Engineering topics

Michael O'Sullivan

Publications and source records attributed to Michael O'Sullivan.

4 records

NASA NTRS2022

Global Carbon Budget 2022

Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) 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 data sets and methodologies to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO 2 emissions (E FOS ) 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 CO 2 concentration is measured directly, and its growth rate (G ATM ) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO 2 sink (S OCEAN ) is estimated with global ocean biogeochemistry models and observation-based data products. The terrestrial CO 2 sink (S LAND ) is estimated with dynamic global vegetation models. 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 year 2021, E FOS increased by 5.1 % relative to 2020, with fossil emissions at 10.1 ± 0.5 GtC yr −1 (9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr −1 when the cement carbonation sink is included), and E LUC was 1.1 ± 0.7 GtC yr −1 , for a total anthropogenic CO 2 emission (including the cement carbonation sink) of 10.9 ± 0.8 GtC yr −1 (40.0 ± 2.9 GtCO 2 ). Also, for 2021, G ATM was 5.2 ± 0.2 GtC yr −1 (2.5 ± 0.1 ppm yr −1 ), S OCEAN was 2.9 ± 0.4 GtC yr −1 , and S LAND was 3.5 ± 0.9 GtC yr −1 , with a B IM of −0.6 GtC yr −1 (i.e. the total estimated sources were too low or sinks were too high). The global atmospheric CO 2 concentration averaged over 2021 reached 414.71 ± 0.1 ppm. Preliminary data for 2022 suggest an increase in E FOS relative to 2021 of +1.0 % (0.1 % to 1.9 %) globally and atmospheric CO 2 concentration reaching 417.2 ppm, more than 50 % above pre-industrial levels (around 278 ppm). Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2021, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr −1 persist for the representation of annual to semi-decadal variability in CO 2 fluxes. Comparison of estimates from multiple approaches and observations shows (1) a persistent large uncertainty in the estimate of land-use change emissions, (2) a low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO 2 flux in the northern extratropics, 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 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. The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2022 (Friedlingstein et al., 2022b).

Pierre Friedlingstein↗

NASA NTRS2022

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.

Attribution↗

NASA NTRS2021

Modelled land use and land cover change emissions – a spatio-temporal comparison of different approaches

Quantifying the net carbon flux from land use and land cover changes (fLULCC) is critical for understanding the global carbon cycle and, hence, to support climate change mitigation. However, large-scale fLULCC is not directly measurable and has to be inferred from models instead, such as semi-empirical bookkeeping models and process-based dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs). By definition, fLULCC estimates are not directly comparable between these two different model types. As an important example, DGVM-based fLULCC in the annual global carbon budgets is estimated under transient environmental forcing and includes the so-called loss of additional sink capacity (LASC). The LASC results from the impact of environmental changes on land carbon storage potential of managed land compared to potential vegetation and accumulates over time, which is not captured in bookkeeping models. The fLULCC from transient DGVM simulations, thus, strongly depends on the timing of land use and land cover changes mainly because LASC accumulation is cut off at the end of the simulated period. To estimate the LASC, the fLULCC from pre-industrial DGVM simulations, which is independent of changing environmental conditions, can be used. Additionally, DGVMs using constant present-day environmental forcing enable an approximation of bookkeeping estimates. Here, we analyse these three DGVM-derived fLULCC estimations (under transient, pre-industrial, and present-day forcing) for 12 models within 18 regions and quantify their differences as well as climate- and CO2-induced components and compare them to bookkeeping estimates. Averaged across the models, we find a global fLULCC (under transient conditions) of 2.0±0.6 PgC/yr for 2009–2018, of which ∼40 % are attributable to the LASC (0.8±0.3 PgC/yr). From 1850 onward, the fLULCC accumulated to 189±56 PgC with 40±15 PgC from the LASC. Around 1960, the accumulating nature of the LASC causes global transient fLULCC estimates to exceed estimates under present-day conditions, despite generally increased carbon stocks in the latter. Regional hotspots of high cumulative and annual LASC values are found in the USA, China, Brazil, equatorial Africa, and Southeast Asia, mainly due to deforestation for cropland. Distinct negative LASC estimates in Europe (early reforestation) and from 2000 onward in the Ukraine (recultivation of post-Soviet abandoned agricultural land), indicate that fLULCC estimates in these regions are lower in transient DGVM compared to bookkeeping approaches. Our study unravels the strong dependence of fLULCC estimates on the time a certain land use and land cover change event happened to occur and on the chosen time period for the forcing of environmental conditions in the underlying simulations. We argue for an approach that provides an accounting of the fLULCC that is more robust against these choices, for example by estimating a mean DGVM ensemble fLULCC and LASC for a defined reference period and homogeneous environmental changes (CO2 only).

land use and land cover change↗

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↗