1. What’s going on in NA carbon cycle and climate change world… –Syntheses –Ongoing Assessments –New Experiments/Assessments –Proposals

2. Syntheses

3. North American Carbon Program Interim Synthesis Site Leads: Peter Thornton, Kevin Schaefer, Dan Ricciuto, Ken Davis, and Bob Cook Regional Leads :Mac Post, Debbie Huntzinger, Andy Jacobson, Yaxing Wei, Dan Hayes, and Bob Cook MCI Leads:Stephen Ogle, Ken Davis, Scott Denning, and Andrew Schuh Non-CO2 GHG: Steve Wofsy, Janusz Eluszkiewicz and Arlyn Andrews 3

4. What are the magnitudes and spatial distribution of carbon sources and sinks, and their uncertainties? What is the spatial pattern and magnitude of interannual variation in carbon fluxes? What are the components of carbon fluxes and pools that contribute to this variation? Are the various observations and modeling estimates of carbon fluxes consistent with each other - and if not, why? Interim Synthesis Framework 4

5. 5 Information at multiple scales site continent region Spatial Scale ObservationsModels Flux towers Forest, Crop, and Soil Inventories Remote Sensing Productivity and Phenology Forward Models (existing runs) Atmospheric Inversions (existing & new runs) Forward Models ( with tower drivers) Regional Synthesis 19 forward models, 22 Inverse Models, 7 papers Regional Synthesis 19 forward models, 22 Inverse Models, 7 papers Site Synthesis 47 towers, 22 forward models, 15 papers

6. Site Interim Synthesis: Selected Results Schwalm et al: 44 towers 220 site-years 10 biomes 2 droughts 22 models Schwalm et al. Model performance / skill highly variable Data assimilation improves skill (LoTec) Ensemble mean is next Models that performed best (red box): Prescribed phenology, sub-daily time step, and NEE = GPP - R Taylor Skill Chi-Squared Normalized Mean Absolute Error Perfect Model 6

7. Uncertainty in Flux Tower Measurements (Barr et al.) Compiled total uncertainty (random uncertainty and turbulence threshold uncertainty (u-star)) for annual NEE, Respiration, and GPP 7

8. Top: Results for all models that were run at these sites Bottom: Results for all sites run by these models Difference between model and observation is largest at annual time scale indicating problems with seasonal cycle Dietze et al. Power Spectra Analysis 8 Fraction of NEE Error by Time Scale

9. MCI Inversion-Inventory Study Research Interests Creation of a database with comprehensive C flux estimates based on C inventory stock changes (2007-2008). Inversion to Inventory comparisons across many inventories and inversions (2007, 2008 to come) Inversion sensitivity to prior flux assumptions and transport modeling 9

10. Example: Comparison of Inventory to Carbon Tracker 2009 Inventory and Inversion comparisons are underway Spatial results are a function of prior inversion but are relatively consistent at large scales i.e., entire region Differences exist at finer scales, e.g. NW- SE gradient from ND to IL Currently making similar comparisons w/ finer scale inversions. 10

11. Regional Synthesis: Participating Models 19 Terrestrial Biosphere Models –Models differ in: Prognostic versus diagnostic Driver data Vegetation and soil properties Photosynthetic formulation # of carbon pools, soil carbon decomp. dynamics Processes included, etc. 27 Inverse Models –22 models with TRANSCOM results –8 models with post-TRANSCOM results resolved to 1x1 degree 11

12. Terrestrial Biosphere Model Flux for North America Across model mean net flux - 2000 - 2005 NCE = -0.66 PgC/yr (-1.8 to +0.25 PgC/yr) NPP = 9.2 PgC/yr (6.2 to 13.8 Pg C/yr) GPP = 18.4 PgC/yr (9.9 to 31.7 Pg C/yr) Rh = 8.6 PgC/yr (5.8 to 13.1 Pg C/yr) 12

