Contributions of Observations to Assessments of Anthropogenic - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Contributions of Observations to Assessments of Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Riley Duren Chief Systems Engineer Earth Science & Technology Directorate Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology March 4,
1
Riley Duren
Chief Systems Engineer Earth Science & Technology Directorate Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institute of Technology March 4, 2010 contributions from many colleagues at NASA, DOE labs, NOAA, OSTP, and other agencies and organizations
2
– Exis;ng capabili;es are good but are research‐oriented – Research capabili;es COULD be leveraged to support policy assessment – Need for interna;onal transparency and collabora;on represents an opportunity for the US
3
and acronyms are summarized on slide 16
4
828 GtC 388 ppm
Amount of atmospheric CO2 can be expressed as a total stock (GtC) or as a concentration/mole fraction (ppm) Net Emission: sum total of Fluxes (sources & sinks) over a given area for some time interval (typically a year)
Sour Source: N ce: NASA Ear ASA Earth Obser th Observa vator tory y
Terrestrial (land) carbon
Ocean carbon
Observations of greenhouse & other gases (FOCUS FOR TODAY)
Carbon Fluxes/ “flows”: Sources(+) & Sinks(-)
GtC = 1 giga-ton of carbon (1 billion tons)
5
Example: global Carbon Monoxide (CO) annual net emissions (2004-2005) derived from concentration observations from MOPITT1, AIRS2, & SCIAMACHY3
Kopacz et al., Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 855–876, 2010
Colors indicate ratio between the observationally-derived and reported emissions (possible factor of 2+ underreporting in some regions)
1Canada/US, 2US, 3EU
CO is not a direct GHG but is a good combustion tracer and a well-studied example of this concept
6
Global Scale
1 zone
1958- present Sub-continental Scale
22 zones
1995- present
source: TransCom
“Regional” Scale
65,000+ zones
Future
source: EDGAR
7
AGAGE
NASA & partners
(from Switzerland, Italy, Norway, Japan, Korea, and China)
FluxNet
DOE, NSF, DOC, USDA, NASA, WMO
TCCON
NASA
HIPPO
NSF/NOAA
MAMAP
IUP/GFZ
Concentrations flux inversions Direct fluxes
CAMS
DOE
GAW
WMO
Carbon Tracker
NOAA
US assets highlighted in green font (25% of FluxNet & 50% of GAW are US assets)
8
– Double the number of towers and aircraa sites – Deploy “air core” ver;cal profile sampling on balloons & aircraa
– Increase throughput to improve 14CO2 (fossil‐fuel tracer) accuracy
System ‐ ICOS (2014)
– Integrates exis;ng & new observa;ons with a common data system
Source: Tans, 2010 Source: Ciais et al., 2009
9
SCIAMACHY, GOSAT
Source: Chahine et al., 2008
AIRS, TES, IASI SCIAMACHY Methane (2003 average)
Source: Buchwitz et al., 2007
US assets listed in green Currently Operational Missions *CO2 products often have different precision and spatial scale than for individual samples
thermal-emission reflected sunlight
AIRS CO2 animation http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/
10
Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO)
3-Days 1-Day
OCO cloud-clear soundings (100,000+ per day)
Source: Miller, Crisp, et al., 2009
ASCENDS
Planned Missions 2013-2010
Day/night and high latitude capability
US assets listed in green *CO2 products often have different precision and spatial scale than for individual samples
OCO animation http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/oco/multimedia
11
Are Country-X’s actual emissions exceeding their- reported (national inventory) emissions? Are policies meeting the desired objective (limiting GHG concentrations)? Are the actual emissions from individual point sources in Country-X exceeding their reported emissions? How are individual point source emitters being operated (dynamic behavior)? Does the actual carbon stock match the reported baseline for a forest carbon offset credit by Country-X or Project-Y? Are disturbances
Project-Y that impact the claimed carbon credit (is the offset permanent)?
