17 results on '"Nabel, Julia E.M.S."'
Search Results
2. Tracking 21st century anthropogenic and natural carbon fluxes through model-data integration
- Author
-
Bultan, Selma, primary, Nabel, Julia E.M.S., additional, Hartung, Kerstin, additional, Ganzenmüller, Raphael, additional, Liang, Xu, additional, Saatchi, Sassan, additional, and Pongratz, Julia, additional
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
3. Global Carbon Budget 2021
- Author
-
Friedlingstein, Pierre, Jones, Matthew W., O'Sullivan, Michael, Andrew, Robbie M., Bakker, Dorothee C.E., Hauck, Judith, Le Quéré, Corinne, Peters, Glen P., Peters, Wouter, Pongratz, Julia, Sitch, Stephen, Canadell, Josep G., Ciais, Philippe, Jackson, Rob B., Alin, Simone R., Anthoni, Peter, Bates, Nicholas R., Becker, Meike, Bellouin, Nicolas, Bopp, Laurent, Chau, Thi Tuyet Trang, Chevallier, Frédéric, Chini, Louise P., Cronin, Margot, Currie, Kim I., Decharme, Bertrand, Djeutchouang, Laique M., Dou, Xinyu, Evans, Wiley, Feely, Richard A., Feng, Liang, Gasser, Thomas, Gilfillan, Dennis, Gkritzalis, Thanos, Grassi, Giacomo, Gregor, Luke, Gruber, Nicolas, Gürses, Özgür, Harris, Ian, Houghton, Richard A., Hurtt, George C., Iida, Yosuke, Ilyina, Tatiana, Luijkx, Ingrid T., Jain, Atul, Jones, Steve D., Kato, Etsushi, Kennedy, Daniel, Goldewijk, Kees Klein, Knauer, Jürgen, Korsbakken, Jan Ivar, Körtzinger, Arne, Landschützer, Peter, Lauvset, Siv K., Lefèvre, Nathalie, Lienert, Sebastian, Liu, Junjie, Marland, Gregg, McGuire, Patrick C., Melton, Joe R., Munro, David R., Nabel, Julia E.M.S., Nakaoka, Shin Ichiro, Niwa, Yosuke, Ono, Tsuneo, Pierrot, Denis, Poulter, Benjamin, Rehder, Gregor, Resplandy, Laure, Robertson, Eddy, Rödenbeck, Christian, Rosan, Thais M., Schwinger, Jörg, Schwingshackl, Clemens, Séférian, Roland, Sutton, Adrienne J., Sweeney, Colm, Tanhua, Toste, Tans, Pieter P., Tian, Hanqin, Tilbrook, Bronte, Tubiello, Francesco, Van Der Werf, Guido R., Vuichard, Nicolas, Wada, Chisato, Wanninkhof, Rik, Watson, Andrew J., Willis, David, Wiltshire, Andrew J., Yuan, Wenping, Yue, Chao, Yue, Xu, Zaehle, Sönke, Zeng, Jiye, Integr. Assessm. Global Environm. Change, and Environmental Sciences
- Subjects
Earth and Planetary Sciences(all) - 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±0.5GtCyr-1 (9.3±0.5GtCyr-1 when the cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 0.9±0.7GtCyr-1, for a total anthropogenic CO2 emission of 10.2±0.8GtCyr-1 (37.4±2.9GtCO2). Also, for 2020, GATM was 5.0±0.2GtCyr-1 (2.4±0.1ppmyr-1), SOCEAN was 3.0±0.4GtCyr-1, and SLAND was 2.9±1GtCyr-1, with a BIM of -0.8GtCyr-1. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration averaged over 2020 reached 412.45±0.1ppm. 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 1GtCyr-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 10.18160/gcp-2021 (Friedlingstein et al., 2021).
- Published
- 2022
4. Decision support for international climate policy – The PRIMAP emission module
- Author
-
Nabel, Julia E.M.S., Rogelj, Joeri, Chen, Claudine M., Markmann, Kathleen, Gutzmann, David J.H., and Meinshausen, Malte
- Published
- 2011
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
5. First scientific review article on multi-gas GHG budgets : Delivarable D5.9
- Author
-
Maria Roxana Petrescu, Ana, Peters, Glen P., Janssens-Maenhout, Greet, Ciais, Philippe, Tubiello, Francesco N., Grassi, Giacomo, Nabuurs, G.J., Leip, Adrian, Carmona Garcia, Gema, Winiwarter, Wilfried, Höglund-Isaksson, Lena, Günther, Dirk, Solazzo, Efisio, Kiesow, Anja, Bastos, Ana Catarina, Pongratz, Julia, Nabel, Julia E.M.S., Conchedda, Giulia, Pilli, Roberto, Andrew, Robbie M., Schelhaas, M., and Dolman, Albertus J.
