Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “global carbon budget 2019”

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.

16 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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↗
NASA NTRS2021

Land-Use Harmonization Datasets for Global Carbon Budget 2019 and Beyond

Land-use change has been the dominant source of anthropogenic carbon emissions for most of the historical period, and is currently one of the largest and most uncertain components of the global carbon cycle. Advancing the scientific understanding on this topic requires that the best data be used as input to the best models in well-organized scientific assessments. The Land-Use Harmonization dataset (LUH2), previously developed and used as input for CMIP6 simulations, has been updated annually to provide required input to land models in the annual Global Carbon Budget (GCB) assessment. These annual LUH2-GCB updates and extensions have incorporated annual FAO wood harvest data updates for dataset years after 2015 and HYDE gridded agriculture area data updates (based on annual FAO agricultural area data updates) for dataset years after 2012, along with extrapolations to the current year due to a lag of one or more years in the FAO data releases. The resulting updated LUH2-GCB datasets have provided global, annual gridded land-use and land-use change data relating toagricultural expansion, deforestation, wood harvesting, shifting cultivation, regrowth and afforestation, and crop rotationsand pasture managementand are used by both book-keeping models and Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs) for the GCB. For GCB 2019,a more significant update to LUH2 was produced (LUH2-GCB2019) to correct cropland and grazing area errors in the underlying input datasets for the globally important region of Brazil, as far back as 1950. From 1951-2012 the LUH2-GCB2019 dataset begins to diverge from the LUH2 v2hdataset, with peak differences in Brazil in the year 2000 for grazing land (difference of 100,000 km2) and in the year 2009 for cropland (difference of 77,000 km2), along with significant sub-national reorganization of agricultural land-use patterns within Brazil. These LUH2-GCB2019 corrections for Brazil provide the base for future LUH2-GCB updates including the recent LUH2-GCB2020 dataset, and present a starting point for operationalizing the creation of these datasets toreduce time-lags due to the multiple input dataset and model latencies.

L Chini↗
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 OSTI2025

The weak land carbon sink hypothesis

Over the past three decades, assessments of the contemporary global carbon budget consistently report a strong net land carbon sink. Here, we review evidence supporting this paradigm and quantify the differences in global and Northern Hemisphere estimates of the net land sink derived from atmospheric inversion and satellite-derived vegetation biomass time series. Our analysis, combined with additional synthesis, supports a hypothesis that the net land sink is substantially weaker than commonly reported. At a global scale, our estimate of the net land carbon sink is 0.8 ± 0.7 petagrams of carbon per year from 2000 through 2019, nearly a factor of two lower than the Global Carbon Project estimate. With concurrent adjustments to ocean (+8%) and fossil fuel (−6%) fluxes, we develop a budget that partially reconciles key constraints provided by vegetation carbon, the north-south CO 2 gradient, and O 2 trends. We further outline potential modifications to models to improve agreement with a weaker land sink and describe several approaches for testing the hypothesis.

Randerson, James T. [Univ. of California, Irvine, ↗
DOE OSTI2022

Forest expansion dominates China’s land carbon sink since 1980

Carbon budget accounting relies heavily on Food and Agriculture Organization land-use data reported by governments. Here we develop a new land-use and cover-change database for China, finding that differing historical survey methods biased China’s reported data causing large errors in Food and Agriculture Organization databases. Land ecosystem model simulations driven with the new data reveal a strong carbon sink of 8.9 ± 0.8 Pg carbon from 1980 to 2019 in China, which was not captured in Food and Agriculture Organization data-based estimations due to biased land-use and cover-change signals. The land-use and cover-change in China, characterized by a rapid forest expansion from 1980 to 2019, contributed to nearly 44% of the national terrestrial carbon sink. In contrast, climate changes (22.3%), increasing nitrogen deposition (12.9%), and rising carbon dioxide (8.1%) are less important contributors. This indicates that previous studies have greatly underestimated the impact of land-use and cover-change on the terrestrial carbon balance of China. This study underlines the importance of reliable land-use and cover-change databases in global carbon budget accounting.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Global Carbon Budget 1800-2018 Loss of Additional Sink Capacity and Present Transient Difference

