Verification of emissions and sinks through
comparison of different methods/models
- an overview
Outline:

After yesterday
G. Seufert
discussions and
Leader of JRC-Project GHG Data
presentations I
expanded the WHY
Verification – why?
part and reduced the
 Kyoto and the atmospheric signal
HOW part
 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
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Verification – why?
The challenge of mitigation
• The near-term challenge is to achieve the Kyoto targets
“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 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
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Verification – why?
In the near-term, independent verification is not really
required for fulfilling reporting needs, however
• 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 nonreporting 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”
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Verification – why?
The Global Carbon Cycle
Units Gt C and Gt C y-1
Atmosphere
…are leading to a
build up of CO2
in the atmosphere.
3.3
750
62.3
6.3
About
16,000
1.6
500
Plants
60
Soil
2000
Fossil Deposits
Fossil emissions ...
92.3
90
…and land clearing
in the tropics...
The KP seeks to reduce net
carbon emissions by about
0.3 Gt C below 1990 levels
from industrial countries
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Oceans
39,000
from IPCC-TAR (2001)
Verification – why?
Global carbon budget 1980-1999
Fluxes 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
= Land use change emission
1.7 (0.6 to 2.5)
+ Terrestrial sink (residual
!!)
-1.9 (-3.8 to 0.3)
-1.4  0.7
Assume
1.6  0.8
-3.0  1 (?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Source: Raupach, CSIRO 2002
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Verification – why?
Kyoto and the atmospheric signal
• 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.
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Verification – why?
Kyoto and the atmospheric signal
(Carboeurope 2000)
Continental vs. ocean anomalies in the
European carbon balance
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Carbon flux over western Europe as inferred
by inverse modelling
Verification – why?
Key
fluxes
interrestrial
the terrestrial
Key fluxes
in the
carbon cyclecarbon cycle
CO2
GPP
photosynthesis
120 GtC/yr
plant
respiration
60 GtC/yr
Heterotrophic
respiration
50 GtC/yr
e
m ak
r
t
e
t t up s
r
o on s
sh rb ma
ca bio
in
Ecological Terms: Net Primary Production
NPP: 60 GtC/yr
rm e
te rag
m o r
iu n st itte
d
l
e
m rbo nd
ca il a
so
Net Ecosystem Production
NEP: 10 GtC/yr
Natural Mortality
Forestry terms:
Gross Annual Increment
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Disturbance:
fire, harvest
8-9 GtC/yr
e
m tak
r
p l
te
g n u soi
n
lo rbo e+
ca tre
Net Biome Production
NBP: 1-2 GtC/yr
Thinnning and Harvest
Net Annual Increment
Net Change in Standing
Volume
Verification – why?
Components
of the
terrestrial
carbon cycle
PS photosynthesis
CWD Course Woody
Products
Ra autotrophic respiration
Rh heterotrophic
respiration
SOM Soil Organic Matter
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Verification – why?
Carbon stocks in global ecosystems
Based on IPCC LULUCF-Report 2002
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Verification – why?
Land-use change and soil erosion in Germany (without Alps)
(from IGBP 2003)
arable land
grassland, fallow land
woodland
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Verification – why?
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
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Verification – why?
Reporting of CO2 Emissions and Removals from Soils by EU 15
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Verification – why?
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
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Verification – how?
Annual Terrestrial Carbon Flux Estimates (Gt C a -1; positive sign: sink)
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
Forest and w oody biomass (IPCC)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
(1)
Land use change and forestry (IPCC)
(1)
Biomass (Inventory)
(2)
(2)
Biomass+Harvest+Residues (Inventory)
European Community EU 15
(3)
Forest stand (Eddy flux)
(4)
Forest stand (Eddy flux)
Compiled by H.Dolman, Carboeurope
(5)
Biomass+Soil (C pools)
(5)
Soil only (C pools)
(6)
Trees (Inventory)
Biomass (Inventory)
West and Central Europe
(2)
(2)
Biomass+Harvest+Residues (Inventory)
Biomass (Inventory)
European Continent
(7)
(8)
Terrestrial biosphere (Inverse model)
Terrestrial biosphere (Inverse model)
(9)
(10)
Terrestrial biosphere (Inverse model)
Terrestrial biosphere (Inverse model)
(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) Nabuur
(7) Kauppi
et al. Sep2005
1992; (8) Bousquet et al. 1999; (9) Kaminski et al. 1999; (10) Rayner et al. 1997; (11) Ciais et al. 1995
CCC Uncertainty Workshop,
Helsinki,
Verification – how?