- Subjects
Life Science ,Vegetatie, Bos- en Landschapsecologie ,Vegetation, Forest and Landscape Ecology ,PE&RC - Abstract
European anthropogenic AFOLU greenhouse gas emissions: a review and benchmark data (Petrescu et al, 2020, published in ESSD)Emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and removals from land, including both anthropogenic and natural fluxes, require reliable quantification, including estimates of uncertainties, to support credible mitigation action under the Paris Agreement. This study provides a state-of-the-art scientific overview of bottom-up anthropogenic emissions data from agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) in the European Union (EU281). The data integrates recent AFOLU emission inventories with ecosystem data and land carbon models and summarizes GHG emissions and removals over the period 1990-2016. This compilation of bottom-up estimates of the AFOLU GHG emissions of European national greenhouse gas inventories (NGHGI) with those of land carbon models and observation-based estimates of large-scale GHG fluxes, aims at improving the overall estimates of the GHG balance in Europe with respect to land GHG emissions and removals. Whenever available, we present uncertainties, its propagation and role in the comparison of different estimates. While NGHGI data for EU28 provides consistent quantification of uncertainty following the established IPCC guidelines, uncertainty in the estimates produced with other methods needs to account for both within model uncertainty and the spread from different model results. The largest inconsistencies between EU28 estimates are mainly due to different sources of data related to human activity, referred here as activity data (AD) and methodologies (Tiers) used for calculating emissions and removals from AFOLU sectors. The referenced datasets related to figures are visualised at http://doi.org/doi:10.5281/zenodo.3662371 (Petrescu et al., 2020).
- Published
- 2020
6. Global carbon budget 2019
- Author
-
Friedlingstein, Pierre, Jones, Matthew W., O'Sullivan, Michael, Andrew, Robbie, Hauck, Judith, Peters, Glen Philip, Peters, Wouter, Pongratz, Julia, Sitch, Stephen, Le Quéré, Corinne, Bakker, Dorothée C.E., Canadell, Josep G., Ciais, Philippe, Jackson, Robert B., Anthoni, Peter, Barbero, Leticia, Bastos, Ana, Bastrikov, Vladislav, Becker, Meike, Bopp, Laurent, Buitenhuis, Erik, Chandra, Naveen, Chevallier, Frédéric, Chini, Louise P., Currie, Kim I., Feely, Richard A., Gehlen, Marion, Gilfillan, Dennis, Gkritzalis, Thanos, Goll, Daniel S., Gruber, Nicolas, Gutekunst, Sören, Harris, Ian, Haverd, Vanessa, Houghton, Richard A., Hurtt, George, Ilyina, Tatiana, Jain, Atul K., Joetzjer, Emilie, Kaplan, Jed O., Kato, Etsushi, Goldewijk, Kees Klein, Korsbakken, Jan Ivar, Landschutzer, Peter, Lauvset, Siv Kari, Lefevre, Nathalie, Lenton, Andrew, Lienert, Sebastian, Lombardozzi, Danica, Marland, Gregg, McGuire, Patrick C., Melton, Joe R., Metzl, Nicolas, Munro, David R., Nabel, Julia E.M.S., Nakaoka, Shin-Ichiro, Neill, Craig, Omar, Abdirahman, Ono, Tsuneo, Peregon, Anna, Pierrot, Denis, Poulter, Benjamin, Rehder, Gregor, Resplandy, Laure, Robertson, Eddy, Rödenbeck, Christian, Séférian, Roland, Schwinger, Jörg, Smith, Naomi, Tans, Pieter P., Tian, Hanqin, Tilbrook, Bronte, Tubiello, Francesco N., van der Werf, Guido R., Wiltshire, Andrew J., and Zaehle, Sönke
- Abstract
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 (EFF) 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) and terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. 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 last decade available (2009–2018), EFF was 9.5±0.5 GtC yr−1, ELUC 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM 4.9±0.02 GtC yr−1 (2.3±0.01 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN 2.5±0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.2±0.6 GtC yr−1, with a budget imbalance BIM of 0.4 GtC yr−1 indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2018 alone, the growth in EFF was about 2.1 % and fossil emissions increased to 10.0±0.5 GtC yr−1, reaching 10 GtC yr−1 for the first time in history, ELUC was 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, for total anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 11.5±0.9 GtC yr−1 (42.5±3.3 GtCO2). Also for 2018, GATM was 5.1±0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.4±0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 2.6±0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, with a BIM 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 EFF 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−1 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). The data generated by this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2019 (Friedlingstein et al., 2019).