13. Regional Interim Synthesis: Seasonality Evergreen & Needleleaf Crops Mixed & Decid. Mixed & Decid Gross primary productivity (2000-2005) Seasonal patterns of model GPP: GPP (EK) > GPP (LUE) When totaled over the growing season and annually, most models in this study estimate 1.2 to 2 times the GPP predicted by the MODIS product. 13

14. Comparing Terrestrial Biosphere Models: Region and Site (Raczka et al.) Regional model runs are more positively biased for GPP Site model runs closer to observations. 14

15. 15 Hourly Methane Data from Fraserdale, Ontario: 2004, 49.88 N 81.57W 210m Example footprint showing influence of US industrial areas; EDGAR 3.2 9/6 1830 1930 2030 9/2 9/4 9/6 9/8 9/10 9/12 9/14

16. On the horizon … Many analyses in process, many manuscripts in preparation Fall AGU Meeting on Carbon Cycle: –Site, Regional, and MCI presentations Final MCI synthesis workshop in mid-January Anticipate presentations/posters at NACP investigators meeting in February Planning for next series of Workshops / activities 16

17. The North American Carbon Program (NACP) Multi-Scale Synthesis and Terrestrial Model Intercomparison (MsTMIP) Project D. N. Huntzinger (Science PI), Anna Michalak (PI), Kevin Schaefer (Co-I), Andy Jacobson (Co-I), Mac Post (Co-I), Bob Cook (Co-I), Yaxing Wei Collaborators: Forrest Hoffman, Peter Thornton, Rama Nemani Sponsors: NASA Terrestrial Ecology Program and NOAA Overview Common input driver data sets, spin-up procedures, and output parameter format Differences in model results arise from models and their implementation not from differences in their input. Range of spatial scales (global, regional, site) Rigorous model evaluation framework based on C-LAMP Mini-grants for modeling teams selected to participate 17

18. Summary of prognostic syntheses CMIP5 – climate model intercomparison in support of IPCC AR5 –Important dates 31 July 2012 – papers must be submitted for publication to be eligible for assessment by WG1 15 March 2013 – papers cited by WG1 must be published or accepted. –Modeling groups have completed some simulations, many others still underway or queued. –CMIP5 workshops in Oct 2011 and early 2012

19. Prognostic syntheses, cont’d C-LAMP (Carbon Land Model Intercomparison Project) contributions to AR5 –New DOE BER project (Thornton PI, Randerson and Hoffman among several Co- Is) supporting development of new metrics and application to CMIP5 results –Quantify multiple land carbon models against multiple independent metrics –International Land Model Benchmarking (ILAMP) workshop being planned for 2011.

20. Prognostic syntheses, cont’d Regional syntheses (Cook’s presentation) Site-level model-data intercomparisons –NACP site synthesis: 20+ models, 30+ sites, carbon, water, energy fluxes, and multiple ancillary ecological and biological observations –FACE model-data intercomparison: ~15 models, 2 sites, many ecological and biological observations –Integrated Network for Terrestrial Ecosystem Research on Feedbacks to the Atmosphere and. ClimatE (INTERFACE). NSF RCN, PI Jeff Dukes: experimentalists and ESMers

21. Prognostic syntheses, cont’d RECCAP (Davis presentation) TRENDY – Global-scale model intercomparison. –Historical offline simulations with land surface components of ESMs –Consistent forcing (CRU-NCEP) –0.5° grid –Results have been submitted, analysis underway A priori simulations at large-scale manipulation sites (SPRUCE, more to come)

22. Assessments

23. www.globalcarbonproject.org/RECCAP

24. To establish the mean carbon balance of large regions of the globe at the scale of continents and large ocean basins, including their component fluxes. To do it by comparing and reconciling multiple bottom-up estimates with the results of regional top-down atmospheric inversions, with attribution to main flux components. To evaluate the regional ‘hot-spots’ of interannual variability and possibly the trends and underlying processes over the past two (or more) decades by combining available long-term observations and modeling. Scope

