SEARCH · Search NASA
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
In order to create a Landslide Hazard Index, we accessed rain, snow, and a dozen other variables from the National Climate Assessment Land Data Assimilation System. These predictors were converted to probabilities of landslide occurrence with XGBoost, a major machine-learning tool. The model was fitted with thousands of historical landslides from the Pacific Northwest Landslide Inventory (PNLI).
Most land-surface models require parameterization of vertical wind profiles within the atmospheric boundary layer. For vegetated surfaces, it is common to assume a logarithmic profile in the surface layer, which includes estimates of vegetation roughness length for momentum (z0) and zero-plane displacement height (d0). This study finds that remotely-sensed forest canopy heights improve estimates of aerodynamic roughness length for momentum using a previously-developed representation of the roughness sublayer (Raupach 1992; Jasinski et al. 2005). Resulting roughness products consist of two datasets: 1) 14 years of 8-day snapshots of the global land surface at a nominal spatial resolution of 500-meters for users who wish to retain full temporal resolution and interannual variability; and 2) multiyear averages of the 8-day snapshots, here referred to as "climatologies" of roughness, which retain underlying seasonality. Both products are suitable for use in data assimilation and reanalyses such as the National Climate Assessment Land Data Assimilation System (NCA-LDAS), for which these products were initially developed.
United States forestland is an important ecosystem type, land cover, land use, and economic resource that is facing several drivers of change including climatic. Because of its significance, forestland was identified through the National Climate Assessment(NCA) as a key sector and system of concern to be included in a system of climate indicators as part of a sustained assessment effort. Here, we describe 11 informative core indicators of forests and climate change impacts with metrics available or nearly available for use in the NCA efforts. The recommended indicators are based on a comprehensive conceptual model which recognizes forests as a land use, an ecosystem, and an economic sector. The indicators cover major forest attributes such as extent, structural components such as biomass, functions such as growth and productivity, and ecosystem services such as biodiversity and outdoor recreation. Interactions between humans and forests are represented through indicators focused on the wildland-urban interface, cost to mitigate wildfire risk, and energy produced from forest-based biomass. Selected indicators also include drought and disturbance from both wildfires and biotic agents. The forest indicators presented are an initial set that will need further refinement in coordination with other NCA indicator teams. Our effort ideally will initiate the collection of critical measurements and observations and lead to additional research on forest-climate indicators.
The 80+ GHRSST public datasets represent a rich resource for sea surface temperature research and applications given their time series length, resolution, spatial coverage, varying measurement types and processing levels, and availability in the full spectrum of PO.DAAC tools and services ecosystem. The PO.DAAC has created a publicly accessible recipe suite for the user community to perform straightforward yet powerful computations on GHRSST data using python recipes, Jupyter notebooks, R, Matlab, and the NCO programming language. These recipes include numerical computations for regional and global SST trends, anomaly derivations, EOF analysis, climate signal reproduction, and ocean phenology. For example, one recipe reproduces a famous SST based warming figure from the Fourth National Climate Assessment (USA) while another focuses on quantifying the regional changes in ocean SST phenology. Most are python-based while some contain hybrid calls and leverage the NCO programming interface too. All are available on the PO.DAAC user forum (https://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/forum/) and/or via the open source NASA GitHub repository (https://github.com/nasa/podaac_tools_and_services). Several are available in the Jupyter notebook framework including podaacypy (https://github.com/nasa/podaacpy), a recipe for GHRSST granule metadata discovery and application, and more recently a Jupyter notebook developed to support data analysis and visualization of a cloud-based Zarr formatted Level 4 MUR dataset in the AWS Open Data Registry. Throughout the summer of 2020, the PO.DAAC intends to add and migrate more of its numerical recipes to the Jupyter notebook framework and publish them on its open source GitHub repository.
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) is a recognized world leader in the science of lightning. To date, MSFC has led three space-based global lightning observing missions and has helped lead multiple suborbital field campaigns involving lightning observations. Recently, the MSFC Lightning Team is closing out the recently completed International Space Station Lightning Imaging Sensor (ISS LIS) mission, including developing a nearly three-decade global climatology of lightning from space. This work also includes integrating lightning observations with data from NASA precipitation missions. The Team is also busy analyzing data from a recent airborne field campaign that observed dozens of terrestrial gamma-ray flashes (TGFs) from intense tropical thunderstorms. Lightning Team members are also leaders in validation of the Geostationary Lightning Mapper (GLM) operated by NOAA, and in developing lightning safety applications and studying the relationship between lightning and wildfires. The Lightning Team also studies chemical production by lightning and contributes to the National Climate Assessment (NCA). Finally, the Lightning Team is busy developing the next generation of spaceborne lightning sensors to broaden our understanding of the relationships between lightning, weather, climate, and atmospheric composition.