- Published
- 2019
7. Increased atmospheric vapor pressure deficit reduces global vegetation growth
- Author
-
Yuan, Wenping, primary, Zheng, Yi, additional, Piao, Shilong, additional, Ciais, Philippe, additional, Lombardozzi, Danica, additional, Wang, Yingping, additional, Ryu, Youngryel, additional, Chen, Guixing, additional, Dong, Wenjie, additional, Hu, Zhongming, additional, Jain, Atul K., additional, Jiang, Chongya, additional, Kato, Etsushi, additional, Li, Shihua, additional, Lienert, Sebastian, additional, Liu, Shuguang, additional, Nabel, Julia E.M.S., additional, Qin, Zhangcai, additional, Quine, Timothy, additional, Sitch, Stephen, additional, Smith, William K., additional, Wang, Fan, additional, Wu, Chaoyang, additional, Xiao, Zhiqiang, additional, and Yang, Song, additional
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
8. Land-use and land-cover change carbon emissions between 1901 and 2012 constrained by biomass observations
- Author
-
Li, Wei, primary, Ciais, Philippe, additional, Peng, Shushi, additional, Yue, Chao, additional, Wang, Yilong, additional, Thurner, Martin, additional, Saatchi, Sassan S., additional, Arneth, Almut, additional, Avitabile, Valerio, additional, Carvalhais, Nuno, additional, Harper, Anna B., additional, Kato, Etsushi, additional, Koven, Charles, additional, Liu, Yi Y., additional, Nabel, Julia E.M.S., additional, Pan, Yude, additional, Pongratz, Julia, additional, Poulter, Benjamin, additional, Pugh, Thomas A. M., additional, Santoro, Maurizio, additional, Sitch, Stephen, additional, Stocker, Benjamin D., additional, Viovy, Nicolas, additional, Wiltshire, Andy, additional, Yousefpour, Rasoul, additional, and Zaehle, Sönke, additional
- Published
- 2017
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
9. Values in socio-environmental modelling: Persuasion for action or excuse for inaction
- Author
-
Voinov, Alexey, Seppelt, Ralf, Reis, Stefan, Nabel, Julia E.M.S., and Shokravi, Samaneh
- Published
- 2014
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
10. Impact of species parameter uncertainty in simulations of tree species migration with a spatially linked dynamic model
- Author
-
Nabel Julia E.M.S., Zurbriggen Natalie, and Lischke Heike
- Abstract
The simulation of tree species migration suffers from many sources of uncer16 tainty. In our study we examined the influence of species parameter uncertainty on sim17 ulated tree species migration using the spatially linked dynamic forest landscape model 18 TreeMig. The impact of uncertainty becomes especially apparent under critical situations 19 arising from the interaction of species limitations competition and spatial fragmentation. 20 Therefore we examined the differences in migration success and speed in a realistic 21 scenario including these critical conditions. The south north migration of the submediter22 ranean tree species Ostrya carpinifolia through the highly fragmented and climatically 23 heterogeneous landscape of the Swiss Alps was simulated for 27 different species pa24 rameter sets covering the plausible range of species parameters for O. carpinifolia. To ac25 count for the additional uncertainty introduced by the stochastic representation of future 26 climate variability each species parameter set was simulated with multiple repetitions. 27 We found that migration success and speed resulting from simulations with the differ28 ent sets varied highly. The current situation of rapid climate change and high landscape 29 fragmentation due to human land use could create critical conditions comparable to the 30 simulated scenario for various species. We therefore recommend testing for species pa31 rameter sensitivities and – if indicated – to repeat simulations with different parameter 32 sets when projecting future tree species distributions with explicit simulation of migration.
