verification of emissions and sinks through comparison of different methods/models - an overview
DESCRIPTION
Verification of emissions and sinks through comparison of different methods/models - an overview. After yesterday discussions and presentations I expanded the WHY part and reduced the HOW part. G. Seufert Leader of JRC-Project GHG Data. Outline:. Verification – why? - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Verification of emissions and sinks through comparison of different methods/models
- an overview
Verification – why? Kyoto and the atmospheric signal The terrestrial carbon cycle = a major unknown Soil carbon under land use change = THE major unknown
Verification – how? Examples:
• Forest C sink in Europe – comparison of different methods
• Carboeurope: multiple constrains of the European carbon cycle
• Inverse modelling of CH4-emissions in Europe Conclusions
G. Seufert Leader of JRC-Project GHG Data
Outline:
After yesterday discussions and presentations I
expanded the WHY part and reduced the
HOW part
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
• The near-term challenge is to achieve the Kyoto targets
• The longer-term challenge is to meet the objectives of Article 2 of the UNFCCC, i.e., stabilization of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system
Verification – why?
The challenge of mitigation
“To be consistent with good practice as defined in the report, inventories should contain neither over nor underestimates as far as can be judged, and the uncertainties in those estimates should be reduced as far as practicable” (GPG 2000)
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Verification – why?
• The primary target of the FCCC is the atmosphere (by the way,
to protect the atmosphere we need to consider all climate drivers), and Kyoto measures should be visible in the atmospheric signal (one day)
• The “practicability” principle of IPCC-type of reporting has the intrinsic problem of potential bias due to partial or non-reporting of potentially relevant sectors (esp. AFOLU)
• In the mid-term, lets say within 3-5ys, reliable and well constrained estimates of the European GHG-cycle will be available anyhow by the research community (Carboeurope, Nitroeurope etc.) - at this moment, reporting should be consistent with “latest science”
In the near-term, independent verification is not really required for fulfilling reporting needs, however
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
The Global Carbon CycleUnits Gt C and Gt C y-1
The KP seeks to reduce net carbon emissions by about 0.3 Gt C below 1990 levels
from industrial countries
Atmosphere
Fossil Deposits6.362.3
92.3
60
90
3.3
Plants
Soil
Oceans
750
500
2000
39,000
About 16,0001.6
…are leading to a build up of CO2
in the atmosphere.
Fossil emissions ...
…and land clearing in the tropics...
from IPCC-TAR (2001)
Verification – why?
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Global carbon budget 1980-1999Fluxes in GtC/year (IPCC Third Assessment Report, Vol 1)
1980s 1990s
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atmospheric C accumulation 3.3 0.1 3.2 0.2
= Emissions (fossil, cement) 5.4 0.3 6.4 0.6
+ Net ocean-air flux -1.9 0.5 -1.7 0.5
+ Net land-air flux -0.2 0.7 -1.4 0.7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net land-air flux - 0.2 0.7 -1.4 0.7
= Land use change emission 1.7 (0.6 to 2.5) Assume 1.6 0.8
+ Terrestrial sink (residual !!) -1.9 (-3.8 to 0.3) -3.0 1 (?)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Raupach, CSIRO 2002
Verification – why?
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
• Global trend known very accurately
• Provides an overall constraint on the total carbon budget
• Interannual variability is of the same order as anthropogenic emissions (terrestrial systems do not sequester efficiently during El-Nino events)
• Annual variability is governed by biospheric cycles
Source:Tans/NOAA, U.S.
Kyoto and the atmospheric signal
Verification – why?
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Continental vs. ocean anomalies in the European carbon balance
Verification – why?
Carbon flux over western Europe as inferred by inverse modelling
Kyoto and the atmospheric signal(Carboeurope 2000)
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
C O 2
G P Pp h o t o s y n t h e s i s1 2 0 G t C /y r
N P P : 6 0 G t C /y r N E P : 1 0 G t C /y r N B P : 1 - 2 G t C /y r
p l a n tr e s p i r a t i o n6 0 G t C /y r
H e t e r o t r o p h i cr e s p i r a t i o n 5 0 G t C /y r
D i s t u r b a n c e :fi r e , h a r v e s t8 - 9 G t C /y r
E c o l o g i c a l T e r m s : N e t P r i m a r y P r o d u c t i o n N e t E c o s y s t e m P r o d u c t i o n N e t B i o m e P r o d u c t i o n
F o r e s t r y t e r m s : G r o s s A n n u a l I n c r e m e n t N e t A n n u a l I n c r e m e n t N e t C h a n g e i n S t a n d i n g V o l u m e
N a t u r a l M o r t a l i t y T h i n n n i n g a n d H a r v e s t
K e y f l u x e s i n t h e t e r r e s t r i a l c a r b o n c y c l eKey fluxes in the terrestrial carbon cycle
Verification – why?