Climate resilience can emerge from a combination of (1) climate projections that enable future-oriented planning and (2) contemporary observations that can be used for adaptation in the face of realized climate. NASA is uniquely positioned to provide global climate projections and satellite-based observations to users who must take a global perspective on climate risk (e.g., supply chain managers). Here, we will share the capabilities and experiences of three NASA projects. The first project, the NASA Earth eXchange (NEX) provides two downscaled climate projections, NEX-GDDP-CMIP6, a global 25 km resolution product, and NEX-DCP30-CMIP6, an 800 m resolution product covering the coterminous U.S. specifically designed for U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA). NEX also offers land surface products that mirror the twice-daily products provided by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) but are derived from operational geostationary weather satellite data collected at 5-10 minutes intervals. The second project, the Short-term Prediction Research and Transition Center (SPoRT), was established in 2002 to transition unique NASA satellite products and capabilities to stakeholders to improve decision-making that benefits society. SPoRT provides products and capabilities derived from NASA observations and models to end users in government, academia, and the private sector. SPoRT translates NASA Earth science into actionable solutions reaching over 400 stakeholders across 80 organizations. Finally, the Regional Climate Model Evaluation System (RCMES) is designed to facilitate regional-scale evaluations of climate models by providing standardized access to a vast and comprehensive set of observations, such as satellite, in-situ, and reanalyses, and modeling resources such as CMIP & CORDEX. These three projects form part of the core capabilities at the NASA Centers deliver climate information under the new NASA Earth Science to Action (ES2A) strategy.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Here, in this study, to assess the national climate impact of wastewater treatment and inform decarbonization, we assembled a comprehensive greenhouse gas inventory of 15,863 facilities in the contiguous USA. Considering location and treatment configurations, we modelled on-site CH 4 , N 2 O and CO 2 production and emissions associated with energy, chemical inputs and solids disposal. Using Monte Carlo simulations, we estimated median national emissions at 47 million tonnes of CO 2 equivalent per year, with on-site process CH 4 and N 2 O emissions exceeding current government estimates by 41%. Treatment configurations with anaerobic digesters are responsible for 16 million tonnes of CO 2 equivalent per year of fugitive methane, outweighing benefits achieved through on-site electricity generation. Systems designed for nutrient removal have the highest greenhouse gas emissions intensity, attributable to energy requirements and N 2 O production, demonstrating current trade-offs between meeting water quality and climate objectives. We analysed key sensitivities and included a geospatial analysis to highlight the scale and distribution of opportunities for reducing life cycle greenhouse gas emissions.
Idaho National Laboratory’s (INL’s) mission is to discover, demonstrate, and secure innovative nuclear energy solutions, other clean energy options, and critical infrastructure. This INL’s Climate Vulnerability Assessment and Resilience Plan (VARP) was developed to enable and sustain that mission while ensuring the viability of operations considering expected climate change impacts. The VARP was developed according to the narrative requirements from the “Vulnerability Assessment and Resilience Planning Guidance, Version 1.2” document issued in February 2022. A prescribed process was used to identify mission-critical systems and components, determine historical and expected climate impacts, and develop resilient solutions. Experts from across INL, including operations staff, researchers, and climate scientists supplied input to the process. Analyses of climate modeling sources revealed that under scenarios of higher and lower greenhouse gas emissions (Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 and RCP 8.5), INL anticipates an increase in climate hazards, including drought, heat waves, wildfire, and precipitation. Increased frequency and duration of climatic hazards forecasts high impacts on certain mission-critical asset and infrastructure types. Utilizing the VARP Risk Assessment Tool, projected high climate hazard impacts across multiple asset and infrastructure types at the INL include energy generation and distribution systems, Site buildings, specialized or mission-critical equipment, and transportation and fleet infrastructure. Some of these mission-critical asset and infrastructure types maintain high adaptive capacity to climatic changes; however, others may need additional adaptive capacity to withstand increased frequency and duration of climate hazards. INL identified close to 300 resilient solutions that were consolidated into 11 solution categories to be tracked in the Department of Energy Sustainability Dashboard. The identified solutions are a starting point for future project development and analysis. These data are intended to inform decision makers on climate issues and potential solutions across INL and associated communities. The VARP is not intended to be a budget tool or project decision document on its own, but rather one of many tools used by decision makers to establish resilient priorities. This initial document provides the framework and foundation to resilient solutions. In the coming years, each solution needs to be fully developed, costed, and prioritized based on mission-critical risk and funding priorities.