- Published
- 2012
11. Extrapolation methods for climate time series revisited – Spatial correlations in climatic fluctuations influence simulated tree species abundance and migration
- Author
-
Nabel, Julia E.M.S., primary, Kirchner, James W., additional, Zurbriggen, Natalie, additional, Kienast, Felix, additional, and Lischke, Heike, additional
- Published
- 2014
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
12. Interannual climate variability and population density thresholds can have a substantial impact on simulated tree species’ migration
- Author
-
Nabel, Julia E.M.S., primary, Zurbriggen, Natalie, additional, and Lischke, Heike, additional
- Published
- 2013
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
13. Using dynamic vegetation models to simulate plant range shifts
- Author
-
Snell, Rebecca S., Huth, Andreas, Nabel, Julia E.M.S., Bocedi, Greta, Travis, Justin M.J., Gravel, Dominique, Bugmann, Harald, Gutiérrez, Álvaro G., Hickler, Thomas, Higgins, Steven I., Reineking, Björn, Scherstjanoi, Marc, Zurbriggen, Natalie, and Lischke, Heike
- Subjects
15. Life on land - Abstract
Dynamic vegetation models (DVMs) follow a process‐based approach to simulate plant population demography, and have been used to address questions about disturbances, plant succession, community composition, and provisioning of ecosystem services under climate change scenarios. Despite their potential, they have seldom been used for studying species range dynamics explicitly. In this perspective paper, we make the case that DVMs should be used to this end and can improve our understanding of the factors that influence species range expansions and contractions. We review the benefits of using process‐based, dynamic models, emphasizing how DVMs can be applied specifically to questions about species range dynamics. Subsequently, we provide a critical evaluation of some of the limitations and trade‐offs associated with DVMs, and we use those to guide our discussions about future model development. This includes a discussion on which processes are lacking, specifically a mechanistic representation of dispersal, inclusion of the seedling stage, trait variability, and a dynamic representation of reproduction. We also discuss upscaling techniques that offer promising solutions for being able to run these models efficiently over large spatial extents. Our aim is to provide directions for future research efforts and to illustrate the value of the DVM approach., Ecography, 37 (12), ISSN:0906-7590, ISSN:1600-0587
14. Asymmetric responses of primary productivity to altered precipitation simulated by ecosystem models across three long-term grassland sites
- Author
-
Wu, Donghai, Ciais, Philippe, Viovy, Nicolas, Knapp, Alan K., Wilcox, Kevin R., Bahn, Michael, Smith, Melinda D., Vicca, Sara, Fatichi, Simone, Zscheischler, Jakob, He, Yue, Li, Xiangyi, Ito, Akihiko, Arneth, Almut, Harper, Anna B., Ukkola, Anna, Paschalis, Athanasios, Poulter, Benjamin, Peng, Changhui, Ricciuto, Daniel, Reinthaler, David, Chen, Guangsheng, Tian, Hanqin, Genet, Hélène, Mao, Jiafu, Ingrisch, Johannes, Nabel, Julia E.M.S., Pongratz, Julia, Boysen, Lena R., Kautz, Markus, Schmitt, Michael, Meire, Patrick, Zhu, Qiuan, Hasibeder, Roland, Sippel, Sebastian, Dangal, Shree R.S., Sitch, Stephen, Shi, Xiaoying, Wang, Yingping, Luo, Yiqi, Liu, Yongwen, and Piao, Shilong
- Subjects
2. Zero hunger ,13. Climate action ,15. Life on land - Abstract
Field measurements of aboveground net primary productivity (ANPP) in temperate grasslands suggest that both positive and negative asymmetric responses to changes in precipitation (P) may occur. Under normal range of precipitation variability, wet years typically result in ANPP gains being larger than ANPP declines in dry years (positive asymmetry), whereas increases in ANPP are lower in magnitude in extreme wet years compared to reductions during extreme drought (negative asymmetry). Whether the current generation of ecosystem models with a coupled carbon–water system in grasslands are capable of simulating these asymmetric ANPP responses is an unresolved question. In this study, we evaluated the simulated responses of temperate grassland primary productivity to scenarios of altered precipitation with 14 ecosystem models at three sites: Shortgrass steppe (SGS), Konza Prairie (KNZ) and Stubai Valley meadow (STU), spanning a rainfall gradient from dry to moist. We found that (1) the spatial slopes derived from modeled primary productivity and precipitation across sites were steeper than the temporal slopes obtained from inter-annual variations, which was consistent with