A dataset of two global carbon fluxes: the loss of additional sink capacity (LASC) and present versus transient difference (PTD). The loss of additional sink capacity is the loss of indirect anthropogenic sink capacity in land ecosystems caused by the loss of ecosystems that can increase carbon in response to changing environments, primarily forests. The present transient difference refers to the direct anthropogenic flux in land ecosystems (from land cover and land use change) and the difference in that flux when calculated assuming "present day" (actually more like 1980) ecosystem carbon stocks or when calculated assuming transient carbon stocks (i.e. caused by environmental change). In this dataset, the LASC and PTD fluxes were calculated using the TRENDY ensemble of Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs; Sitch et al., 2024) following the methods described therein and in Obermeier et al. (2021). For further details see Obermeier et al. (2021), Friedlingstein et al. (2019), Sitch et al. (2024), and Walker et al. (2025). The dataset includes ensemble means and standard deviations for annual fluxes, fluxes cumulated annually over the whole time period, and cumulated since 1959. These data were originally collected to compare different approaches (DGVMs versus bookkeeping models) for estimating land use and land cover change (LULCC) emissions (Obermeier et al. 2021). More recently, and similarly, these data were used to harmonize the estimates of the direct and indirect anthropogenic fluxes in the global carbon cycle and to recalculate the global carbon budget (Walker et al., 2025).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Global Methane Budget 2000–2020

Abstract. Understanding and quantifying the global methane (CH4) budget is important for assessing realistic pathways to mitigate climate change. CH4 is the second most important human-influenced greenhouse gas in terms of climate forcing after carbon dioxide (CO2), and both emissions and atmospheric concentrations of CH4 have continued to increase since 2007 after a temporary pause. The relative importance of CH4 emissions compared to those of CO2 for temperature change is related to its shorter atmospheric lifetime, stronger radiative effect, and acceleration in atmospheric growth rate over the past decade, the causes of which are still debated. Two major challenges in quantifying the factors responsible for the observed atmospheric growth rate arise from diverse, geographically overlapping CH4 sources and from the uncertain magnitude and temporal change in the destruction of CH4 by short-lived and highly variable hydroxyl radicals (OH). To address these challenges, we have established a consortium of multidisciplinary scientists under the umbrella of the Global Carbon Project to improve, synthesise, and update the global CH4 budget regularly and to stimulate new research on the methane cycle. Following Saunois et al. (2016, 2020), we present here the third version of the living review paper dedicated to the decadal CH4 budget, integrating results of top-down CH4 emission estimates (based on in situ and Greenhouse Gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) atmospheric observations and an ensemble of atmospheric inverse-model results) and bottom-up estimates (based on process-based models for estimating land surface emissions and atmospheric chemistry, inventories of anthropogenic emissions, and data-driven extrapolations). We present a budget for the most recent 2010–2019 calendar decade (the latest period for which full data sets are available), for the previous decade of 2000–2009 and for the year 2020. The revision of the bottom-up budget in this 2025 edition benefits from important progress in estimating inland freshwater emissions, with better counting of emissions from lakes and ponds, reservoirs, and streams and rivers. This budget also reduces double counting across freshwater and wetland emissions and, for the first time, includes an estimate of the potential double counting that may exist (average of 23 Tg CH4 yr−1). Bottom-up approaches show that the combined wetland and inland freshwater emissions average 248 [159–369] Tg CH4 yr−1 for the 2010–2019 decade. Natural fluxes are perturbed by human activities through climate, eutrophication, and land use. In this budget, we also estimate, for the first time, this anthropogenic component contributing to wetland and inland freshwater emissions. Newly available gridded products also allowed us to derive an almost complete latitudinal and regional budget based on bottom-up approaches. For the 2010–2019 decade, global CH4 emissions are estimated by atmospheric inversions (top-down) to be 575 Tg CH4 yr−1 (range 553–586, corresponding to the minimum and maximum estimates of the model ensemble). Of this amount, 369 Tg CH4 yr−1 or ∼ 65 % is attributed to direct anthropogenic sources in the fossil, agriculture, and waste and anthropogenic biomass burning (range 350–391 Tg CH4 yr−1 or 63 %–68 %). For the 2000–2009 period, the atmospheric inversions give a slightly lower total emission than for 2010–2019, by 32 Tg CH4 yr−1 (range 9–40). The 2020 emission rate is the highest of the period and reaches 608 Tg CH4 yr−1 (range 581–627), which is 12 % higher than the average emissions in the 2000s. Since 2012, global direct anthropogenic CH4 emission trends have been tracking scenarios that assume no or minimal climate mitigation policies proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (shared socio-economic pathways SSP5 and SSP3). Bottom-up methods suggest 16 % (94 Tg CH4 yr−1) larger global emissions (669 Tg CH4 yr−1, range 512–849) than top-down inversion methods for the 2010–2019 period. The discrepancy between the bottom-up and the top-down budgets has been greatly reduced compared to the previous differences (167 and 156 Tg CH4 yr−1 in Saunois et al. (2016, 2020) respectively), and for the first time uncertainties in bottom-up and top-down budgets overlap. Although differences have been reduced between inversions and bottom-up, the most important source of uncertainty in the global CH4 budget is still attributable to natural emissions, especially those from wetlands and inland freshwaters. The tropospheric loss of methane, as the main contributor to methane lifetime, has been estimated at 563 [510–663] Tg CH4 yr−1 based on chemistry–climate models. These values are slightly larger than for 2000–2009 due to the impact of the rise in atmospheric methane and remaining large uncertainty (∼ 25 %). The total sink of CH4 is estimated at 633 [507–796] Tg CH4 yr−1 by the bottom-up approaches and at 554 [550–567] Tg CH4 yr−1 by top-down approaches. However, most of the top-down models use the same OH distribution, which introduces less uncertainty to the global budget than is likely justified. For 2010–2019, agriculture and waste contributed an estimated 228 [213–242] Tg CH4 yr−1 in the top-down budget and 211 [195–231] Tg CH4 yr−1 in the bottom-up budget. Fossil fuel emissions contributed 115 [100–124] Tg CH4 yr−1 in the top-down budget and 120 [117–125] Tg CH4 yr−1 in the bottom-up budget. Biomass and biofuel burning contributed 27 [26–27] Tg CH4 yr−1 in the top-down budget and 28 [21–39] Tg CH4 yr−1 in the bottom-up budget. We identify five major priorities for improving the CH4 budget: (i) producing a global, high-resolution map of water-saturated soils and inundated areas emitting CH4 based on a robust classification of different types of emitting ecosystems; (ii) further development of process-based models for inland-water emissions; (iii) intensification of CH4 observations at local (e.g. FLUXNET-CH4 measurements, urban-scale monitoring, satellite imagery with pointing capabilities) to regional scales (surface networks and global remote sensing measurements from satellites) to constrain both bottom-up models and atmospheric inversions; (iv) improvements of transport models and the representation of photochemical sinks in top-down inversions; and (v) integration of 3D variational inversion systems using isotopic and/or co-emitted species such as ethane as well as information in the bottom-up inventories on anthropogenic super-emitters detected by remote sensing (mainly oil and gas sector but also coal, agriculture, and landfills) to improve source partitioning. The data presented here can be downloaded from https://doi.org/10.18160/GKQ9-2RHT (Martinez et al., 2024).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2016