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Components of the
terrestrial carbon cycle
PS photosynthesis
CWD Course Woody Products
Ra autotrophic respiration
Rh heterotrophic respiration
SOM Soil Organic Matter
Verification – why?
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Carbon stocks in global ecosystems
Car
bon
sto
cks
in [
kg
m-2 ]
Based on IPCC LULUCF-Report 2002
Verification – why?
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
woodland
arable land
grassland, fallow land
Land-use change and soil erosion in Germany (without Alps)(from IGBP 2003)
Verification – why?
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Ecosystems – Country C budget
• Land use matters in many countries compared to fossil emissions
• Forests are a major and grassland a minor sink
• Croplands are major source
• Trade confounds atmospheric signal
• Peatlands are small, but important in some countries
from Janssens et al. 2004
Verification – why?
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Reporting of CO2 Emissions and Removals from Soils by EU 15
Verification – why?
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Conclusions:
• The terrestrial carbon cycle is a major climate driver
• At the same time it is a major unknown (e.g., high interannual variability but no annual data, quantification of ecological cycles vs. one-way emission from fossil sources, simple scaling from timber volume inventories does not consider ecological cycles)
• Major part of terrestrial carbon is stored in soils
• Major part of soil carbon was lost to the atmosphere during land use history (could partly be recovered through proper PAMs in the AFOLU-sector )
• LULUCF is potentially relevant for some countries but has not been taken serious in previous reporting (no uncertainty estimates, no projections, only partial reporting)
• This may have relevant implications for some countries with regard to adjustment decisions and net-net/gross-net accounting under KP
Verification – why?
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Forest and w oody biomass (IPCC)
Land use change and forestry (IPCC)
Biomass (Inventory)
Biomass+Harvest+Residues (Inventory)
Forest stand (Eddy f lux)
Forest stand (Eddy f lux)
Biomass+Soil (C pools)
Soil only (C pools)
Trees (Inventory)
Biomass (Inventory)
Biomass+Harvest+Residues (Inventory)
Biomass (Inventory)
Terrestrial biosphere (Inverse model)
Terrestrial biosphere (Inverse model)
Terrestrial biosphere (Inverse model)
Terrestrial biosphere (Inverse model)
Annual Terrestrial Carbon Flux Estimates (Gt C a -1; positive sign: sink)
European Community EU 15
West and Central Europe
European Continent
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(7)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(1) EEA/ETC Air Emissions 1999; (2) Kauppi and Tomppo 1993; (3) Martin 1998; (4) Martin et al. 1998; (5) Schulze et al. 2000; (6) Nabuurs et al. 1997; (7) Kauppi et al. 1992; (8) Bousquet et al. 1999; (9) Kaminski et al. 1999; (10) Rayner et al. 1997; (11) Ciais et al. 1995
Compiled by H.Dolman, Carboeurope
Verification – how?
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Focus on: largest contributors to the uncertainty, i.e.- terrestrial carbon sinks- CH4 & N2O sources and sinks in
agricultural activities (soil, animals)
Example 1: JRC project GHG Data with its objective to support the EC GHG Inventory System
Approach: - harmonize and improve MS methodologies- develop EU wide methodologies
(with research community)
Users: POLICY IMPLEMENTATION- DG ENV Monitoring Mechanism Committee- IPCC Good Practice Guidance- Member States
__________________________Part 1) Conceptual Framework
Verification – how?
