 30% into soils, and 13% into litter. Losses of C due to fire account for 41% of the interannual variability of the mean net biome productivity for all North America in the model ensemble. Finally, we show that drought years (e.g., 2002) have the potential to shift the region to a small net C source in the simulations (—0.02 ± 0.46 PgC year —1 ). Our results highlight the importance of identifying the major drivers of the interannual variability of the continental-scale land C cycle along with the spatial distribution of local sink-source dynamics.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Process-oriented analysis of dominant sources of uncertainty in the land carbon sink

The observed global net land carbon sink is captured by current land models. All models agree that atmospheric CO 2 and nitrogen deposition driven gains in carbon stocks are partially offset by climate and land-use and land-cover change (LULCC) losses. However, there is a lack of consensus in the partitioning of the sink between vegetation and soil, where models do not even agree on the direction of change in carbon stocks over the past 60 years. This uncertainty is driven by plant productivity, allocation, and turnover response to atmospheric CO 2 (and to a smaller extent to LULCC), and the response of soil to LULCC (and to a lesser extent climate). Overall, differences in turnover explain ~70% of model spread in both vegetation and soil carbon changes. Further analysis of internal plant and soil (individual pools) cycling is needed to reduce uncertainty in the controlling processes behind the global land carbon sink.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Global Carbon Budget 2021

Abstract. Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in a changing climate is critical to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe and synthesize datasets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFOS) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), 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 (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) is estimated with global ocean biogeochemistry models and observation-based data products. The terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) is estimated with dynamic global vegetation models. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), 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 first time, an approach is shown to reconcile the difference in our ELUC estimate with the one from national greenhouse gas inventories, supporting the assessment of collective countries' climate progress. For the year 2020, EFOS declined by 5.4 % relative to 2019, with fossil emissions at 9.5 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 (9.3 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when the cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 0.9 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, for a total anthropogenic CO2 emission of 10.2 ± 0.8 GtC yr−1 (37.4 ± 2.9 GtCO2). Also, for 2020, GATM was 5.0 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.4 ± 0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 3.0 ± 0.4 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 2.9 ± 1 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of −0.8 GtC yr−1. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration averaged over 2020 reached 412.45 ± 0.1 ppm. Preliminary data for 2021 suggest a rebound in EFOS relative to 2020 of +4.8 % (4.2 % to 5.4 %) globally. Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2020, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of annual to semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. Comparison of estimates from multiple approaches and observations shows (1) a persistent large uncertainty in the estimate of land-use changes emissions, (2) a low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) a discrepancy between the different methods on the strength of the ocean sink over the last decade. This living data update documents changes in the methods and datasets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this dataset (Friedlingstein et al., 2020, 2019; Le Quéré et al., 2018b, a, 2016, 2015b, a, 2014, 2013). The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2021 (Friedlingstein et al., 2021).

Friedlingstein, Pierre (ORCID:0000000333094739)↗

DOE OSTI2022

Are Terrestrial Biosphere Models Fit for Simulating the Global Land Carbon Sink?

The Global Carbon Project estimates that the terrestrial biosphere has absorbed about one-third of anthropogenic CO 2 emissions during the 1959–2019 period. This sink-estimate is produced by an ensemble of terrestrial biosphere models and is consistent with the land uptake inferred from the residual of emissions and ocean uptake. The purpose of our study is to understand how well terrestrial biosphere models reproduce the processes that drive the terrestrial carbon sink. One challenge is to decide what level of agreement between model output and observation-based reference data is adequate considering that reference data are prone to uncertainties. To define such a level of agreement, we compute benchmark scores that quantify the similarity between independently derived reference data sets using multiple statistical metrics. Models are considered to perform well if their model scores reach benchmark scores. Our results show that reference data can differ considerably, causing benchmark scores to be low. Model scores are often of similar magnitude as benchmark scores, implying that model performance is reasonable given how different reference data are. While model performance is encouraging, ample potential for improvements remains, including a reduction in a positive leaf area index bias, improved representations of processes that govern soil organic carbon in high latitudes, and an assessment of causes that drive the inter-model spread of gross primary productivity in boreal regions and humid tropics. The success of future model development will increasingly depend on our capacity to reduce and account for observational uncertainties.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Are Land‐Use Change Emissions in Southeast Asia Decreasing or Increasing?

