Anna M. Michalak Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences University of Michigan Reconciling.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
An example of a large-scale interdisciplinary carbon problem Multidecadal climate variability Atmospheric evidence Ocean source? (upwelling, biological.
Advertisements

Resolving CO 2 Flux Estimates from Atmospheric Inversions and Inventories in the Mid-Continent Region Stephen M. Ogle 1, Andrew Schuh 1, Dan Cooley 1,
Activity 2.3 Team CarboEurope-IP Meeting, Posen, Poland, 7-12 Oktober, 2007 Flask network (A 2.3) Multiple species measurement What is expected from A.
Summary discussion Top-down approach Consider Carbon Monitoring Systems, tailored to address stakeholder needs. CMS frameworks can be designed to provide.
Improving Understanding of Global and Regional Carbon Dioxide Flux Variability through Assimilation of in Situ and Remote Sensing Data in a Geostatistical.
Cross Cutting Group B: Ammonia policy context and future challenges Chair: Till Spranger Rapporteur: Zbigniew Klimont Attendees: 13.
Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy North American Carbon Balance – Results from the Regional Synthesis Project of the North America Carbon.
CMS – 2012 Reduction in Bottom-Up Land Surface CO 2 Flux Uncertainty in NASA’s Carbon Monitoring System Flux Project through Systematic Multi-Model Evaluation.
Estimating the contribution of agricultural land use to terrestrial carbon fluxes in the continental US Keith Paustian 1,2, Steven Ogle 2, Scott Denning.
Carbon Cycle and Ecosystems Important Concerns: Potential greenhouse warming (CO 2, CH 4 ) and ecosystem interactions with climate Carbon management (e.g.,
NACP Breakout Session: North American Terrestrial Carbon Monitoring and Decision Support Capabilities (combined from CMS and CarboNA proposals) Organized.
Assessment of Progress toward Achieving Long Term Performance Measure Climate Change Research Sub- Committee Eugene Bierly, Robert Dickinson, James Ehleringer,
Slides for IPCC. Inverse Modeling of CO 2 Air Parcel Sources Sinks wind Sample Changes in CO 2 in the air tell us about sources and sinks Atmospheric.
The North American Carbon Program: An Overview for AmeriFlux investigators Kenneth Davis The Pennsylvania State University Co-chair, NACP Science Steering.
NACP Modeling and Synthesis Thematic Data Center (MAST-DC) A project funded by NASA 2005 Research Announcement for the North American Carbon Program Briefing.
Data Assimilation in the NCEO (National Centre for Earth Observation) Peter Jan van Leeuwen Data-Assimilation Research Centre DARC University of Reading.
Combination of mechanisms responsible for the missing carbon sink using bottom-up approach Haifeng Qian March 29, A Carbon Cycle and Climate Past,
Monthly Mean Carbon Flux Estimates: Some Network Considerations Lori Bruhwiler, Anna Michalak, Wouter Peters, Pieter Tans NOAA Climate Monitoring and.
1 Software: Hymodelc stable, without signs of premature terminations. Consider the latest bug fixes “serious” (i.e., meriting re-runs). Need to re-run.
Forest Plan Revision Using the 2012 Planning Rule Process Overview Steps and Expectations (I don’t know….but I’ve been told…if the horse don’t pull….you.
West Coast Breakout. Status of west coast project ORCA –Field intensives & data synthesis completed in wildfires, thinning, woody encroachment studies.
Discussion of Draft CEQ Guidelines for Addressing Climate Change in NEPA Projects Tim Stroope, NEPA Coordinator, GMUG National Forest
MAPPING NACP PROGRESS ONTO LONG-TERM CARBON CYCLE SCIENCE GOALS Anna M. Michalak.
Update on the U.S. Climate Change Science Program UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Subsidiary Body Meeting June 21, 2004 Linda V. Moodie Senior.
Sharon M. Gourdji, K.L. Mueller, V. Yadav, A.E. Andrews, M. Trudeau, D.N. Huntzinger, A.Schuh, A.R. Jacobson, M. Butler, A.M. Michalak North American Carbon.
Mid-Continent Intensive Campaign Synthesis Stephen M. Ogle Natural Resources Ecology Laboratory Colorado State University Co-Investigators: K. Davis, A.
Page 1© Crown copyright WP4 Development of a System for Carbon Cycle Data Assimilation Richard Betts.
Demands of integrative science Is NACP reducing uncertainty in the N.A. carbon budget? –Tendency toward spatial reductionism: regional intensives, subregional.
Diagnosis, attribution, prediction and decision support: Progress, problems and two paths forwards Kenneth Davis Department of Meteorology The Pennsylvania.
The role of the Chequamegon Ecosystem-Atmosphere Study in the U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Plan Ken Davis The Pennsylvania State University The 13 th ChEAS.
Why Establish an Ecosystem-Atmosphere Flux Measurement Network in India? Dennis Baldocchi ESPM/Ecosystem Science Div. University of California, Berkeley.
O AK R IDGE N ATIONAL L ABORATORY U. S. D EPARTMENT OF E NERGY 1 Vegetation/Ecosystem Modeling and Analysis Project (VEMAP) Lessons Learned or How to Do.