Monitoring
Flux Monitoring
Stock Monitoring
Examples of policy relevant questions where observationally-derived information may apply:
12
(other aIributes of a robust monitoring system)
– Must support timely decision-making & mitigation/adaptation assessment – Convert data to policy-relevant information on appropriate spatio-temporal scales
– Must distinguish anthropogenic from natural background – Carbon forecasts (prognostics as well as diagnostics)
– Detect “leakage” – No denied territory – Carbon stocks and flows in terrestrial biosphere & ocean (not just atmosphere)
– Traceability and public availability of data, models, & products – Relentless attention to bias/errors (regular calibration & validation)
– Initially measure CO2, followed by CH4 & other Kyoto gases – Learn (iterate) as we go – Continued operation over decades
Source: GHG Information System collaboration between DOE labs, NASA centers, NOAA and series of interagency workshops and meetings involving ~30 organizations
13
1. Current observa;onal (& modeling/analysis) capabili;es are significant & improving ‐ but most were designed for scien;fic research, not decision‐support. 2. Research capabili;es could be leveraged to support policy assessments if we…
– Integrate atmo/land/ocean observa;ons with improved models and data systems – Provide a common framework to compare/reconcile inventories and observa;ons – Avoid cri;cal data gaps (replace lost/aging satellites and sustain ground networks) – Strategically plan & design a sustained capability (with new assets as needed) – Collaborate (decision‐makers & informa;on providers) to define requirements
3. Transparency and interna;onal collabora;on/coordina;on will be necessary for most GHG monitoring applica;ons – this is an opportunity for US leadership.
14
15
– US Carbon Cycle Science Program (ongoing) hIp://www.carboncyclescience.gov/ – State Of the Carbon Cycle Report (2007) hIp://www.globalchange.gov/publica;ons/reports/scien;fic‐assessments/saps/295 – Interagency Workshop on Needs and Capabili;es (2009) hIp://climate.nasa.gov/Documents/GHGIS_Workshop2_Report_final‐CL09‐3451.pdf – RFF report on Forest measurement and monitoring (2010) hIp://www.rff.org/Publica;ons/Pages/Publica;onDetails.aspx?Publica;onID=20984 – DOE Carbon Dioxide Informa;on Analysis Center (ongoing) hIp://cdiac.ornl.gov/ – NASA Carbon Cycle & Ecosystems (ongoing) hIp://cce.nasa.gov/cce – NOAA Carbon Tracker (ongoing) hIp://carbontracker.noaa.gov – USDA Forest Inventory & Analysis (ongoing) hIp://fia.fs.fed.us/ – USGS ecosystem carbon sequestra;on assessment (ongoing) hIp://www.usgs.gov/global_change/carbon/
– NRC study of Methods for Es,ma,ng Greenhouse Gas Emissions – GEO Carbon Strategy
16
Terminology
17
– OCO (precision surface CO2) OCO‐2 (2013) + OCO‐3 (instrument only, earliest 2015) – Landsat (land surface composi;on) LDCM (2013) – ICESAT (forest structure/biomass) ICESAT‐2 (2015) – MODIS (vegeta;on health, produc;vity) NPP VIIRS (2011) – MODIS (ocean color, photosynthe;c ac;vity) Sen;nel‐3 (2013)/PACE (2018)
– Ac;ve microwave sounding (Soil Moisture/Arc;c freeze‐thaw emissions) SMAP (2013) – Lidar/Radar Fusion (Forest structure/biomass) DESDynI (2017) – CO2 Lidar (day/night & high‐la;tude winter) ASCENDS (2019)
– Con;nued opera;on of AmeriFlux/FluxNet, AGAGE, TCCON, & other networks – Expansion of NOAA network and DOE 14C analysis
18
Review of policy compliance & efficacy
Emission Inventories (& Audits)
Evidence of ACTIONS (infrastructure projects, land use change) Evidence of EFFECTS (es;mated GHG fluxes & offsets)
Observa;onal data
Imaging In‐situ Monitoring (selected sources) Economic Data &models
Comparison & reconcilia;on
Land ecosystem & ocean carbon Atmospheric GHG concentra;ons Models Observa;ons from land, air, sea, and space