Climate Change Observation Accuracy: Requirements and Economic Value

This presentation will summarize a new quantitative approach to determining the required accuracy for climate change observations. Using this metric, most current global satellite observations struggle to meet this accuracy level. CLARREO (Climate Absolute Radiance and Refractivity Observatory) is a new satellite mission designed to resolve this challenge is by achieving advances of a factor of 10 for reflected solar spectra and a factor of 3 to 5 for thermal infrared spectra. The CLARREO spectrometers can serve as SI traceable benchmarks for the Global Satellite Intercalibration System (GSICS) and greatly improve the utility of a wide range of LEO and GEO infrared and reflected solar satellite sensors for climate change observations (e.g. CERES, MODIS, VIIIRS, CrIS, IASI, Landsat, etc). A CLARREO Pathfinder mission for flight on the International Space Station is included in the U.S. Presidentâ€"TM"s fiscal year 2016 budget, with launch in 2019 or 2020. Providing more accurate decadal change trends can in turn lead to more rapid narrowing of key climate science uncertainties such as cloud feedback and climate sensitivity. A new study has been carried out to quantify the economic benefits of such an advance and concludes that the economic value is ~ $9 Trillion U.S. dollars. The new value includes the cost of carbon emissions reductions.

Wielicki, Bruce↗
NASA NTRS2021

Validation Assessment for the Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) Level 4 Carbon (L4_C) Data Product Version 5

The post-launch Cal/Val phase of the SMAP mission is guided by two primary objectives for each science product team: 1) to calibrate, verify, and improve the performance of the science algorithms, and 2) validate accuracies of the science data products as specified in the SMAP Level-1 mission science requirements. Algorithm science and product maintenance activities during the SMAP extended mission phase have also involved periodic algorithm calibration and product refinements to maintain or enhance product consistency and performance as well as science utility. This report provides an assessment of the latest (Version 5) SMAP Level 4 Carbon (L4_C) product. The L4_C Version 5 (v5) global record now spans more than six years (March 2015 – present) of SMAP operations and has benefited from five major reprocessing updates to the operational product. These reprocessing events and L4_C product release updates have incorporated various algorithm refinements and calibration adjustments to account for similar refinements to the upstream GEOS land model assimilation system, SMAP brightness temperatures, and MODIS vegetation inputs used for L4_C processing. The SMAP L4_C algorithms utilize a terrestrial carbon flux model informed by daily surface and root zone soil moisture information contributed from the SMAP Level 4 Soil Moisture (L4_SM) product along with optical remote sensing-based (e.g. MODIS-based) land cover and canopy fractional photosynthetic active radiation (fPAR), and other ancillary biophysical data. The carbon flux model estimates global daily net ecosystem CO2 exchange (NEE) and the component carbon fluxes, namely, vegetation gross primary production (GPP) and soil heterotrophic respiration (Rh). Other L4_C product elements include surface (~0-5 cm depth) soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks and associated environmental constraints to these processes, including soil moisture-related controls on GPP and ecosystem respiration (Kimball et al. 2014, Jones et al. 2017). The L4_C product addresses SMAP carbon cycle science objectives by: 1) providing a direct link between terrestrial carbon fluxes and underlying freeze/thaw and soil moisture-related constraints to these processes, 2) documenting primary connections between terrestrial water, energy and carbon cycles, and 3) improving understanding of terrestrial carbon sink activity. The SMAP L4_C algorithms and operational product are mature and at a CEOS Validation Stage 4 level (Jackson et al. 2012) based on extensive validation of the multi-year record against a diverse array of independent benchmarks, well characterized global performance, and systematic refinements gained from five major reprocessing events. There are no Level-1 mission science requirements for the L4_C product; however, self-imposed requirements have been established focusing on NEE as the primary product field for validation, and on demonstrating L4_C accuracy and success in meeting product science requirements (Jackson et al. 2012). The other L4_C product fields