PROJECT PERIODIC REPORT
Grant Agreement number: 283080
Project acronym: GEOCARBON
Project title: : Operational Global Carbon Observing System
Funding Scheme: Collaborative Project (large scale integrating project) - for specific
cooperation actions (SICA) dedicated to international cooperation partner countries
Date of latest version of Annex I against which the assessment will be made:
□
Periodic report:
1st
2nd X
3rd
Period covered:
from 01/04/2013
□
4th
□
to 31/12/2014
Name, title and organisation of the scientific representative of the project's coordinator1:
Riccardo Valentini, Director, Division on Agriculture, Forest and Natural Ecosystems
(IAFENT) of the Centro Euro-Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti Climatici SCARL (CMCC)Tel:
+39 0761 357 394
Tel: +39 0761 1710299
Fax: +39 0761 1710731
E-mail: rik@unitus.it
Project website address: www.geocarbon.net
1
Usually the contact person of the coordinator as specified in Art. 8.1. of the Grant Agreement .
Please add the number of your WP in the name of this file!
Please note that the term “Beneficiary” refers to each project partner.
Please use always the font Times New Roman, size 12.
3.2 Core of the report for the period: Project objectives, work progress
and achievements, project management
3.2.2 Work progress and achievements during the period
WHO: WP LEADERS with the collaboration of WP participants – all the sections below
Please provide in the following paragraphs (from 3.2.2.1 to 3.2.2.6) an overview of the progress of
the work in line with the structure of Annex I to the Grant Agreement. Please include also figures
and images.
3.2.2.1 Progress towards objectives and details for each task
(Provide a summary of progress towards WP objectives and details for each WP task)
WP13 started only during the second reporting period of the project. All groups contributed to the
analysis of the CCDAS results and in particular to their comparison to other independent products.
Specific diagnostics related to global to regional carbon budget were produced. They include:
 Comparison of the CCDAS fluxes and stocks to independent approaches, including: i) net
carbon flux from atmospheric inversions of the TRANSCOM community, ii) net and gross
carbon flux from Land/Ocean model simulations from the TRENDY inter-comparison project,
iii) net carbon flux from the CMIP5 simulations (land and ocean fluxes), iv) gross carbon flux
(GPP) from a data oriented statistical model (Jung et al. 2011) and v) forest carbon stocks
estimated from satellites observations.
 Separate analysis of the long-term mean, the mean seasonal cycle and the inter-annual variations
(for the recent decades) of the land/ocean fluxes.
 Evaluation of the trend in land/ocean carbon fluxes versus the mean carbon sink.
 Evaluation of the change of the seasonal amplitude of the net land carbon exchange over time
and comparison to changes detected at the atmospheric
 Construction of a specific web site to compare the fluxes of the different CCDAS in terms of
spatial distribution and temporal evolution of the mean flux over several pre-defined regions.
This comprehensive analysis has been gathered in the deliverables D13.1 and D13.2.
3.2.2.2 Significant results
(Highlight clearly significant WP results)
Most of the results have been gathered in the deliverables D13.1 and D13.2. We thus only detail
below the main analysis that were performed (including few supporting figures). Note that the
analysis was facilitated with a dedicated web site, set up within WP9
(http://transcom.globalcarbonatlas.org/).
Overall mean carbon balance of the different CCDAS:
For the mean global land carbon fluxes over the 2001-2009 period, we find that:
 Large differences occur in terms of natural land-ecosystem carbon uptake, with values from
1.6 PgC/yr (DALEC) to 3.3 PgC/yr (JSBACH). The differences are partly due to differences
in biomass burning emissions.



When the differences in biomass burning are accounted for, the net land ecosystem fluxes
become more comparable between the different systems (except for DALEC system that
does not use atmospheric CO2 constraint).
Break down between North (above 30°N), Tropic and South (<30°S) land fluxes provides
even larger differences between the CCDASs.
The different CCDAS approaches corroborate an ocean sink strength of 2±0.6 PgC/yr around
year 2000.
Figure 1: Global mean carbon budget for the period 2001-2009 for the different “CCDAS”. A) Split of the global carbon
balance between biomass burning, natural land, net land flux and ocean flux. Note that for several systems the ocean flux is
not reported given that it is not solved for. B) Split of the net land carbon fluxes for the North, Tropic, and South regions.
Negative indicate a sink for the atmosphere.
Inter-annual net flux variations of the different CCDAS:
The inter-annual variations (IAV) of the net terrestrial flux (natural plus fire fluxes, Figure 2) and
ocean flux show:
 A significant trend over the last decade (after 2002) with increasing global land sink (around
0.2 PgC/yr) in all systems. Such trend is primarily driven by the northern fluxes.
 The year-to-year variations of the CO2 fluxes are in relatively good phase between the
different CCDASs, although with significant differences in the amplitude.
 Prior to 2000, the LSCE and BETHY systems show a broad agreement in the flux IAV with
still noticeable differences.