Abstract Southeast Asia is a region known for active land‐use changes (LUC) over the past 60 years; yet, how trends in net CO 2 uptake and release resulting from LUC activities (net LUC flux) have changed through past decades remains uncertain. The level of uncertainty in net LUC flux from process‐based models is so high that it cannot be concluded that newer estimates are necessarily more reliable than older ones. Here, we examined net LUC flux estimates of Southeast Asia for the 1980s−2010s from older and newer sets of Dynamic Global Vegetation Model simulations (TRENDY v2 and v7, respectively), and forcing data used for running those simulations, along with two book‐keeping estimates (H&N and BLUE). These estimates yielded two contrasting historical LUC transitions, such that TRENDY v2 and H&N showed a transition from increased emissions from the 1980s to 1990s to declining emissions in the 2000s, while TRENDY v7 and BLUE showed the opposite transition. We found that these contrasting transitions originated in the update of LUC forcing data, which reduced the loss of forest area during the 1990s. Further evaluation of remote sensing studies, atmospheric inversions, and the history of forestry and environmental policies in Southeast Asia supported the occurrence of peak emissions in the 1990s and declining thereafter. However, whether LUC emissions continue to decline in Southeast Asia remains uncertain as key processes in recent years, such as conversion of peat forest to oil‐palm plantation, are yet to be represented in the forcing data, suggesting a need for further revision.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2021

Assessing the representation of the Australian carbon cycle in global vegetation models

Australia plays an important role in the global terrestrial carbon cycle on inter-annual timescales. While the Australian continent is included in global assessments of the carbon cycle such as the global carbon budget, the performance of dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) over Australia has rarely been evaluated. We assessed simulations of net biome production (NBP) and the carbon stored in vegetation between 1901 to 2018 from 13 DGVMs (TRENDY v8 ensemble). We focused our analysis on Australia's short-term (inter-annual) and long-term (decadal to centennial) terrestrial carbon dynamics. The TRENDY models simulated differing magnitudes of NBP on inter-annual timescales, and these differences resulted in significant differences in long-term vegetation carbon accumulation (–4.7 to 9.5 Pg C). We compared the TRENDY ensemble to several satellite-derived datasets and showed that the spread in the models' simulated carbon storage resulted from varying changes in carbon residence time rather than differences in net carbon uptake. Differences in simulated long-term accumulated NBP between models were mostly due to model responses to land-use change. The DGVMs also simulated different sensitivities to atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) concentration, although notably, the models with nutrient cycles did not simulate the smallest NBP response to CO 2 . Our results suggest that a change in the climate forcing did not have a large impact on the carbon cycle on long timescales. However, the inter-annual variability in precipitation drives the year-to-year variability in NBP. We analysed the impact of key modes of climate variability, including the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD), on NBP. While the DGVMs agreed on sign of the response of NBP to El Niño and La Niña and to positive and negative IOD events, the magnitude of inter-annual variability in NBP differed strongly between models. In addition, we find that differences in the timing of simulated phenology and fire dynamics are associated with differences in simulated or prescribed vegetation cover and process representation. We further find model disagreement in simulated vegetation carbon, phenology, and apparent carbon residence time, indicating that the models have different types and coverage of vegetation across Australia (whether prescribed or emergent). Our study highlights the need to evaluate parameter assumptions and the key processes that drive vegetation dynamics, such as phenology, mortality, and fire, in an Australian context to reduce uncertainty across models.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2020

Rainfall manipulation experiments as simulated by terrestrial biosphere models: Where do we stand?