also have strong utility for carbon science applications (e.g., Liu et al. 2019, Endsley et al. 2020); however, analysis of these other fields is considered secondary relative to primary validation activities focusing on NEE. The L4_C targeted accuracy requirements are to meet or exceed a mean unbiased root-mean-square error (ubRMSE, or standard deviation of the error) for NEE of 1.6 g C m-2 d-1 and 30 g C m-2 yr-1, emphasizing northern (≥45°N) boreal and arctic ecosystems; this accuracy is similar to that of tower eddy covariance measurement-based observations (Baldocchi 2008). Methods used for the latest v5 L4_C product performance and validation assessment have been established from the SMAP Cal/Val plan and previous studies (Jackson et al. 2012, Jones et al. 2017) and include: 1) consistency evaluations of the product fields against earlier product releases (version 4 or earlier); 2) comparisons of daily carbon flux estimates with independent tower eddy 4covariance measurement-based daily carbon (CO2) flux observations from core tower validation sites (CVS); and 3) consistency checks against other global carbon products, including soil carbon inventory records, global GPP records derived from tower observation upscaling methods, and satellite-based observations of canopy solar induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF) as a surrogate for GPP. Metrics used to evaluate relative agreement between L4_C product fields and observational benchmarks include correlation (r-value), RMSE differences, bias and model sensitivity diagnostics. Following these validation criteria, the present report provides a validation assessment of the latest L4_C product release (v5). Detailed descriptions of the L4_C algorithm and additional global product accuracy and performance results are given elsewhere (Jones et al. 2017, Endsley et al. 2020). The v5 L4_C product replaces earlier product versions and continues to show: (i) accuracy and performance levels meeting or exceeding SMAP L4_C science requirements; (ii) improvement over the previous product version (version 4); and (iii) suitability for a diversity of science applications. Example L4_C applications from the recent literature include clarifying environmental trends and controls on the northern terrestrial carbon sink (Liu et al. 2019), diagnosing drought-related impacts on ecosystem productivity (Li et al. 2020), and regional monitoring of cropland conditions for projecting annual yields (Wurster et al. 2020). 2EXPECTED L4_C ALGORITHM AND PRODUCTPERFORMANCE The L4_C algorithm performance, including variance and uncertainty estimates of model outputs, was determined during the mission pre-launch phase through spatially explicit model sensitivity studies using available model inputs similar to those currently being used for operational production and evaluating the resulting model simulations over the observed range of northern (≥45 °N) and global conditions (Kimball et al. 2012, Entekhabi et al. 2014). The L4_C algorithm options were also evaluated during the mission prelaunch phase, including deriving canopy fPAR from lower order NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) inputs in lieu of using MODIS (MOD15) fPAR; and including an explicit model representation of boreal fire disturbance recovery impacts. These results indicated that the L4_C accuracy requirements (i.e., NEE ubRMSE ≤ 30 g C m-2 yr-1or ≤ 1.6 g C m-2 d-1) could be met from the baseline algorithms over more than 82% and 89% of global and northern vegetated land areas, respectively (Yi et al. 2013, Kimball et al. 2014). The global L4_C algorithm error budget for NEE derived during the mission prelaunch phase indicated that the estimated NEE ubRMSE uncertainty is proportional to GPP and is therefore larger in higher biomass productivity areas, including forests and croplands (Kimball et al. 2014). Likewise, NEE ubRMSE uncertainty is expected to be lower in less-productive areas, including grasslands and shrublands. Expected model NEE ubRMSE levels were also generally within targeted accuracy levels for characteristically less-productive boreal and Arctic biomes, even though relative model error as a proportion of total productivity (NEE RMSE / GPP) may be large in these areas. The estimated NEE uncertainty was lower than expected in some warmer tropical high biomass productivity areas (e.g. Amazon rainforest) because of reduced low temperature and moisture constraints to the L4_C respiration calculations so that the bulk of model uncertainty is contributed by GPP in these areas. Model NEE uncertainty in the African Congo was estimated to

