ccc uncertainty workshop, helsinki, sep2005 verification of emissions and sinks through comparison...

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


• 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)



• 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


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)



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



• 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



Continental vs. ocean anomalies in the European carbon balance


Carbon flux over western Europe as inferred by inverse modelling

Kyoto and the atmospheric signal(Carboeurope 2000)


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



Components of the

terrestrial carbon cycle

PS photosynthesis

CWD Course Woody Products

Ra autotrophic respiration

Rh heterotrophic respiration

SOM Soil Organic Matter



Carbon stocks in global ecosystems

Car

bon

sto

cks

in [

kg

m-2 ]

Based on IPCC LULUCF-Report 2002



woodland

arable land

grassland, fallow land

Land-use change and soil erosion in Germany (without Alps)(from IGBP 2003)



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



Reporting of CO2 Emissions and Removals from Soils by EU 15



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



-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)




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?


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



Activity B


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



Example 2: Carboeurope multiple constraint approach



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%



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



• 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



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

ccc uncertainty workshop, helsinki, sep2005 verification of emissions and sinks through comparison...

Documents

ccc uncertainty workshop

sep2005 carbon stocks

independent verification

overview verification

major unknown verification

sep2005 conclusions

sep2005 global carbon

carbon flux