Changes in rainfall amounts and patterns have been observed and are expected to continue in the near future with potentially significant ecological and societal consequences. Modelling vegetation responses to changes in rainfall is thus crucial to project water and carbon cycles in the future. In this study, we present the results of a new model-data intercomparison project, where we tested the ability of 10 terrestrial biosphere models to reproduce the observed sensitivity of ecosystem productivity to rainfall changes at 10 sites across the globe, in nine of which, rainfall exclusion and/or irrigation experiments had been performed. The key results are as follows: (a) Inter-model variation is generally large and model agreement varies with timescales. In severely water-limited sites, models only agree on the interannual variability of evapotranspiration and to a smaller extent on gross primary productivity. In more mesic sites, model agreement for both water and carbon fluxes is typically higher on fine (daily–monthly) timescales and reduces on longer (seasonal–annual) scales. (b) Models on average overestimate the relationship between ecosystem productivity and mean rainfall amounts across sites (in space) and have a low capacity in reproducing the temporal (interannual) sensitivity of vegetation productivity to annual rainfall at a given site, even though observation uncertainty is comparable to inter-model variability. (c) Most models reproduced the sign of the observed patterns in productivity changes in rainfall manipulation experiments but had a low capacity in reproducing the observed magnitude of productivity changes. Models better reproduced the observed productivity responses due to rainfall exclusion than addition. (d) All models attribute ecosystem productivity changes to the intensity of vegetation stress and peak leaf area, whereas the impact of the change in growing season length is negligible. Finally, the relative contribution of the peak leaf area and vegetation stress intensity was highly variable among models.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

NASA NTRS2016

Global Carbon Budget 2016

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 all major components of the global carbon budget, including their uncertainties, based on the combination of a range of data, algorithms, statistics, and model estimates and their interpretation by a broad scientific community. We discuss changes compared to previous estimates and consistency within and among components, alongside methodology and data limitations. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry (EFF) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, respectively, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on combined evidence from land-cover change data, fire activity associated with deforestation, and models. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its rate of growth (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The mean ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) is based on observations from the 1990s, while the annual anomalies and trends are estimated with ocean models. The variability in SOCEAN is evaluated with data products based on surveys of ocean CO2 measurements. The global residual terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) is estimated by the difference of the other terms of the global carbon budget and compared to results of independent dynamic global vegetation models. We compare the mean land and ocean fluxes and their variability to estimates from three atmospheric inverse methods for three broad latitude bands. All uncertainties are reported as +/- 1(sigma), reflecting the current capacity to characterize the annual estimates of each component of the global carbon budget. For the last decade available (2006-2015), EFF was 9.3+/-0.5 GtC/yr, ELUC 1.0+/-0.5 GtC/yr,GATM 4.5+/-0.1 GtC/yr, SOCEAN 2.6+/-0.5 GtC/yr, and SLAND 3.1+/-0.9 GtC/yr. For year 2015 alone, the growth in EFF was approximately zero and emissions remained at 9.9+/-0.5 GtC/yr, showing a slowdown in growth of these emissions compared to the average growth of 1.8/yr that took place during 2006-2015.Also, for 2015, ELUC was 1.3+/-0.5 GtC/yr, GATM was 6.3+/-0.2 GtC/yr, SOCEAN was 3.0+/-0.5 GtC/yr, and SLAND was 1.9+/-0.9 GtC/yr. GATM was higher in 2015 compared to the past decade (2006-2015), reflecting a smaller SLAND for that year. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 399.4+/-0.1 ppm averaged over 2015. For 2016, preliminary data indicate the continuation of low growth in EFF with +0.2% (range of -1.0 to +1.8% ) based on national emissions projections for China and USA, and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. In spite of the low growth of EFF in 2016, the growth rate in atmospheric CO2 concentration is expected to be relatively high because of the persistence of the smaller residual terrestrial sink (SLAND) in response to El Nino conditions of 2015-2016. From this projection of EFF and assumed constant ELUC for 2016, cumulative emissions of CO2 will reach 565+/-55 GtC (2075+/-205 GtCO2) for 1870-2016, about 75% from EFF and 25% from ELUC. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new carbon budget compared with previous publications of this data set.

Quéré, Corinne Le↗