SMAP↗
DOE OSTI2025

ELM2.1-XGBfire1.0: improving wildfire prediction by integrating a machine learning fire model in a land surface model

Wildfires have shown increasing trends in both frequency and severity across the contiguous United States (CONUS). However, process-based fire models have difficulties in accurately simulating the burned area over the CONUS due to a simplification of the physical process and cannot capture the interplay among fire, ignition, climate, and human activities. The deficiency of burned area simulation deteriorates the description of fire impact on energy balance, water budget, and carbon fluxes in the Earth system models (ESMs). Alternatively, fire models based on machine learning (ML), which capture statistical relationships between the burned area and environmental factors, have shown promising burned area predictions and corresponding fire impact simulation. We develop a hybrid framework (ELM2.1-XGBFire1.0) that integrates an eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) wildfire model with the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) land model (ELM) version 2.1. A Fortran–C–Python deep learning bridge is adapted to support online communication between ELM and the ML fire model. Specifically, the burned area predicted by the ML-based wildfire model is directly passed to ELM to adjust the carbon pool and vegetation dynamics after disturbance, which are then used as predictors in the ML-based fire model in the next time step. Evaluated against the historical burned area from Global Fire Emissions Database 5 from 2001–2019, the ELM2.1-XGBFire1.0 outperforms process-based fire models in terms of spatial distribution and seasonal variations. The ELM2.1-XGBFire1.0 has proven to be a new tool for studying vegetation–fire interactions and, more importantly, enables seamless exploration of climate–fire feedback, working as an active component of E3SM.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Land-use harmonization datasets for annual global carbon budgets