empirical data; (2) the asymmetry of the responses of modeled primary productivity under normal inter-annual precipitation variability differed among models, and the mean of the model ensemble suggested a negative asymmetry across the three sites, which was contrary to empirical evidence based on filed observations; (3) the mean sensitivity of modeled productivity to rainfall suggested greater negative response with reduced precipitation than positive response to an increased precipitation under extreme conditions at the three sites; and (4) gross primary productivity (GPP), net primary productivity (NPP), aboveground NPP (ANPP) and belowground NPP (BNPP) all showed concave-down nonlinear responses to altered precipitation in all the models, but with different curvatures and mean values. Our results indicated that most models overestimate the negative drought effects and/or underestimate the positive effects of increased precipitation on primary productivity under normal climate conditions, highlighting the need for improving eco-hydrological processes in those models in the future., Biogeosciences, 15 (11), ISSN:1726-4170
15. Global Carbon Budget 2015
- Author
-
Le Quéré, Corinne, Moriarty, Róisín, Andrew, Robbie M., Canadell, Josep G., Sitch, Stephen, Korsbakken, Jan I., Friedlingstein, Pierre, Peters, Glen P., Andres, Robert J., Boden, Thomas A., Houghton, Richard A., House, Joanna I., Keeling, Ralph F., Tans, Pieter, Arneth, Almut, Bakker, Dorothée C.E., Barbero, Leticia, Bopp, Laurent, Chang, Jinfeng, Chevallier, Frédéric, Chini, Louise P., Ciais, Philippe, Fader, Marianela, Feely, Richard A., Gkritzalis, Thanos, Harris, Ian, Hauck, Judith, Ilyina, Tatiana, Jain, Atul K., Kato, Etsushi, Kitidis, Vassilis, Klein Goldewijk, Kees, Koven, Charles D., Landschützer, Peter, Lauvset, Siv K., Lefèvre, Nathalie, Lenton, Andrew, Lima, Ivan D., Metzl, Nicolas, Millero, Frank J., Munro, David R., Murata, Akihiko, Nabel, Julia E.M.S., Nakaoka, Shinichirou, Nojiri, Yukihiro, O'Brien, Kevin M., Olsen, Are, Ono, Tsuneo, Pérez, Fíz F., Pfeil, Benjamin, Pierrot, Denis, Poulter, Benjamin, Rehder, Gregor, Rödenbeck, Christian, Saito, Shu, Schuster, Ute, Schwinger, Jörg, Séférian, Roland, Steinhoff, Tobias, Stocker, Benjamin, Sutton, Adrienne J., Takahashi, Taro, Tilbrook, Bronte, van der Laan-Luijkx, Ingrid T., van der Werf, Guido R., van Heuven, Steven, Vandemark, Douglas C., Viovy, Nicolas, Wiltshire, Andrew, Zaehle, Sönke, and Zeng, Ning
- Subjects
13. Climate action ,15. Life on land ,7. Clean energy ,12. Responsible consumption - Abstract
Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere 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 a methodology to quantify all major components of the global carbon budget, including their uncertainties, based on the combination of a range of data, algorithms, statistics, and model estimates and their interpretation by a broad scientific community. We discuss changes compared to previous estimates as well as consistency within and among components, alongside methodology and data limitations. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry (EFF) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on combined evidence from land-cover-change data, fire activity associated with deforestation, and models. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its rate of growth (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The mean ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) is based on observations from the 1990s, while the annual anomalies and trends are estimated with ocean models. The variability in SOCEAN is evaluated with data products based on surveys of ocean CO2 measurements. The global residual terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) is estimated by the difference of the other terms of the global carbon budget and compared to results of independent dynamic global vegetation models forced by observed climate, CO2, and land-cover change (some including nitrogen–carbon interactions). We compare the mean land and ocean fluxes and their variability to estimates from three atmospheric inverse methods for three broad latitude bands. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ, reflecting the current capacity to characterise the annual estimates of each component of the global carbon budget. For the last decade available (2005–2014), EFF was 9.0 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, ELUC was 0.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, GATM was 4.4 ± 0.1 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN was 2.