The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) coordinates community-based efforts to answer key and timely climate science questions, facilitate delivery of relevant multi-model simulations through shared infrastructure, and support national and international climate assessments. Generations of CMIP have evolved through extensive community engagement from punctuated phasing into more continuous support for the design of experimental protocols, infrastructure for data publication and access, and public delivery of climate information. We identify four fundamental research questions motivating a seventh phase of coupled model intercomparison relating to patterns of sea surface temperature change, changing weather, the water–carbon–climate nexus, and tipping points. Key CMIP7 advances include an expansion of baseline experiments, a focus on CO 2 -emissions-driven experiments, sustained support for community MIPs, periodic updating of historical forcings and diagnostics requests, and a collection of prioritized experiments, or the “Assessment Fast Track”, drawn from community MIPs to support climate research, assessment, and service goals across prediction and projection, characterization, attribution, and process understanding.
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 GtCO2 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.
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.
Approaches that root national climate strategies in local actions will be essential for all countries as they develop new nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement. The potential impact of climate action from non-national actors in delivering higher global ambition is significant. Sub-national action in the United States provides a test for how such actions can accelerate emissions reductions. We aggregated U.S. state, city, and business commitments within an integrated assessment model to assess how a national climate strategy can be built upon non-state actions. We find that existing commitments alone could reduce emissions 25% below 2005 levels by 2030, and that enhancing actions by these actors could reduce emissions up to 37%. We show how these actions can provide a stepped-up basis for additional federal action to reduce emissions by 49%—consistent with 1.5 °C. Our analysis demonstrates sub-national actions can lead to substantial reductions and support increased national action.
Not Available
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assess the "risk of human-induced climate change". Such reports are used by decision-makers around the world to assess how our climate is changing. Its reports are widely respected and cited and have been highly influential in forming national and international responses to climate change. The Fourth Assessment report includes a section on the effects of surface processes on climate. This sub-chapter provides an overview of recent developments related to the impact of cities on rainfall. It highlights the possible mechanisms that buildings, urban heat islands, urban aerosols or pollution, and other human factors in cities that can affect rainfall.
The project's emphasis is on providing assessments of the magnitude, frequency and geographic distribution of EHEs to facilitate public health studies. We focus on the daily to weekly time scales on which EHEs occur, not on decadal-scale climate changes. There is, however, a very strong connection between air temperature patterns at the two time scales and long-term climatic changes will certainly alter the frequency of EHEs.
Objectives are to establish a continuing, inclusive National process that: 1) synthesizes relevant science and information 2) increases understanding of what is known & not known 3) identifies information needs related to preparing for climate variability and change, and reducing climate impacts and vulnerability 4) evaluates progress of adaptation & mitigation activities 5) informs science priorities 6) builds assessment capacity in regions and sectors 7) builds understanding & skilled use of findings
Food systems connect a diverse network of stakeholders around the world, with complex dynamics governing production, processing, transportation, trade and consumption of food products. Extreme conditions can disrupt multiple components of the food system, with systemic connections providing structure that can both buffer and exacerbate risks. Climate change is shifting current practices in agricultural production and the broader food system, encouraging shifts toward more diverse value chains capable of drawing from multiple food producing regions to reduce the chance that an entire value chain be subject to simultaneous impacts. The IPCC Working Group I report assessed that heat waves, fires, floods and severe storms are becoming more pronounced and widespread with each degree of global warming, increasing food system risk. Food system disruptions can also come from outside the climate system, including from viral outbreaks, geopolitical conflict and socioeconomic changes. This presentation will highlight how the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) develops modeling approaches that connect climate, biophysical and socioeconomic models in order to capture complex responses of the food system and potential interventions by diverse stakeholders in the public and private sectors. Models are applied on a range of scales that match decision contexts. These include households in specific agricultural production regions (e.g., within a country), national-level policymakers considering policies, sustainability and development priorities for a country’s agricultural sector, and global food market models that balance production and consumption around the world with competition for land, water, energy and sustainability priorities. Models are capable of capturing many important responses, but further development is needed to represent key systemic risks and the possibility for additional interventions beyond the farm gate. Improved food system models will provide important insights into our society’s ability to cope with climate change, as well as our ability to identify agricultural adaptation and mitigation opportunities to reduce overall risk.