Abstract. Land-use change has been the dominant source of anthropogenic carbon emissions for most of the historical period and is currently one of the largest and most uncertain components of the global carbon cycle. Advancing the scientific understanding on this topic requires that the best data be used as input to state-of-the-art models in well-organized scientific assessments. The Land-Use Harmonization 2 dataset (LUH2), previously developed and used as input for simulations of the 6th Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6), has been updated annually to provide required input to land models in the annual Global Carbon Budget (GCB) assessments. Here we discuss the methodology for producing these annual LUH2-GCB updates and extensions which incorporate annual wood harvest data updates from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations for dataset years after 2015 and the History Database of the Global Environment (HYDE) gridded cropland and grazing area data updates (based on annual FAO cropland and grazing area data updates) for dataset years after 2012, along with extrapolations to the current year due to a lag of 1 or more years in the FAO data releases. The resulting updated LUH2-GCB datasets have provided global, annual gridded land-use and land-use-change data relating to agricultural expansion, deforestation, wood harvesting, shifting cultivation, regrowth and afforestation, crop rotations, and pasture management and are used by both bookkeeping models and dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) for the GCB. For GCB 2019, a more significant update to LUH2 was produced, LUH2-GCB2019 (https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1851, Chini et al., 2020b), to take advantage of new data inputs that corrected cropland and grazing areas in the globally important region of Brazil as far back as 1950. From 1951 to 2012 the LUH2-GCB2019 dataset begins to diverge from the version of LUH2 used for the World Climate Research Programme's CMIP6, with peak differences in Brazil in the year 2000 for grazing land (difference of 100 000 km2) and in the year 2009 for cropland (difference of 77 000 km2), along with significant sub-national reorganization of agricultural land-use patterns within Brazil. The LUH2-GCB2019 dataset provides the base for future LUH2-GCB updates, including the recent LUH2-GCB2020 dataset, and presents a starting point for operationalizing the creation of these datasets to reduce time lags due to the multiple input dataset and model latencies.

Chini, Louise (ORCID:0000000290703505)↗
DOE OSTI2026

Contrasting carbon dynamics in grazed and flood-prone grasslands on mineral and degraded peat soils

Ecosystem-scale methane (CH₄) flux measurements from grazed grasslands remain scarce, despite their importance for understanding grassland contributions to the global carbon budget. In this study, we present full annual budgets of both carbon dioxide (CO₂) and CH₄ derived from eddy covariance measurements at two contrasting grazed grasslands: a floodplain grassland at Marchegg, Austria, and an intensively grazed pasture at Sherman Barn, California. By combining continuous, year-round observations of CO₂ and CH₄, this study provides a rare, comparative assessment of greenhouse gas dynamics across distinct climatic, hydrological, and management regimes. Our results highlight how environmental conditions, grazing intensity, and hydrology jointly regulate CO₂ exchange and CH₄ emissions, underscoring the importance of including methane alongside net ecosystem exchange when evaluating grassland carbon balances. At Marchegg, characterized by seasonal flooding and moderate horse grazing on mineral soils, the ecosystem acted as a weak carbon sink in 2024, with a GWP 100 of 42.2 ± 113.4 g CO₂ eq m⁻². Net CO₂ uptake (–27.3 ± 30.2 g C m⁻² yr⁻¹) was partly offset by CH₄ emissions (1.6 ± 0.04 g C m⁻² yr⁻¹), which were strongly linked to soil moisture and inundation events. In contrast, Sherman Barn, a cattle pasture on degraded peat soils, was a consistent carbon source in 2019, with a GWP 100 of 567.6 ± 120.5 g CO₂ eq m⁻², associated with high ecosystem respiration during summer. The site released 125.3 ± 32.2 g C m⁻² yr⁻¹ of CO₂ and 3 ± 0.06 g C m⁻² yr⁻¹ of CH₄. Across both sites, net ecosystem exchange was primarily linked to photosynthetically active radiation and vegetation greenness, while CH₄ fluxes were related to soil moisture rather than grazing intensity. Flooding at Marchegg reduced CO₂ uptake but enhanced CH₄ emissions, highlighting the critical role of flood timing within the growing season. Moreover, inundation appeared to suppress the spread of invasive plant species, emphasizing the ecological value of dynamic hydrological regimes. Together, these findings reveal the complexity of grassland carbon budgets and the need for site-specific, year-round CO₂ and CH₄ monitoring to inform climate-adaptive management strategies.