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.0 ± 0.8 GtC yr−1. For the year 2014 alone, EFF grew to 9.8 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, 0.6 % above 2013, continuing the growth trend in these emissions, albeit at a slower rate compared to the average growth of 2.2 % yr−1 that took place during 2005–2014. Also, for 2014, ELUC was 1.1 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, GATM was 3.9 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN was 2.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 4.1 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1. GATM was lower in 2014 compared to the past decade (2005–2014), reflecting a larger SLAND for that year. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 397.15 ± 0.10 ppm averaged over 2014. For 2015, preliminary data indicate that the growth in EFF will be near or slightly below zero, with a projection of −0.6 [range of −1.6 to +0.5] %, based on national emissions projections for China and the USA, and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the global economy for the rest of the world. From this projection of EFF and assumed constant ELUC for 2015, cumulative emissions of CO2 will reach about 555 ± 55 GtC (2035 ± 205 GtCO2) for 1870–2015, about 75 % from EFF and 25 % from ELUC. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new carbon budget compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quéré et al., 2015, 2014, 2013). All observations presented here can be downloaded from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (doi:10.3334/CDIAC/GCP_2015)., Earth System Science Data, 7 (2), ISSN:1866-3516, ISSN:1866-3508
16. Increased atmospheric vapor pressure deficit reduces global vegetation growth
- Author
-
Yuan, Wenping, Zheng, Yi, Piao, Shilong, Ciais, Philippe, Lombardozzi, Danica, Wang, Yingping, Ryu, Youngryel, Chen, Guixing, Dong, Wenjie, Hu, Zhongming, Jain, Atul K., Jiang, Chongya, Kato, Etsushi, Li, Shihua, Lienert, Sebastian, Liu, Shuguang, Nabel, Julia E.M.S., Qin, Zhangcai, Quine, Timothy, Sitch, Stephen, Smith, William K., Wang, Fan, Wu, Chaoyang, Xiao, Zhiqiang, and Yang, Song
- Subjects
2. Zero hunger ,13. Climate action ,530 Physics ,15. Life on land - Abstract
Atmospheric vapor pressure deficit (VPD) is a critical variable in determining plant photosynthesis. Synthesis of four global climate datasets reveals a sharp increase of VPD after the late 1990s. In response, the vegetation greening trend indicated by a satellite-derived vegetation index (GIMMS3g), which was evident before the late 1990s, was subsequently stalled or reversed. Terrestrial gross primary production derived from two satellite-based models (revised EC-LUE and MODIS) exhibits persistent and widespread decreases after the late 1990s due to increased VPD, which offset the positive CO₂ fertilization effect. Six Earth system models have consistently projected continuous increases of VPD throughout the current century. Our results highlight that the impacts of VPD on vegetation growth should be adequately considered to assess ecosystem responses to future climate conditions
17. Rainfall‐manipulation experiments as simulated by terrestrial biosphere models: where do we stand?
- Author
-
Paschalis, Athanasios, Fatichi, Simone, Zscheischler, Jakob, Ciais, Philippe, Bahn, Michael, Boysen, Lena, Chang, Jinfeng, De Kauwe, Martin, Estiarte, Marc, Goll, Daniel, Hanson, Paul J., Harper, Anna B., Hou, Enqing, Kigel, Jaime, Knapp, Alan K., Larsen, Klaus Steenberg, Li, Wei, Lienert, Sebastian, Luo, Yiqi, Meir, Patrick, Nabel, Julia E.M.S., Ogaya, Romà, Parolari, Anthony J, Peng, Changhui, Peñuelas, Josep, Pongratz, Julia, Rambal, Serge, Schmidt, Inger Kappel, Shi, Hao, Sternberg, Marcelo, Tian, Hanqin, Tschumi, Elisabeth Andrea, Ukkola, Anna, Vicca, Sara, Viovy, Nicolas, Wang, Ying‐Ping, Wang, Zhuonan, Williams, Karina, Wu, Donghai, and Zhu, Qiuan
- Subjects
13. Climate action ,530 Physics ,15. Life on land - Abstract
Changes in rainfall amounts and patterns have been observed and are expected to continue in the near future with potentially significant ecological and societal consequences. Modelling vegetation responses to changes in rainfall is thus crucial to project water and carbon cycles in the future. In this study, we present the results of a new model‐data intercomparison project, where we tested the ability of ten terrestrial biosphere models to reproduce observed sensitivity of ecosystem productivity to rainfall changes at ten sites across the globe, in nine of which, rainfall exclusion and/or irrigation experiments had been performed.
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.