 For the ocean, a trend with significant increase of the ocean sink in the 2000s can be seen
except for CMCC results
1 .5
Flux ( Pg C/ye a r )
1 .0
0 .5
0 .0
-0 .5
-1 .0
-1 .5
-2 .0
-2 .5
-3 .0
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
Dat e
BETH Y CCD AS / Te rre st ria l f
lux / 0 5 Globa l La nd / Ye a rly m e a n
CTEU CCD AS V 2 / Te rre st ria l f
lux / 0 5 Globa l La nd / Ye a rly m e a n
D ALEC CCD AS / Te rre st ria l f
lux / 0 5 Globa l La nd / Ye a rly m e a n
JSBACH CCD AS V 2 / Te rre st ria l f
lux / 0 5 Globa l La nd / Ye a rly m e a n
LSCE CCD AS V 3 0 / Te rre st ria l f
lux / 0 5 Globa l La nd / Ye a rly m e a n
Figure 2: Global annual net land terrestrial ecosystem CO2 fluxes for the 5 CCDASs used in GEOCARBON.
2010
-1 .0
-1 .2
Flux ( Pg C/ye a r )
-1 .4
-1 .6
-1 .8
-2 .0
-2 .2
-2 .4
-2 .6
-2 .8
-3 .0
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Dat e
CM CC TSre a n / Oce a n f
lux / 1 7 Globa l Oce a n / Ye a rly m e a n
CTEU CCD AS V 2 / Oce a n f
lux / 1 7 Globa l Oce a n / Ye a rly m e a n
LSCE CCD AS V 3 0 / Oce a n f
lux / 1 7 Globa l Oce a n / Ye a rly m e a n
UIB H AM OCC v1 / Oce a n f
lux / 1 7 Globa l Oce a n / Ye a rly m e a n
Figure 3: Global annual ocean CO2 fluxes for the 5 CCDASs used in GEOCARBON
Inter-annual gross land flux variations of the different CCDAS
The Gross Primary Productivity (GPP) and Ecosystem respiration (Reco) have been analysed to
investigate the sources of the net flux differences between the CCDASs. Large differences in terms
of mean annual GPP appear with the LSCE system having the highest GPP (around 150 PgC/yr)
and the BETHY system having twice lower GPP (around 75 GtC/yr). However, the year-to-year
variations of the GPP are relatively similar between the different systems with multi-annual
variations. The same broad feature also appears for the respiration flux.
Figure 4: Global GPP for the five CCDASs used in GEOCARBON. a) annual mean values; b) annual anomalies in PgC/year.
Comparison of CCDAS results with other approaches: mean seasonal cycle
We investigated differences in the main seasonal cycle for different latitudinal scale regions (North,
Tropic and South). For the Northern land (> 30°N) large differences, both in amplitude and phase,
appear between the different DGVMs. On the other hand, after the assimilation of atmospheric CO2
concentration (atmospheric inversion and CCDASs) the mean seasonal cycle becomes similar
between the different systems. Over the Tropics, the assimilation of atmospheric CO2 provide much
lower constraint due to the scarcity of the atmospheric stations in this region. For the northern
ocean, the ocean models from TRENDY show a larger agreement than the atmospheric inversions,
which indicate the poor level of constraint brought by the atmospheric CO2 data on the ocean flux
seasonality. This is partly due to aliasing effect between land and ocean fluxes in the atmospheric
inversions. The CCDASs represent a compromise between the direct ocean model simulations and
the atmospheric inversions and thus carry the potential to better valorise the atmospheric
measurements.
Figure 5: Mean seasonal cycle of the natural carbon fluxes exchanged between the northern land and the atmosphere. In each
panel the results from 4 different modeling approaches are displayed (8 TRENDY DGVMs, 10 CMIP5 DGVMs, 11
atmospheric inversions and 5 CCDAS). The shaded area represents the envelope of all models for each approach, while the
grey lines represent the individual models.
Figure 6: : Mean seasonal cycle of the northern air-sea fluxes. In each panel the results from 4 different modeling
approaches are displayed (8 TRENDY Ocean model, 10 CMIP5 models, 11 atmospheric inversions and 5 CCDAS). The
shaded area represents the envelope of all models for each approach, while the grey lines represent the individual models
Comparison of CCDAS results with other approaches: inter-annual flux variations
We analyse the year-to-year flux variations and the long-term trend and their coherence between the
different approaches (CCDAS, inversions, land/ocean models). The two figures below illustrate the
results for the northern land and the northern ocean fluxes.
For the Northern land, the TRENDY models show a large spread in the year to year net carbon
fluxes with poor coherence in the inter-annual variations (IAV). On the other hand, the atmospheric
inversions show more coherence in the estimated northern land flux IAV, with for instance a
positive flux anomaly in 1994 and 2003 not observed in the TRENDY models. The inversions show
also a coherent and significant increase of the land carbon uptake during the last decade (2000s),
compared to the 90s. For the CCDAS approaches, we do not find similar coherence between the 5
systems than for the inversions. If we exclude the JSBACH-CCDAS that only provides 3 years of
fluxes (and that has used only two years of atmospheric CO2 data) we obtain also a trend during the
2000s with increasing land carbon sink. For the northern ocean, the coherence between the different
approaches appears to be relatively small. The direct ocean models (TRENDY) provide a
significant trend with increasing uptake over time. On the other hand, the atmospheric inversions do
not capture such trend probably because of aliasing effect for the nearby land fluxes and the
difficulties to separate land and ocean fluxes with the current atmospheric CO2 network. The
CCDAS are in between although these systems are still preliminary and need substantial
improvement/development to properly ingest ocean and atmospheric measurements.
