Engineering topics

Roland Séférian

Publications and source records attributed to Roland Séférian.

6 records

NASA NTRS2023

Soil Respiration–Driven CO 2 Pulses Dominate Australia’s Flux Variability

The Australian continent contributes substantially to the year-to-year variability of the global terrestrial carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) sink. However, the scarcity of in situ observations in remote areas prevents the deciphering of processes that force the CO 2 flux variability. In this study, by examining atmospheric CO 2 measurements from satellites in the period 2009–2018, we find recurrent end-of-dry-season CO 2 pulses over the Australian continent. These pulses largely control the year-to-year variability of Australia’s CO 2 balance. They cause two to three times larger seasonal variations compared with previous top-down inversions and bottom-up estimates. The pulses occur shortly after the onset of rainfall and are driven by enhanced soil respiration preceding photosynthetic uptake in Australia’s semiarid regions. The suggested continental-scale relevance of soil-rewetting processes has substantial implications for our understanding and modeling of global climate–carbon cycle feedbacks.

Eva-Marie Metz↗

NASA NTRS2022

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.

Guillermo Murray-Tortarolo↗

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

The Climate Response to Emissions Reductions due to COVID-19: Initial Results from CovidMIP

Many nations responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by restricting travel and other activities during 2020, resulting in temporarily reduced emissions of CO2, other greenhouse gases and ozone and aerosol precursors. We present the initial results from a coordinated Intercomparison, CovidMIP, of Earth system model simulations which assess the impact on climate of these emissions reductions. Twelve models performed multiple initial-condition ensembles to produce over 300 simulations spanning both initial condition and model structural uncertainty. We find model consensus on reduced aerosol amounts (particularly over southern and eastern Asia) and associated increases in surface shortwave radiation levels. However, any impact on near-surface temperature or rainfall during 2020-2024 is extremely small and is not detectable in this initial analysis. Regional analyses on a finer scale, and closer attention to extremes (especially linked to changes in atmospheric composition and air quality) are required to test the impact of COVID- 19-related emission reductions on near-term climate.

Chris D. Jones↗

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↗