Discussion Topics – Delaware River Basin Pilot Project Synergistic opportunities between FIA/FHM/GC/USGS –Scaling – top down/bottom up – multi-tier approach.
NACP breakout group: Atmospheric Measurements and Analyses: Summary for the plenary Room: Cheyenne I Time: Monday, 3-5pm.
15-18 October 2002 Greenville, North Carolina Global Terrestrial Observing System GTOS Jeff Tschirley Programme director.
GEO Strategic Target on Climate (Carbon) Facilitate a comprehensive global carbon observation and analysis system in support of decision-making, including.
MJ Apps, Canadian Forest Service Nov 2004 Why regional carbon budgets? Scientific and Policy Background Scientific and policy requirements for comprehensive.
Participant NameOrganization Collatz, George (Jim) (WG Lead)NASA GSFC Brown, MollyNASA GSFC Denning, ScottColorado State University Escobar, VanessaSigma.
Continental Coastal Interactions: Integration of models across terrestrial, inland water, and coastal ocean ecosystems for diagnosis, attribution, and.
Science Mission Directorate Overview of NASA Research in Carbon Data Fusion and Data Assimilation Carbon Fusion Workshop, May, 2006 Bill Emanuel Program.
Spatial and temporal patterns of CH 4 and N 2 O fluxes from North America as estimated by process-based ecosystem model Hanqin Tian, Xiaofeng Xu and other.
Office of Science Office of Biological and Environmental Research DOE Workshop on Community Modeling and Long-term Predictions of the Integrated Water.
Joint Canada-Mexico-USA (North American*) Carbon Program Planning Meeting January 25–26, 2007 *By North America we mean the North American land, adjacent.
Office of Science Office of Biological and Environmental Research Climate Research Roadmapping Workshop Mike Kuperberg Presentation to BERAC September.
North American Carbon Sources and Sinks: Magnitude, Attribution and Uncertainty Anthony King Daniel Hayes Deborah Huntzinger Tristram West Wilfred Post.
International workshop on Asian Greenhouse Gases Budgets Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad, India September 2011 Pep Canadell*, Prabir Patra.
22 January, 2007NACP investigators’ meeting, Colorado Springs, CO NACP breakout group: Atmospheric Measurements and Analyses: Full notes Room: Cheyenne.
Site-Level Model-Data Comparison A Proposed NACP Interim Synthesis Project Ken Davis, Peter Thornton, Kevin Schaefer, Dan Riciutto Coordinators.
An alternative explanation to the size and location of the missing sink Robert Andres 1 Skee Houghton 2 1 Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National.
Continental Coastal Interactions: Assessing carbon inventories and fluxes in watersheds, inland waters, and associated coastal margins: data sources and.
International Collaboration on Data Assimilation in Terrestrial Carbon Cycle Science CARBON FUSION
UNCLASS1 Dr. Gene Whitney Assistant Director for Environment Office of Science and Technology Policy Executive Office of the President WISP Meeting - July.
Flux Measurements and Systematic Terrestrial Measurements 1.discuss gaps and opportunities What are gaps? 2. brainstorm ideas about collaborative projects.
MCI Break-Out Coordination Time Lines Deliverables Topic Groups –Subregional intensive group –Top-down group –Bottom-up group.
Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science Jerry Elwood Director, Climate Change Research Division, Office.
North American Carbon Program Scott Denning, Chair NACP Science Steering Group.
Fossil fuel CO 2 and CH 4 emissions (mass, isotopic, spatial and temporal descriptions) Session organizers: Robert Andres, Marc Fischer, Kevin Gurney Brief.
CarboEurope: The Big Research Lines Annette Freibauer Ivan Janssens.
A comparison of recent model- and inventory- based estimates of the continental-scale carbon balance of North America A. David McGuire USGS / University.
Breakout Session: Intensive Campaign Requirements and Strategies What is the rational for intensives? Need to develop and test methods before taking the.
NASA Carbon Monitoring System (NASA-CMS) NASA Carbon Monitoring System Science Team Overview George Hurtt NASA-CMS Science Team Leader Department of Geographical.
PPAI Decadal Prediction/Predictability/Variability –Reviewed the WGCM/WGSIP Decadal Prediction Experiment –Reviewed/Revised Decadal WG Prospectus Reviewed.
US Program Overview Scott Denning, Chair NACP Science Steering Group.
Biospheric Models as Priors Deborah Huntzinger, U. Michigan.
Surprises in the anthropogenic carbon budget Why OCB is so important! Jorge Sarmiento Princeton University Co-lead author of the US Carbon Cycle Science.
Ocean Carbon and Biogeochemistry Scoping Workshop on Terrestrial and Coastal Carbon Fluxes and Exchanges in the Gulf of Mexico May 6-8, 2008 St. Petersburg,
North American Carbon Program
HIPPO1-3 Large-Scale CO2 Gradients
Organizing Pop-ups and Breakout Groups
Presentation transcript:

Anna M. Michalak Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences University of Michigan Reconciling Top-down and Bottom-up Approaches

Questions to Address What are the critical knowledge gaps? What synthesis and integration activities can help address knowledge gaps? Some suggestions of kinds of activities to consider:  Treatment of uncertainty in measurements and models  Components of the N.Am. carbon budget: current status and potential improvements (e.g. urban/suburban flux estimates, fossil fuel fluxes). This topic would take SOCCR as a point of departure.  Integration of short-term and long-term measurements (e.g. flux sites compared to biometrics).  Formal intercomparisons of inverse modeling methods.  Formal intercomparisons of forward modeling methods.  Comparison of forward and inverse modeling methods.  Carbon-nitrogen cycle interactions. What are the next steps to move forward?

What are the main challenges to collaboration between (primarily) top-down and (primarily) bottom-up researchers? Scale (resolution, time span, domain) Data limitations Attribution (i.e. process-based) vs. Diagnosis (i.e. magnitude) Use of biospheric models as priors in top-down modeling Uncertainty analysis (both bottom-up and top-down) Terminology Need better understanding of feedbacks Common goals / data products / scientific questions

NACP Questions 1.What is the carbon balance of North America and adjacent oceans? What are the geographic patterns of fluxes of CO 2, CH 4, and CO? How is the balance changing over time? (“Diagnosis”) 2.What processes control the sources and sinks of CO 2, CH 4, and CO, and how do the controls change with time? (“Attribution/Processes”) 3.Are there potential surprises (could sources increase or sinks disappear)? (“Prediction”) 4.How can we enhance and manage long-lived carbon sinks ("sequestration"), and provide resources to support decision makers? (“Decision support”) Source: Scott Denning, Monday AM presentation

Synthesis Framework Bottom-up models Transport models Atmospheric measurements Top-down models Scale Data limitations Attribution vs. Diagnosis vs. Prediction Use of biospheric models as priors Uncertainty analysis Terminology Feedbacks Common goals / data products / scientific questions WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF MOVING TOWARDS PREDICTION

What are the next steps to move forward? Organizing committee to propose goals and structure of synthesis  Two step process with general committee with representatives from different communities and sub-committees from individual components “Wash dirtiest laundry first”  Sharing strengths and weaknesses of both sets of approaches  Being explicit about assumptions Take steps towards resolving terminology differences Make better use of “surprises” in our top-down analyses to inform bottom-up studies Do more event-based and hypothesis based analysis CAUTION: The types of models that will disagree about future carbon fluxes are not necessarily going to disagree about current fluxes Remaining questions:  How do you see long-term change from short-term fluxes?  Need to coordinate with MCI  What role should flux towers play?