Multi-Scale Synthesis and Terrestrial Model Intercomparison Project – A Systematic Approach for Evaluating Land-Atmosphere Flux Estimates February 4 th,

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Regional trends in the land carbon cycle and the underlying mechanisms over the period, S. Sitch, P. Friedlingstein, G. Bonan, P. Canadell, P.

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,

DGVM runs for Trendy/RECCAP S. Sitch, P. Friedlingstein, A. Ahlström, A. Arneth, G. Bonan, P. Canadell, F. Chevallier, P. Ciais, C. Huntingford, C. D.,

CMIP5: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5

A Synthesis of Terrestrial Carbon Balance of Alaska and Projected Changes in the 21 st Century: Implications for Climate Policy and Carbon Management To.

Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy North American Carbon Balance – Results from the Regional Synthesis Project of the North America Carbon.

Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Estimating the North American Carbon Balance Using Inter- Comparison Among Inversions, Regional Terrestrial.

Lessons learned through Model Intercomparison (MIP) Studies: Land-atmosphere-ocean interactions and the challenges of coupled modeling through model intercomparison.

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.

An Assessment of the Carbon Balance of Arctic Tundra: Comparisons among Observations, Models, and Atmospheric inversions A. David McGuire and Co-authors.

Estimating the contribution of agricultural land use to terrestrial carbon fluxes in the continental US Keith Paustian 1,2, Steven Ogle 2, Scott Denning.

US Carbon Trends March 17, USDA Greenhouse Gas Symposium1 Spatial and Temporal Patterns of the Contemporary Carbon Sources and Sinks in the Ridge.

Carbon Cycle and Ecosystems Important Concerns: Potential greenhouse warming (CO 2, CH 4 ) and ecosystem interactions with climate Carbon management (e.g.,

Niall P. Hanan 1, Christopher A. Williams 1, Joseph Berry 2, Robert Scholes 3 A. Scott Denning 1, Jason Neff 4, and Jeffrey Privette 5 1. Colorado State.

Management impacts on the C balance in agricultural ecosystems Jean-François Soussana 1 Martin Wattenbach 2, Pete Smith 2 1. INRA, Clermont-Ferrand, France.

The North American Carbon Program (NACP) Multi-Scale Synthesis and Terrestrial Model Intercomparison (MsTMIP) Project Introductions Overview.

O AK R IDGE N ATIONAL L ABORATORY U. S. D EPARTMENT OF E NERGY 1 Carbon Cycle Modeling Terrestrial Ecosystem Models W.M. Post, ORNL Atmospheric Measurements.

(In and) Out of Africa: estimating the carbon exchange of a continent Niall Hanan, Chris Williams, Bob Scholes, Scott Denning, Joe Berry, Jason Neff, Jeff.

Trends in Terrestrial Carbon Sinks Driven by Hydroclimatic Change since 1948: Data-Driven Analysis using FLUXNET Trends in Terrestrial Carbon Sinks Driven.

Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Carbon Exchanges between the Atmosphere and Terrestrial Ecosystems of China Hanqin Tian Ecosystem and Regional Studies.

Modeling climate change impacts on forest productivity with PnET-CN Emily Peters, Kirk Wythers, Peter Reich NE Landscape Plan Update May 17, 2012.

Regional Model-Data Comparison: An NACP Interim Synthesis Project Coordinators: Andy Jacobson, Mac Post, Debbie Huntzinger, Bob Cook Participants: Dozens.

Paul R. Moorcroft David Medvigy, Stephen Wofsy, J. William Munger, M. Dietze Harvard University Developing a predictive science of the biosphere.

Global net land carbon sink: Results from the Multi-scale Synthesis and Terrestrial Model Intercomparison Project (MsTMIP) December 9, 2013 AGU Fall Meeting,

Estimating Terrestrial Wood Biomass from Observed Concentrations of Atmospheric CO 2 Kevin Schaefer 1, Wouter Peters 2, Nuno Carvalhais 3, Guido van der.

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.

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.

An Assessment of the Carbon Balance of Arctic Tundra in North America: Comparisons among Observations, Models, and Atmospheric inversions A. David McGuire.

15-18 October 2002 Greenville, North Carolina Global Terrestrial Observing System GTOS Jeff Tschirley Programme director.

Translation to the New TCO Panel Beverly Law Prof. Global Change Forest Science Science Chair, AmeriFlux Network Oregon State University.

Modeling the Greenhouse gases of cropland/grassland At European scale N. Viovy, S. Gervois, N. Vuichard, N. de Noblet-Ducoudré, B. Seguin, N. Brisson,

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.

Characterizing observational and model uncertainty Kusum Naithani Department of Geography The Pennsylvania State University ChEAS 2012 Workshop.

Modeling Modes of Variability in Carbon Exchange Between High Latitude Ecosystems and the Atmosphere Dave McGuire (UAF), Joy Clein (UAF), and Qianlai.

