Vladislav Bastrikov | Search NASA

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 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↗