Carbon sequestration↗
DOE OSTI2020

DSCOVR/EPIC-derived global hourly and daily downward shortwave and photosynthetically active radiation data at 0.1° × 0.1° resolution

Downward shortwave radiation (SW) and photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) play crucial roles in Earth system dynamics. Spaceborne remote sensing techniques provide a unique means for mapping accurate spatiotemporally continuous SW–PAR, globally. However, any individual polar-orbiting or geostationary satellite cannot satisfy the desired high temporal resolution (sub-daily) and global coverage simultaneously, while integrating and fusing multisource data from complementary satellites/sensors is challenging because of co-registration, intercalibration, near real-time data delivery and the effects of discrepancies in orbital geometry. The Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC) on board the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR), launched in February 2015, offers an unprecedented possibility to bridge the gap between high temporal resolution and global coverage and characterize the diurnal cycles of SW–PAR globally. In this study, we adopted a suite of well-validated data-driven machine-learning models to generate the first global land products of SW–PAR, from June 2015 to June 2019, based on DSCOVR/EPIC data. The derived products have high temporal resolution (hourly) and medium spatial resolution (0.1°×0.1°), and they include estimates of the direct and diffuse components of SW–PAR. We used independently widely distributed ground station data from the Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN), the Surface Radiation Budget Network (SURFRAD), NOAA's Global Monitoring Division and the U.S. Department of Energy's Atmospheric System Research (ASR) program to evaluate the performance of our products, and we further analyzed and compared the spatiotemporal characteristics of the derived products with the benchmarking Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System Synoptic (CERES) data. We found both the hourly and daily products to be consistent with ground-based observations (e.g., hourly and daily total SWs have low biases of -3.96 and -0.71 W m -2 and root-mean-square errors (RMSEs) of 103.50 and 35.40 W m -2 , respectively). The developed products capture the complex spatiotemporal patterns well and accurately track substantial diurnal, monthly, and seasonal variations in SW–PAR when compared to CERES data. They provide a reliable and valuable alternative for solar photovoltaic applications worldwide and can be used to improve our understanding of the diurnal and seasonal variabilities of the terrestrial water, carbon and energy fluxes at various spatial scales.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

A full year of aerosol size distribution data from the central Arctic under an extreme positive Arctic Oscillation: insights from the Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) expedition

Abstract. The Arctic environment is rapidly changing due to accelerated warming in the region. The warming trend is driving a decline in sea ice extent, which thereby enhances feedback loops in the surface energy budget in the Arctic. Arctic aerosols play an important role in the radiative balance and hence the climate response in the region, yet direct observations of aerosols over the Arctic Ocean are limited. In this study, we investigate the annual cycle in the aerosol particle number size distribution (PNSD), particle number concentration (PNC), and black carbon (BC) mass concentration in the central Arctic during the Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) expedition. This is the first continuous, year-long data set of aerosol PNSD ever collected over the sea ice in the central Arctic Ocean. We use a k-means cluster analysis, FLEXPART simulations, and inverse modeling to evaluate seasonal patterns and the influence of different source regions on the Arctic aerosol population. Furthermore, we compare the aerosol observations to land-based sites across the Arctic, using both long-term measurements and observations during the year of the MOSAiC expedition (2019–2020), to investigate interannual variability and to give context to the aerosol characteristics from within the central Arctic. Our analysis identifies that, overall, the central Arctic exhibits typical seasonal patterns of aerosols, including anthropogenic influence from Arctic haze in winter and secondary aerosol processes in summer. The seasonal pattern corresponds to the global radiation, surface air temperature, and timing of sea ice melting/freezing, which drive changes in transport patterns and secondary aerosol processes. In winter, the Norilsk region in Russia/Siberia was the dominant source of Arctic haze signals in the PNSD and BC observations, which contributed to higher accumulation-mode PNC and BC mass concentrations in the central Arctic than at land-based observatories. We also show that the wintertime Arctic Oscillation (AO) phenomenon, which was reported to achieve a record-breaking positive phase during January–March 2020, explains the unusual timing and magnitude of Arctic haze across the Arctic region compared to longer-term observations. In summer, the aerosol PNCs of the nucleation and Aitken modes are enhanced; however, concentrations were notably lower in the central Arctic over the ice pack than at land-based sites further south. The analysis presented herein provides a current snapshot of Arctic aerosol processes in an environment that is characterized by rapid changes, which will be crucial for improving climate model predictions, understanding linkages between different environmental processes, and investigating the impacts of climate change in future Arctic aerosol studies.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2020

Increasing anthropogenic methane emissions arise equally from agricultural and fossil fuel sources