Some challenges of model-data- integration a collection of issues and ideas based on model evaluation excercises Martin Jung, Miguel Mahecha, Markus Reichstein,

Intercomparison of Global Scale Ecological Models and Field Data Intercomparison of Global Scale Ecological Models and Field Data Objective To assess how.

Evaluation of land model simulations across multiple sites and multiple models: Results from the NACP site-level synthesis effort Peter Thornton 1, Gautam.

Satellite data, ecosystem models and site data: contributions of the IGBP flux network to carbon cycle science David Schimel, Galina Churkina, Eva Falge,

Liebermann R 1, Kraft P 1, Houska T 1, Müller C 2,3, Haas E 4, Kraus D 4, Klatt S 4, Breuer L 1 1 Institute for Landscape Ecology and Resources Management,

Methane Emission from Natural Wetlands in Northern Mid and High Latitudes since 1980s Xiaofeng Xu 1, Hanqin Tian 1, Vivienne Payne 2, Janusz Eluszkiewicz.

North American Carbon Sources and Sinks: Magnitude, Attribution and Uncertainty Anthony King Daniel Hayes Deborah Huntzinger Tristram West Wilfred Post.

Terrestrial Carbon Observations TCO Previous Strategy 1- better identify the potential end users, and their requirements 2- organize and coordinate reliable.

Site-Level Model-Data Comparison A Proposed NACP Interim Synthesis Project Ken Davis, Peter Thornton, Kevin Schaefer, Dan Riciutto Coordinators.

WP11 highlights: introduction and overview EU FP6 Integrated Project CARBOOCEAN ”Marine carbon sources and sinks assessment” 5 th Annual & Final Meeting.

Cyberinfrastructure to promote Model - Data Integration Robert Cook, Yaxing Wei, and Suresh S. Vannan Oak Ridge National Laboratory Presented at the Model-Data.

Goal: to understand carbon dynamics in montane forest regions by developing new methods for estimating carbon exchange at local to regional scales. Activities:

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.

Impact of the changes of prescribed fire emissions on regional air quality from 2002 to 2050 in the southeastern United States Tao Zeng 1,3, Yuhang Wang.

A Modeling and Synthesis Thematic Data Center for the North American Carbon Program Robert B. Cook 1, Yaxing Wei 1, W. Mac Post 1, Peter E. Thornton 1,

Success and Failure of Implementing Data-driven Upscaling Using Flux Networks and Remote Sensing Jingfeng Xiao Complex Systems Research Center, University.

State of the Carbon Cycle (NACP and GCP): Have components and their uncertainties changed over time? Anna M. Michalak With contributions from: Kevin Bowman,

A model-data intercomparison of CO 2 exchange across North America: Results from the North American Carbon Program Site Synthesis Christopher R Schwalm.

Yan Sun Advisor: Professor Shilong Piao College of Urban and Environment Sciences, Peking University PKU-LSCE meeting, 15 MAY 2014 Water-use Efficiency.

Multi-scale evaluation of ISIMIP biome models against NDVI and MODIS NPP data 27th October, Authors: Rashid Rafique, Fang Zhao, Ghassem Asrar, Ning.

Effect of anthropogenic nitrogen depositions on atmospheric CO2

CARBON, WATER, LAND USE & CLIMATE

Continental Modeling and Analysis of the North American Carbon Cycle

Ruth Doherty, Edinburgh University Adam Butler & Glenn Marion, BioSS

Model Summary Fred Lauer

Ecosystem Demography model version 2 (ED2)

GFDL Climate Model Status and Plans for Product Generation

Adam Butler & Glenn Marion, Biomathematics & Statistics Scotland •

Ensemble Ecosystem Model Experiment and Intercomparison using the Terrestrial Observation and Prediction System (TOPS) Weile Wang, Jennifer L. Dungan,

NACP Site MDC “Are the various measurement and modeling estimates of carbon fluxes consistent with each other - and if not, why?” Simulated vs. observed.

Rangeland Soil Carbon: State of Knowledge

Presentation transcript:

Multi-Scale Synthesis and Terrestrial Model Intercomparison Project – A Systematic Approach for Evaluating Land-Atmosphere Flux Estimates February 4 th, 2013 NACP All Investigators Meeting, Albuquerque, NM Deborah Huntzinger C. Schwalm, A. Michalak, W. Post, K. Schaefer, A. Jacobson. Y. Wei, R. Cook, & MsTMIP Participants

Future projections depend, in part, on ability to model land-atmosphere carbon exchange Huntzinger et al. (2012) Ecological Modeling Friedlingstein et al. 2006

Land surface Models Policy and management choices Input data Initial conditions Parameter values Assumptions Process inclusion & formulation Understanding of system /

Input data Initial conditions Parameter values Assumptions Process inclusion & formulation How do intermodel differences influence variability or uncertainty in model results? Parametric uncertainty Structural uncertainty: In order to quantify, need: Large community of models Strict simulation protocol

