Engineering topics

Wiltshire, Andrew J.

Publications and source records attributed to Wiltshire, Andrew J..

4 records

DOE OSTI2022

CO 2 fertilization of crops offsets yield losses due to future surface ozone damage and climate change

Tropospheric ozone (O 3 ) is harmful to plant productivity and negatively impacts crop yields. O3 concentrations are projected to decrease globally in the optimistic Representative Concentration Pathway of 2.6 W m –2 (RCP2.6) but increase globally following the high-emission scenario under the RCP8.5, with substantial implications for global food security. The damaging effect of O 3 on future crop yield is affected by CO 2 fertilization and climate change, and their interactions for RCP scenarios have yet to be quantified. In this study, we used the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator modified to include crops (JULES-crop) to quantify the impacts, and relative importance of present-day and future O3, CO 2 concentration and meteorology on crop production at the regional scale until 2100 following RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 scenarios. We focus on eight major crop-producing regions that cover the production of wheat, soybean, maize, and rice. Our results show that CO 2 alone has the largest effect on regional yields, followed by climate and O 3 . However, the CO 2 fertilization effect is offset by the negative impact of tropospheric O 3 in regions with high O 3 concentrations, such as South Asia and China. Simulated crop yields in 2050 were compared with Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) statistics to investigate the differences between a socioeconomic and a biophysical process-based approach. Results showed that FAO estimates are closer to our JULES-crop RCP8.5 scenario. This study demonstrates that air pollution could be the biggest threat to future food production and highlights an urgent policy need to mitigate the threat of climate change and O 3 pollution on food security.

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 OSTI2021

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

Abstract. 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−1 for 2009–2018, of which ∼40 % are attributable to the LASC (0.8±0.3 PgC yr−1). 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).

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↗