Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005 Verification of emissions and sinks through comparison of different methods/models - an overview Verification.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005 Verification of emissions and sinks through comparison of different methods/models - an overview Verification."— Presentation transcript:

1 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

2 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)

3 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

4 CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005 Verification – why?

5 CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005 Global carbon budget Fluxes in GtC/year (IPCC Third Assessment Report, Vol 1) 1980s 1990s Atmospheric C accumulation = Emissions (fossil, cement) Net ocean-air flux Net land-air flux Net land-air flux = Land use change emission 1.7 (0.6 to 2.5) Assume Terrestrial sink (residual !!) -1.9 (-3.8 to 0.3) (?) Source: Raupach, CSIRO 2002 Verification – why?

6 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?

7 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)

8 CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005 Key fluxes in the terrestrial carbon cycle Verification – why?

9 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?

10 CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005 Carbon stocks in global ecosystems Carbon stocks in [kg m -2 ] Based on IPCC LULUCF-Report 2002 Verification – why?

11 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?

12 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 Verification – why?

13 CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005 Reporting of CO2 Emissions and Removals from Soils by EU 15 Verification – why?

14 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?

15 CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005 Compiled by H.Dolman, Carboeurope Verification – how?

16 CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005 Focus on: largest contributors to the uncertainty, i.e. - terrestrial carbon sinks - CH 4 & N 2 O 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?

17 CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005 Activity B

18 CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005 N Soil Atmospheric CO 2 Growth Respiration Maintenance Respiration PSN Allocation to new growth N uptake Soil mineral N Atmospheric N Soil organic matter Litter Plant C Meteorological data Vegetation Autotropic respiration Forest Carbon Budget Process Modelling and Information System Verification – how?

19 CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005 Example 2: Carboeurope multiple constraint approach Verification – how?

20 CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005 CarboEurope-IP - Overall objective: Understand and quantify the terrestrial carbon balance of Europe and associated uncertainties at local, regional and continental scale. Target: Daily-monthly at Eurogrid resolution (10-100km x km) Continental annual uncertainty 10% Verification – how?

21 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 October 2003 JRC Ispra Environment Example 3: Inverse modelling Verification – how?

22 CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005 offline atmospheric transport model meteo from ECMWF global simulation 6 o x 4 o zooming 1 o x 1 o (Europe, …) TM5 model – atmospheric zoom model Inverse modelling of CH4 emissions in Europe Verification – how?

23 CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005 Comparison a priori / a posteriori emissions Example: Inverse modelling


Download ppt "CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005 Verification of emissions and sinks through comparison of different methods/models - an overview Verification."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google