North American Carbon Program update

1
North American Carbon Program update

• Ken Davis
• Co-chair, NACP Science Steering Group
• US Carbon Cycle science plan working group
  meeting, 17-18 November, 2008

2
Outline

• NACP goals vs. US Carbon Cycle Science Plan goals
• NACP progress to date vs. NACP Plan, SIS.
• Current NACP activities, planning efforts

3

• NACP goals and questions
• vs.
• U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Plan goals

4
US Carbon Cycle Science Plan Goals, 1999

• Quantify and understand the Northern Hemisphere
  terrestrial carbon sink.
• Quantify and understand the uptake of
  anthropogenic CO2 in the ocean.
• Determine the impacts of past and current land
  use on the carbon budget.
• Provide greatly improved projections of future
  atmospheric concentrations of CO2.
• Develop the scientific basis for societal
  decisions about management of CO2 and the carbon
  cycle.

5
NACP Goals

• Develop quantitative scientific knowledge, robust
  observations, and models to determine the
  emissions and uptake of CO2, CH4, and CO, the
  changes in carbon stocks, and the factors
  regulating these processes for North America and
  adjacent ocean basins.
• Develop the scientific basis to implement full
  carbon accounting on regional and continental
  scales.
• Support long-term quantitative measurements of
  sources and sinks of atmospheric CO2 and CH4, and
  develop forecasts for future trends.

NACP Plan, 2002
6
NACP Questions

• What is the carbon balance of North America and
  adjacent oceans? What are the geographic
  patterns of fluxes of CO2, CH4, and CO? How is
  the balance changing over time? (Diagnosis)
• What processes control the sources and sinks of
  CO2, CH4, and CO, and how do the controls change
  with time? (Attribution)
• Are there potential surprises (could sources
  increase or sinks disappear)? (Prediction)
• How can we enhance and manage long-lived carbon
  sinks ("sequestration"), and provide resources to
  support decision makers? (Decision support)

7
Conclusions (mine)

• The four NACP questions (NACP SIS, 2005)
  incorporate the 5 U.S. carbon cycle science plan
  goals, though the scope of study is limited to
  North America.
• The need for prediction could be called out more
  explicitly.
• The link to carbon management should be broadened
  beyond enhancing carbon sequestration.

8

• NACP progress
• vs.
• NACP Plan, Science Implementation Strategy
  documents

9
NACP Goals

• Develop quantitative scientific knowledge, robust
  observations, and models to determine the
  emissions and uptake of CO2, CH4, and CO, the
  changes in carbon stocks, and the factors
  regulating these processes for North America and
  adjacent ocean basins. (en route - CO2)
• Develop the scientific basis to implement full
  carbon accounting on regional and continental
  scales. (en route - CO2)
• Support long-term quantitative measurements of
  sources and sinks of atmospheric CO2 and CH4, and
  develop forecasts for future trends.

NACP Plan, 2002
10
NACP Questions

• What is the carbon balance of North America and
  adjacent oceans? What are the geographic
  patterns of fluxes of CO2, CH4, and CO? How is
  the balance changing over time? (Diagnosis)
  (en route - CO2)
• What processes control the sources and sinks of
  CO2, CH4, and CO, and how do the controls change
  with time? (Attribution) (en route - CO2)
• Are there potential surprises (could sources
  increase or sinks disappear)? (Prediction)
• How can we enhance and manage long-lived carbon
  sinks ("sequestration"), and provide resources to
  support decision makers? (Decision support)

11
Five-Year Deliverables from NACP Plan

• Measurements of sources and sinks for CO2, CH4,
  and CO for North America and adjacent ocean
  basins at scales from continental to local, with
  seasonal resolution. (imminent? - CO2)
• Attribution of sources and sinks to contributing
  mechanisms. (in progress)
• Documentation of North Americas contribution to
  the Northern Hemisphere carbon budget.
  (imminent? - CO2)
• Optimized sampling networks (both ground-based an
  remote) to determine past, current, and future
  sources and sinks. (in progress)
• Data assimilation models to compute carbon
  balances. (preliminary tools in hand - CO2)
• First State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR)
  for North America. (in hand)

12
Thoughts (mine)

• Documentation of North Americas contribution to
  the Northern Hemisphere carbon budget.
  (imminent? - CO2)
• When are we finished? How accurate and precise
  do we need to be? Must link to prediction and
  decision science.
• Optimized sampling networks (both ground-based an
  remote) to determine past, current, and future
  sources and sinks. (in progress)
• We havent spent much time and effort on real
  network design. Must link to needed precision
  and accuracy.

13
NACP Integration Strategy
Strong progress Future work

• Process studies and manipulative experiments
  inform improved models
• Systematic observations of land, ocean, and
  atmosphere used to evaluate models
• Innovative model-data fusion techniques produce
  optimal estimates of time mean and spatial and
  temporal variations in fluxes and stocks
• Improved models used to predict future
  variations, and tested against ongoing diagnostic
  analyses
• Predictive models and continuing analyses used to
  enhance decision support.
• Decision support needs should feed back to
  influence the research plan.

