Engineering topics

Nabel, Julia E. M. S.

Publications and source records attributed to Nabel, Julia E. M. S..

7 records

DOE OSTI2023

Harmonising the land-use flux estimates of global models and national inventories for 2000–2020

As the focus of climate policy shifts from pledges to implementation, there is a growing need to track progress on climate change mitigation at the country level, particularly for the land-use sector. Despite new tools and models providing unprecedented monitoring opportunities, striking differences remain in estimations of anthropogenic land-use CO 2 fluxes between, on the one hand, the national greenhouse gas inventories (NGHGIs) used to assess compliance with national climate targets under the Paris Agreement and, on the other hand, the Global Carbon Budget and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports, both based on global bookkeeping models (BMs). Recent studies have shown that these differences are mainly due to inconsistent definitions of anthropogenic CO 2 fluxes in managed forests. Countries assume larger areas of forest to be managed than BMs do, due to a broader definition of managed land in NGHGIs. Additionally, the fraction of the land sink caused by indirect effects of human-induced environmental change (e.g. fertilisation effect on vegetation growth due to increased atmospheric CO 2 concentration) on managed lands is treated as non-anthropogenic by BMs but as anthropogenic in most NGHGIs. We implement an approach that adds the CO 2 sink caused by environmental change in countries' managed forests (estimated by 16 dynamic global vegetation models, DGVMs) to the land-use fluxes from three BMs. This sum is conceptually more comparable to NGHGIs and is thus expected to be quantitatively more similar. Our analysis uses updated and more comprehensive data from NGHGIs than previous studies and provides model results at a greater level of disaggregation in terms of regions, countries and land categories (i.e. forest land, deforestation, organic soils, other land uses). Our results confirm a large difference (6.7 GtCO 2 yr —1 ) in global land-use CO 2 fluxes between the ensemble mean of the BMs, which estimate a source of 4.8 GtCO 2 yr —1 for the period 2000–2020, and NGHGIs, which estimate a sink of —1.9 GtCO 2 yr —1 in the same period. Most of the gap is found on forest land (3.5 GtCO 2 yr —1 ), with differences also for deforestation (2.4 GtCO 2 yr —1 ), for fluxes from other land uses (1.0 GtCO 2 yr —1 ) and to a lesser extent for fluxes from organic soils (0.2 GtCO 2 yr —1 ). By adding the DGVM ensemble mean sink arising from environmental change in managed forests (—6.4 GtCO 2 yr —1 ) to BM estimates, the gap between BMs and NGHGIs becomes substantially smaller both globally (residual gap: 0.3 GtCO 2 yr —1 ) and in most regions and countries. However, some discrepancies remain and deserve further investigation. For example, the BMs generally provide higher emissions from deforestation than NGHGIs and, when adjusted with the sink in managed forests estimated by DGVMs, yield a sink that is often greater than NGHGIs. In summary, this study provides a blueprint for harmonising the estimations of anthropogenic land-use fluxes, allowing for detailed comparisons between global models and national inventories at global, regional and country levels. This is crucial to increase confidence in land-use emissions estimates, support investments in land-based mitigation strategies and assess the countries' collective progress under the Global Stocktake of the Paris Agreement.

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

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 OSTI2021

Dynamic global vegetation models underestimate net CO 2 flux mean and inter-annual variability in dryland ecosystems

Despite their sparse vegetation, dryland regions exert a huge influence over global biogeochemical cycles because they cover more than 40% of the world surface (Schimel 2010 Science 327 418–9). It is thought that drylands dominate the inter-annual variability (IAV) and long-term trend in the global carbon (C) cycle (Poulter et al 2014 Nature 509 600–3, Ahlstrom et al 2015 Science 348 895–9, Zhang et al 2018 Glob. Change Biol. 24 3954–68). Projections of the global land C sink therefore rely on accurate representation of dryland C cycle processes; however, the dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) used in future projections have rarely been evaluated against dryland C flux data. Here, we carried out an evaluation of 14 DGVMs (TRENDY v7) against net ecosystem exchange (NEE) data from 12 dryland flux sites in the southwestern US encompassing a range of ecosystem types (forests, shrub- and grasslands). We find that all the models underestimate both mean annual C uptake/release as well as the magnitude of NEE IAV, suggesting that improvements in representing dryland regions may improve global C cycle projections. Across all models, the sensitivity and timing of ecosystem C uptake to plant available moisture was at fault. Spring biases in gross primary production (GPP) dominate the underestimate of mean annual NEE, whereas models' lack of GPP response to water availability in both spring and summer monsoon are responsible for inability to capture NEE IAV. Errors in GPP moisture sensitivity at high elevation forested sites were more prominent during the spring, while errors at the low elevation shrub and grass-dominated sites were more important during the monsoon. We propose a range of hypotheses for why model GPP does not respond sufficiently to changing water availability that can serve as a guide for future dryland DGVM developments. Our analysis suggests that improvements in modeling C cycle processes across more than a quarter of the Earth's land surface could be achieved by addressing the moisture sensitivity of dryland C uptake.

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↗