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Activity B
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
NEP 1999< 00 - 10 Gg10 - 20 Gg20 - 30 Gg30 - 40 Gg40 - 50 Gg50 - 60 Gg60 - 70 Gg> 70
500 0 500 1000 1500 Kilometers
N
1999 Carbon sink estimates for the EU15
NEP: Net Ecosystem Production
(c) 2000 J RC - SAIAuthor: Paul Smits
Projection: GeographicA J RC map
N
Soil
Atmospheric CO2
Growth Respiration
Maintenance Respiration
PSN
Allocation to new growth
N uptake
Soil mineral N
Atmospheric N
Soil organicmatter
Litter
Plant
C
Meteorological data
Vegetation
Autotropic respiration
Forest Carbon Budget Process Modelling and
Information System
Country NEP [Tg Carbon] NPP [Tg Carbon]Sweden 3.1 26.7Finland 1.27 10.6Spain 2.43 29.4France 4.59 61.7Germany 3.96 39.1Italy 1.06 16.5Austria 0.88 8.5Portugal 0.29 4.6Greece 0.51 7.3UK 0.59 7.1Belgium 0.17 1.9Denmark 0.09 1.0Netherlands 0.10 1.0Ireland 0.01 1.0Total 19.1 216.4
Verification – how?
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Example 2: Carboeurope multiple constraint approach
Verification – how?
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
CarboEurope-IP - Overall objective:
Understand and quantify the terrestrial carbonbalance of Europe and associated uncertaintiesat local, regional and continental scale.
Target:
• Daily-monthly at “Eurogrid” resolution (10-100km x 10-100km)
• Continental annual uncertainty 10%
Verification – how?
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Workshop “Inverse modelling for potential verification of national and EU bottom-up GHG inventories "
under the mandate of Monitoring Mechanism Committee
23-24 October 2003
JRC Ispra
Environment
Example 3: Inverse modelling
Verification – how?
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
• offline atmospheric transport model
• meteo from ECMWF
• global simulation 6o x 4o
• zooming 1o x 1o (Europe, …)
• http://www.phys.uu.nl/~tm5/
TM5 model – atmospheric zoom model
Inverse modelling of CH4 emissions in Europe
Verification – how?
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Comparison a priori / a posteriori emissions
UNFCCC a priori used in this study a posteriori
[EEA, 2003] [EEA, 2004] anthrop. natural total avg S1-S9 range anthr. IM vs [EEA, 2004]
EU-15Germany 2.40 4.04 3.62 0.26 3.88 ± 0.64 4.15 ( 3.90 ... 4.87 ) 3.89 -3.7Italy 1.73 1.68 2.06 -0.04 2.02 ± 0.40 2.15 ( 2.10 ... 2.19 ) 2.19 30.3France 3.08 3.01 2.68 -0.11 2.56 ± 0.42 4.43 ( 3.86 ... 4.71 ) 4.54 51.0BENELUX 1.49 1.42 1.31 0.15 1.47 ± 0.23 1.60 ( 1.35 ... 1.67 ) 1.45 1.9Austria 0.43 0.36 0.33 -0.01 0.32 ± 0.05 0.30 ( 0.28 ... 0.30 ) 0.31 -13.5Spain 1.92 1.92 1.91 -0.06 1.84 ± 0.32 2.00 ( 1.96 ... 2.04 ) 2.06 7.4Portugal 0.51 0.39 0.39 -0.02 0.37 ± 0.08 0.38 ( 0.38 ... 0.39 ) 0.40 3.1United Kingdom 2.20 2.19 3.39 -0.04 3.35 ± 0.82 4.21 ( 3.91 ... 4.40 ) 4.25 93.9Ireland 0.60 0.60 0.66 -0.01 0.64 ± 0.12 0.34 ( 0.26 ... 0.75 ) 0.36 -40.8Greece 0.53 0.53 0.42 -0.01 0.40 ± 0.07 0.40 ( 0.39 ... 0.40 ) 0.41 -22.6Sweden 0.28 0.28 0.22 0.85 1.08 ± 0.44 0.92 ( 0.86 ... 0.99 )Finland 0.26 0.26 0.24 2.98 3.23 ± 1.36 0.27 ( -0.27 ... 1.30 )Denmark 0.27 0.28 0.34 -0.01 0.34 ± 0.06 0.33 ( 0.30 ... 0.34 ) 0.34 20.1Total EU-15 15.69 16.96 17.59 3.92 21.51 ± 1.92 21.47 ( 21.05 ... 22.03 ) 17.55 1 3.5
20.47 2 20.7units: Tg CH4 / yr
Example: Inverse modelling