Climate stabilization remains elusive, with increased greenhouse gas concentrations already increasing global average surface temperatures 1.1°C above pre-industrial levels (World Meteorological Organization 2019). Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel use, deforestation, and other anthropogenic sources reached ~ 43 billion metric tonnes in 2019 (Friedlingstein et al 2019, Jackson et al 2019). Storms, floods, and other extreme weather events displaced a record 7 million people in the first half of 2019 (IDMC 2019). When global mean surface temperature four million years ago was 2°C–3°C warmer than today (a likely temperature increase before the end of the century), ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica melted and parts of East Antarctica’s ice retreated, causing sea levels to rise 10–20 m (World Meteorological Organization 2019). Methane (CH4) emissions have contributed almost one quarter of the cumulative radiative forcings for CO2, CH4, and N2O (nitrous oxide) combined since 1750 (Etminan et al 2016). Although methane is far less abundant in the atmosphere than CO2, it absorbs thermal infrared radiation much more efficiently and, in consequence, has a global warming potential (GWP) ~86 times stronger per unit mass than CO2 on a 20-year timescale and 28- times more powerful on a 100-year time scale (IPCC 2014). Global average methane concentrations in the atmosphere reached ~1875 parts per billion (ppb) at the end of 2019, more than two-and-a-half times preindustrial levels (Dlugokencky 2020). The largest methane sources include anthropogenic emissions from agriculture, waste, and the extraction and use of fossil fuels as well as natural emissions from wetlands, freshwater systems, and geological sources (Kirschke et al 2013, Saunois et al 2016a, Ganesan et al 2019). Here, we summarize new estimates of the global methane budget based on the analysis of Saunois et al (2020) for the year 2017, the last year of the new Global Methane Budget and the most recent year data are fully available. We compare these estimates to mean values for the reference ‘stabilization’ period of 2000–2006 when atmospheric CH4 concentrations were relatively stable. We present data for sources and sinks and provide insights for the geographical regions and economic sectors where emissions have changed the most over recent decades.

fossil fuel sources↗
NASA NTRS2001

Mapping Rice Production in China with AVHRR Imagery

The study of rice agriculture is necessary for both the importance of rice as a vital food source and because of the fact that cultivating it has an unfortunate byproduct, namely methane gas. As a food source, rice is a staple for a large majority of the world's population, especially in Asia. Because the populations of many Asian nations are increasing at rapid rates, the production of rice will need to similarly increase. In 1989, it was estimated that the demand for rice would increase by 65% by the year 2019. Rice crops are considered to be one of the primary anthropogenic sources of methane gas. A reason for concern is that this gas is a so-called "greenhouse" trace gas and given its increasing levels in the atmosphere, is thought to contribute to the suspected global warming phenomenon. Some estimate that methane may contribute up to 20% to the global warming effect. Trace gas emissions from anthropogenic sources is an issue that generates great worldwide interest because of the fact that mankind is very likely affecting the current and future climate in potentially negative ways. In an effort to better understand these effects, scientists and engineers are conducting research on all of the varied fronts which relate to climate change and biosphere/atmosphere interactions. The study of global warming through increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases is one area which has received much media and scientific attention. Research fueled by debates on this topic is being conducted on numerous, interrelated fronts in an effort to better understand the complex relationship between human activities and the earth's climate. The research ranges from attempting to verify if the observed data even supports the existence of an anthropogenically generated global-warming phenomenon, to identification of sources and sinks of the trace gases, to measuring the source strengths, to studies which focus on modeling the processes which generate the gases, and finally, to trying to project their impact on the global climatic system. Some of the more commonly known sources of greenhouse gases are related to industry and transportation. Carbon dioxide, CO2, from automobile emissions is one such example. Lesser known are sources from natural and cultivated vegetation, such as the methane, CH4, resulting from rice cropping. While the concentration of atmospheric methane is significantly less than that of carbon dioxide, CH4 has been estimated to have up to 32 times the insulating capability of carbon dioxide, making it an important gas to monitor. The remainder of this chapter will provide some additional background information on the effects of atmospheric methane, and the role that rice agriculture plays as a source in the methane budget. This will be followed by a brief description of efforts to model this source of atmospheric methane. Finally, this chapter will end with a statement of the hypotheses of this thesis, at which time a description of the information contained in the rest of this document will be provided.

Paliouras, Eleni J.↗