14
Operational Phase of the NACP

The NACP Plan called for an operational phase of
NACP in which the observational and analysis
infrastructure would be available, as a legacy
to produce periodic, reliable estimates of net
sources and sinks for CO2, CO, and CH4 and of
changes in carbon stocks. (not there yet)
15

• Science update

16
Scientific progress Overview

• Pre-NACP results
• Synthesized by SOCCR, 2007
• Examples of recent publications, products
• Peters et al, 2007 / Carbon Tracker
• Potter et al, 2007
• Vulcan
• Interim syntheses
• Effort to bring together and assess progress to
  date (such as examples given above)
• Future work
• View beyond the interim syntheses

17

• pre-NACP

18
North America is currently a net source of CO2
(1264 Mt C yr-1), with 30 of fossil fuel
emissions (1856 ? 464 Mt C yr-1 in 2003) offset
by a net terrestrial sink of 592 ? 296 Mt C yr-1.
Courtesy Tony King, ORNL
SOCCR CCSP SAP 2.2
State of the Carbon Cycle
Report
19
Atmospheric-biomass inventory comparison
Results demonstrate rough agreement between
atmospheric and biomass inventories over the
coterminous United States.
Points represent various methods of performing
the atmospheric inverse estimate.
Pacala et al, 2001, Science.
20
Atmospheric inventory results
Gurney et al, 2002, Nature
21

• Examples of recent publications, products

22
Operational Atmospheric Budgets
Courtesy Wouter Peters, NOAA ESRL
23
NOAA Carbon Tracker
24
Carbon tracker results
Annual NEE (gC m-2 yr-1) for 2000-2005
(left). Summer NEE for 2002, 2004
(above). Peters et al, 2007, PNAS
25
Bottom-up continental carbon flux estimate
Potter et al, 2007

• CASA and MODIS synthesis
• Net Ecosystem Productivity (NEP) for the
  coterminous U.S., 2001-2004
• Interannual variability in fluxes correlated with
  climate patterns
• Comparison to four AmeriFlux towers to evaluate
  flux diagnostic

26
Bottom-up flux estimate example Potter et
al., 2007
Figure 8. Annual NEP maps
27
Project VULCAN Emissions Estimates(AREA Sources)
natlog of tonnes C/day January 3, 2002
Country-level consumption Distrib. By ?
Courtesy Kevin Gurney, Purdue Univ
28
Project VULCAN Emissions Estimates(POINT Sources)
Tonnes C/day/facility
Courtesy Kevin Gurney, Purdue Univ
29
Project VULCAN Emissions Estimates(ROAD Sources)
Courtesy Kevin Gurney, Purdue Univ
30

• Interim syntheses Plans and progress

31
Interim syntheses underway

• Regional/continental comparison
• Post, Jacobson
• Site-based model-data comparison
• Schaefer, Thornton, Davis
• Midcontinental intensive regional syntheses
• Ogle, Verma, Denning
• Non-CO2 greenhouse gas synthesis
• Wofsy
• Coastal ocean carbon cycle synthesis
• Coble et al

32
Overall goals of the interim syntheses

• Evaluate current ability to
• diagnose carbon fluxes at site, regional and
  continental scales using multiple methods.
• attribute magnitude and variability in fluxes to
  governing processes.
• (Temporal focus 2000-2005.)

33
General schedule site and continental synthesis
projects

• Synthesis protocol drafted and distributed - Feb
  2008
• Data being sent to MAST-DC - May-June 2008
• Model results being sent to MAST-DC - May-June
  2008 (ongoing)
• Initial analyses - June to Sept 2008 (ongoing)
• Workshops - Oct 2008 (Now Jan 09)
• Papers drafted - Oct 2008 to Jan 2009 (Now Jan-?
  09)
• Present results at NACP All-Scientist meeting -
  Feb 2009
• Submit papers for publication - March 2009 (?)

34
Regional Model-Data Comparison

• An NACP Interim Synthesis Project
• Andrew Jacobson, Mac Post
• Coordinators

35
Regional MDC Objectives

• Some specific hypotheses have been suggested by
  CASA and CarbonTracker analyses
• Interannual Variation
• What is the spatial pattern and magnitude of
  interannual variation in carbon fluxes during
  2000-2005?
• What are the components of carbon fluxes and
  pools that contribute to this variation?
• 2002 Drought
• Do model results and observations show consistent
  spatial patterns in response to the 2002 drought?
  
• From measurements and ecosystem models, can we
  infer what processes were affected by the 2002
  drought?
• Identification of Sources/Sinks
• What are the magnitudes and spatial distribution
  of carbon sources and sinks, and their
  uncertainties during 2000-2005?