Multi-scale Synthesis & Terrestrial Model Intercomparison Project (MsTMIP) Unique in several ways: Two spatial scales: Global (0.5° by 0.5°); North America (0.25° by 0.25°); Two distinct sets of standardized environmental input data – Climate, land cover & land-use/land-cover change history, phenology, atmospheric CO 2, nitrogen deposition rates, soil, C3/C4 grass, major crops Includes over 20 different TBMs 110-year simulation period ( ) 10 different simulations model to assess sensitivity to different forcing factors Evaluation of model performance against available observations (benchmarking)

OrderDomainCodeClimateLULUCAtm. CO 2 Nitrogen 1 Global RG1Constant 2SG1 Time-varying (CRU+NCEP) 3SG2 Time- varying (Hurtt) 4SG3 Time- varying 5BG1 Time-varying Reference simulations  spin-up run out to 2010 Sensitivity simulations  turn one variable component on at a time to systematically test the impact of climate variability, CO 2 fertilization, nitrogen limitation, and land cover / land-use change on carbon exchange. Baseline simulations  model’s best estimate of net land-atmosphere carbon flux (everything turned on) MsTMIP Simulations: Global Start with steady-state initial conditions Start monthly output Start 3-hourly output Stop Changing land-use, land-cover, CO 2 concentrations, nitrogen deposition rates, etc.

MsTMIP experimental design represents a set of collective hypotheses: – Strict protocol isolate sources of differences – Similar structural characteristics similar estimates of fluxes, carbon pools, etc. – Sensitivity to forcing factors will differ among models

NACP Regional Interim Synthesis vs. MsTMIP Mean GPP for North America ( ) 5 models (CLM, DLEM, LPJ, ORCHIDEE, VEGAS) Range Interquartile range Median Huntzinger et al., (2012) GMD in prep. Does strict protocol help to isolate sources if different in model output?

MsTMIP models Steady-state results 10 models GPP varies by factor of 2 in tropics Soil carbon pool size in NHL ranges from 5 – 60 kg C m -2 Total living biomass varies by factor of 3.5 in tropics Range Interquartile range Median Huntzinger et al., (2012) GMD in prep.

“Best estimate” ( ) 9 models ( BIOME-BGC, CLM, CLM4ViC, DLEM, LPJ, ORCHIDEE, TRIPLEX-GHGm, VEGAS, VISIT ) Total living biomass Range Interquartile range Median

75% 90% 95% “Hot spots” of interannual variability (IAV) ( ) Map highlights areas where the models show the greatest degree of interannual variability (IAV)

Compare simulated GPP to other GPP products: MODIS-GPP (Zhao and Running, 2010) MPI-BGC (Jung et al., 2011)

MsTMIP experimental design represents a set of collective hypotheses: – Strict protocol isolate sources of differences – Similar structural characteristics similar estimates of fluxes, carbon pools, etc. – Sensitivity to forcing factors will differ among models Need to identify models that share similar characteristics

Visualizing model structural differences using dendrograms Huntzinger et al., (2012) GMD in prep.

Do models with similar structural characteristics will have similar estimates of flux? Overall model structural differences Mean global GPP ( )

Model sensitivity to different environmental drivers Global Net GPP

Change in GPP (relative to SS) with each simulation Nitrogen dynamics Time-varying atmospheric CO 2 Time-varying climate Land-use, land-cover change history Dynamic Land Ecosystem Model (DLEM)

Additive change in GPP attributed to different forcing factors (DLEM) LULCC Climate Atm. CO 2 N-cycling

Model sensitivity to different environmental drivers ( )

Summary and what’s next We can evaluate model results in a way that was not possible with the NACP regional synthesis activity: – Attribute inter-model variability to structural differences – Quantify sensitivity of models (and their estimates) to forcing factors Model-data evaluation (benchmarking) is currently underway. Will evaluate model performance as a function of: – Domain (Site, North America, Global) – Spatial and temporal resolution of driver data MsTMIP workshop following meeting

Acknowledgements Funding for MsTMIP: – NASA Terrestrial Ecology Program Grant No. NNX10AG01A – NOAA Data/model output management and processing – MAST-DC and ORNL DAAC MsTMIP modeling teams: – John Kim (BIOMAP); Weile Wang (Biome-BGC ); Altaf Arain (CLASS-CTEM-N+); Dan Hayes (CLM and TEM6); Mayoi Huang (CLM4-VIC); Hanqin Tian (DLEM); Dan Riccuito (GTEC); Tom Hilinksi (IRC/DayCent5); Atul Jain (ISAM); Ben Poulter (LPJ); Dominique Bachelet (MC1); Josh Fisher (JULES, ORCHIDEE, SIB3, Shushi Peng and Gwenaelle Berthier (ORCHIDEE); Kevin Schaefer (SiBCASA); Rob Braswell (SIPNET); Chanqhui Peng (TRIPLEX-GHG); Ning Zeng (VEGAS); Akihiko Ito (VISIT)