Figure 7: Interannual variations of the yearly mean natural carbon fluxes exchanged between the Northern land and the
atmosphere. In each panel the results from 3 different modeling approaches are displayed (8 TRENDY DGVMs, 11
atmospheric inversions and 5 CCDAS). The shaded area represents the envelope of all models for each approach, while the
grey lines represent the individual models. For the CCDAS, one graph with the individual models (lower left) as well as the
shaded version (lower right) are displayed.
Figure 8: Interannual variations of the yearly mean air sea fluxes for the northern ocean (> 30°N). In each panel the results
from 3 different modeling approaches are displayed (8 TRENDY ocean models, 11 atmospheric inversions and 5 CCDAS).
The shaded area represents the envelope of all models for each approach, while the grey lines represent the individual
models. For the CCDAS, one graph with the individual models (lower left) as well as the shaded version (lower right) are
displayed.
The above diagnostics have been made for other continental scale and basin scale regions.
Moreover, we analyse the relation/link for each approach between northern and tropical net carbon
fluxes. These diagnostics have been reported in the deliverables D13.1 and D13.2.
For the ocean, systematic data assimilation procedures for determining the ocean carbon uptake are still
in a quit early development state and their potential cannot yet be fully exploited. Main issues have been
discussed in D13.2.
3.2.2.3 Deviations from Annex I and their impacts
(If applicable, explain the reasons for WP deviations from Annex I and their impact on other tasks, of this or other WPs,
as well as on available resources and planning)
There was only a small time shifts in the completion of the deliverables D13.1 and D13.2 (delivered
at the end of the project), but no deviation from the description of the document of work.
3.2.2.4 Reasons for failing to achieve critical objectives and/or not being on schedule
(If applicable, explain the reasons for failing to achieve critical WP objectives and/or not being on schedule and
explain the impact on other tasks, of this or other WPs, as well as on available resources and planning)
The small shift in the completion of the deliverables was due to some delays in the completion of
the CCDAS simulations (see WP9).
3.3
Deliverables and milestones tables
3.3.1 Deliverables
WHO: WP leaders should collect the information received by EACH BENEFICIARY and fill in the table at WP level
Please describe your deliverable using the template at the end of this document.
If a deliverable has been cancelled or regrouped with another one, please indicate this in the column "Comments".
If a new deliverable is proposed, please indicate this in the column "Comments".
The number of persons/month for each deliverable has been defined in Annex I of the Grant Agreement and cannot be changed. If there is a
deviation from the Annex I, then this should be clearly explained in the comments column
TABLE 1. DELIVERABLES
Del.
no.
Deliverable name
Version
WP no.
Lead
beneficiary
Nature
Dissemination
level2
Delivery date
from Annex I
(proj month)
Actual /
Forecast
delivery
date
Dd/mm/
yyyy
D13.
1
D13.
2
Synthesis of the
global to regional
land carbon fluxes
and stocks from
multiple CCDAS
Report on ocean
Status
No
submitted/
Submitted
V1
13
LSCEUVSQ
Report
PU
32
36
Submitted
V1
13
UIB
Report
PU
32
36
Submitted
PU = Public
PP = Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services).
RE = Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services).
CO = Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services).
Make sure that you are using the correct following label when your project has classified deliverables.
EU restricted = Classified with the mention of the classification level restricted "EU Restricted"
EU confidential = Classified with the mention of the classification level confidential " EU Confidential "
EU secret = Classified with the mention of the classification level secret "EU Secret "
Comments
2
process attribution
for marine carbon
cycle variability
3.3.2 Milestones
WHO: WP leaders should collect the information received by EACH BENEFICIARY and fill
in the table at WP level
Please complete this table if milestones are specified in Annex I to the Grant Agreement. Milestones will be assessed
against the specific criteria and performance indicators as defined in Annex I.
TABLE 2. MILESTONES
Mileston
e
no.
Milestone
name
Work
packag
e no
Lead
beneficiar
y
Delivery
date from
Annex I
dd/mm/yyy
y
Achieve
d
Yes/No
Actual /
Forecast
achievemen
t date
dd/mm/yyyy
Comment
s
The
calculation
of
the
uncertainty
was proven
to be more
difficult and
therefore
not
provided by
all CCDAS
MS24
Mean land net
carbon fluxes
including
uncertainties
from all
CCDAS
13
WU
26
Yes
30
MS25
Mean ocean
carbon fluxes
per basin from
all CCDAS
Attribution of
net land
carbon fluxes
into
photosynthesi
s and
respiration
from all
CCDAS
13
UiB
26
Yes
30
13
LSCE-
32
yes
36
MS26
UVSQ
Only an
attempt
was
performed
for few
CCDAS