36
Who Are the Participants?

• Modeling teams with relevant results
• NACP investigators
• Any other modeling team that is interested
• Data providers and analysis teams
• Involve data providers in all phases of project
• Include teams with measurements made at local
  sites and/or spatial regions at many scales

37
Ecosystem Model Participants
38
(No Transcript)
39
Motivation Inversions tend to find much more
interannual variability than bottom-up models.
Which should we trust? Plan Gather North
American fluxes from current generation of
inversions and bottom-up models. Identify areas
of agreement and disagreement.
40
Preliminary findings Inversions show much more
interannual variability and larger N. American
sinks vs. forwards models. Which is correct?
41
NACP Site Model Data Comparison

• Quantify model data uncertainty
• Simulated vs. observed flux at 30 flux towers
• All modelers invited

42
Midcontinental intensive interim syntheses

• Bottom-up model estimate syntheses - Ogle
• Flux tower comparison and synthesis - Verma
• Atmospheric inversion results - Denning
• Goal Interim evaluation of the MCI
  methodological test - can we obtain consistent
  top-down and bottom-up flux estimates for an
  intensively sampled region of North America?

43
Net cumulative change in soil carbon from
1991-2000 caused by changes in tillage intensity
and crop rotations.
Net change 67.7 Tg C.
Estimates of soil carbon change at 30x30m
resolution using combination of remote sensing
and inventory products
Courtesy Tris West, ORNL
44
N. American CO2 observations - 2004
45
NACP Mid-Continent Intensive (2007)
Iowa tower is surrounded by a 2007-2008 mesonet
(light blue), and a growing continental
network. Sites are a mixture of platforms and
research groups.
Note the lack of sites in the Gulf region!
http//www.amerifluxco2.psu.edu/
46

• NACP SSG current focus

47
NACP work in progress

• Interim syntheses underway
• Results to be presented at Feb09 meeting
• Participation open to all - see
  http//www.nacarbon.org
• Update of the NACP Science Implementation
  Strategy
• underway, led by the NACP SSG.
• discussion at Aug08 NACP SSG meeting
• Strong wish for increased focus on prediction and
  decision support questions
• SSG membership rotation implemented
• Added focus on members with expertise is decision
  support/decision science.
• Orbital Carbon Observatory launch, December 2008.
• Investigators meeting, 17-20 February, 2009, San
  Diego, CA.

48
NACP challenges

• Move from diagnosis and attribution into
  prediction and decision support.
• Identify important gaps that remain in our
  ability to diagnose and attribute.
• Identify and maintain observational
  infrastructure for the operational phase of the
  NACP.
• Broaden research to encompass more fully the
  processes (disturbance, management) needed to
  predict at time scales relevant to decision
  support (decades).

49
NACP essential glue(what is making the NACP
whole more than a sum of its parts?)

• NACP Office - Peter Griffith and staff
• Modeling and Synthesis Thematic Data Center
  (MAST-DC) - Bob Cook and staff
• Leaders of the NACP Interim Synthesis activities
• NACP SSG and CCIWG

50

• NACP Science Implementation Strategy review -
  August 2008 SSG discussion

51
Needs for progress

• SSG members with strong backgrounds in decision
  science, risk analysis, integrated assessment,
  economics, public policy, and ethics.
• IWG members from programs that fund research of
  this sort.
• Research focused on evaluating the efficacy of
  the NACP with regards to its decision support
  objectives.
• Continued discussion of more quantitative
  decision support objectives.

52
More specific decision support objectives
examples

• Reduce the uncertainty in carbon emissions
  reductions needed to cap atmospheric CO2 at a
  given threshold, or needed to limit climate
  change to a given level of warming.
• Provide an analysis system that can quantify
  regional fossil fuel emissions to within X
  independent of inventories.
• Provide tools for evaluating potential carbon
  management strategies (potential storage,
  stability of storage) to within specified
  uncertainty.
• Provide tools for verifying sequestration of
  carbon, either ecological or geological.

53
Sample

• The SIS calls for quantification of methane
  emissions and development of predictive models.
• This has effectively been dropped. Should it be
  revived?
• Evaluate this with respect to the need to limit
  atmospheric greenhouse gas burden (for example).
  How much does our lack of progress on methane
  damage our ability to reduce uncertainty in
  necessary carbon emissions reductions?

54
Possible approaches to this evaluation

• Chapter and verse method Review the SIS line by
  line, find deviances from the SIS, discuss our
  response to these deviances, revise SIS as
  needed. Treat SIS as gospel.
• Outcome-based method Start with the overall
  objectives (decision-support needs) of the NACP,
  and work backwards to evaluate how well the NACP
  is meetings the goals, and what of the SIS needs
  to be revised or updated. Use the objectives to
  evaluate whether or not the original SIS approach
  is needed.

55
(No Transcript)
56
Vision
Experimental constraints
(details of flux magnitude and observations left
ambiguous - could be applied to many regions or
observations)
What mix of observations and experiments are
needed? What processes need to be included?
57
Site-benefit ratio
Where are we on this curve?
Regional flux uncertainty
Threshold for setting good enough constraint on
future terrestrial carbon flux at regional scale
What is this number? 1, 10, 100, 1000?
Number of measurement sites