Example 1: JRC project GHG Data with its objective to
support the EC GHG Inventory System
Focus on:
largest contributors to the uncertainty, i.e.
- terrestrial carbon sinks
- CH4 & N2O sources and sinks in
agricultural activities (soil, animals)
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
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
__________________________
Part 1) Conceptual Framework
Activity B
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Verification – how?
Meteorological data
Soil
Forest Carbon Budget
Process Modelling and
Information System
Atmospheric
CO2
Autotropic
respiration
Vegetation
Growth
Respiration
Maintenance
Respiration
PSN
Allocation to new
growth
Plant
Litter
N uptake
N
Soil organic
matter
Soil mineral N
Atmospheric N
Country
Sweden
Finland
Spain
France
Germany
Italy
Austria
Portugal
Greece
UK
Belgium
Denmark
Netherlands
Ireland
Total
NEP [Tg Carbon]
3.1
1.27
2.43
4.59
3.96
1.06
0.88
0.29
0.51
0.59
0.17
0.09
0.10
0.01
19.1
C
NPP [Tg Carbon]
26.7
10.6
29.4
61.7
39.1
16.5
8.5
4.6
7.3
7.1
1.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
216.4
1999 Carbon sink estimates
for the EU15
NEP: Net Ecosystem Production
(c) 2000 JRC - SAI
Author: Paul Smits
Projection: Geographic
A JRC map
N
500
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
0
500
1000
1500 Kilometers
NEP 1999
<0
0 - 10 Gg
10 - 20 Gg
20 - 30 Gg
30 - 40 Gg
40 - 50 Gg
50 - 60 Gg
60 - 70 Gg
> 70
Verification – how?
Example 2: Carboeurope multiple constraint approach
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Verification – how?
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 10-100km)
Continental annual uncertainty 10%
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Verification – how?
Example 3: Inverse modelling
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
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Verification – how?
Inverse modelling of CH4 emissions in Europe
TM5 model – atmospheric zoom model
• offline atmospheric transport model
• meteo from ECMWF
• global simulation 6o x 4o
• zooming 1o x 1o (Europe, …)
• http://www.phys.uu.nl/~tm5/
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
Example: Inverse modelling
Comparison a priori / a posteriori emissions
UNFCCC
a priori used in this study
[EEA, 2003] [EEA, 2004]
EU-15
Germany
Italy
France
BENELUX
Austria
Spain
Portugal
United Kingdom
Ireland
Greece
Sweden
Finland
Denmark
Total EU-15
2.40
1.73
3.08
1.49
0.43
1.92
0.51
2.20
0.60
0.53
0.28
0.26
0.27
15.69
4.04
1.68
3.01
1.42
0.36
1.92
0.39
2.19
0.60
0.53
0.28
0.26
0.28
16.96
units: Tg CH4 / yr
CCC Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki, Sep2005
a posteriori
anthrop.
natural
total
3.62
2.06
2.68
1.31
0.33
1.91
0.39
3.39
0.66
0.42
0.22
0.24
0.34
17.59
0.26
-0.04
-0.11
0.15
-0.01
-0.06
-0.02
-0.04
-0.01
-0.01
0.85
2.98
-0.01
3.92
3.88
2.02
2.56
1.47
0.32
1.84
0.37
3.35
0.64
0.40
1.08
3.23
0.34
21.51
avg S1-S9
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
0.64
0.40
0.42
0.23
0.05
0.32
0.08
0.82
0.12
0.07
0.44
1.36
0.06
1.92
4.15
2.15
4.43
1.60
0.30
2.00
0.38
4.21
0.34
0.40
0.92
0.27
0.33
21.47
range
( 3.90 ... 4.87
( 2.10 ... 2.19
( 3.86 ... 4.71
( 1.35 ... 1.67
( 0.28 ... 0.30
( 1.96 ... 2.04
( 0.38 ... 0.39
( 3.91 ... 4.40
( 0.26 ... 0.75
( 0.39 ... 0.40
( 0.86 ... 0.99
( -0.27 ... 1.30
( 0.30 ... 0.34
( 21.05 ... 22.03
anthr.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
IM vs [EEA, 2004]
3.89
2.19
4.54
1.45
0.31
2.06
0.40
4.25
0.36
0.41
-3.7
30.3
51.0
1.9
-13.5
7.4
3.1
93.9
-40.8
-22.6
0.34
17.55 1
20.47 2
20.1
3.5
20.7