25. Establishing a large global coordination effort. How we expect to achieve it Developing of a “soft protocol” to guide and ensure consistency among regional syntheses (so they can be compared and add up at the end). Relying secondarily on: –the establishment of new synthesis teams in regions where there is not an established carbon program. Relying primarily on: –existing analyses, –ongoing analyses from regional and national programs (eg, North American Carbon Plan, CarboEurope, Australian NCAS), –global modeling and assessment efforts (eg, GCP Carbon Budget, GCP-TRENDY, TRANSCOM, SOCAT).

26. Regional fluxes Atmospheric CO 2 Inversion Models TransCom (Low resolution) + Global Obs. Network Regional fluxes Atmospheric CO 2 Inversion Models TransCom (Low resolution) + Global Obs. Network Regional application Atmospheric CO 2 Inversions Model (High resolution) + Regional ghg obs. Regional application Atmospheric CO 2 Inversions Model (High resolution) + Regional ghg obs. Regional specific observations (fluxes, pCO 2, remote sensing, forest inv., others) Regional specific observations (fluxes, pCO 2, remote sensing, forest inv., others) Regional specific Models (continental, ocean basin, biome, land use change, others) Regional specific Models (continental, ocean basin, biome, land use change, others) Regional cuts from global land & ocean models (Low resolution) Regional cuts from global land & ocean models (Low resolution) Regional cuts from global data products Regional cuts from global data products + ++ Regional Carbon Balance + Global ProductsRegional-Specific Products Tier 1 Tier 2 Components of Regional Synthesis Tier 1 model outputs are coordinated by RECCAP

27. Global Model Outputs for Regional Syntheses ProductSpecificationsCoordinator Atmospheric CO 2 inversions TransCom (12 models), 1° x 1° grid, regional integrated fluxes according to RECCAP mask. To 2008 Kevin Gurney, Rachel Law, Philippe Peylin Ocean forward biogeochemical models Five global models at 1° x 1° for all major flux components. To 1958-2009 Corinne Le Quere Ocean inversion 1 model.Niki Grubber Terrestrial biogeochemical models and NEP-flux model Five Dynamic Global Vegetation Models, gridded output for all major flux components. To 2009. GPP and NEP from eddy flux data-driven model Stephen Sitch, Pierre Friedlingstein, Markus Reichstein Fire emissions 0.5° x 0.5°, monthly, burned area and fire emissions (C,CO 2,CO,CH 4,NOx, N 2 O, BC others) 1997-2009. Guido van Werf

28. RECCAP period Variable but centered around: Budget period:1990-2007/9 Trend analyses: 1958-2007/9 1983-2007/9 (ocean trends observations)

29. Products Scoping paper for EOS or “News” in Science: 'An international endeavour to tackle regional carbon fluxes' Special Journal Issue/s (online eg, Biogeosciences, IF=3-4) with all regional and global syntheses. 2-4 high-level syntheses papers reporting key results (eg, Special feature in Nature-Geosciences, or Nature-Climate Change). Summary for Policy Makers. Distributed Data Repository (to be updated in the future) of C fluxes from regional and global estimates available for further research and publications.

30. Timetable Draft & Scope Last Consultation at ICDC8, Jena Sept. 2009 Aug. 2007 Invitation to Lead-authors Dec. 2009 April 2008 Sept. 2009 Community and Programs’ consultation RECCAP Session AGU Fall Meeting Dec. 2010 First Draft Mss. submitted April 2011 Nov. 2011 Syntheses of Syntheses submitted Progress May. 2011 2 nd All-Lead Authors Meeting 1 st All-Lead Authors Meeting May-Oct. 2010 Global Products Available

31. USGS National Assessment of Biological Carbon Sequestration Capacities and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes (the LandCarbon Project) – an Update for NACP SSG (October 13, 2010) Objective: a periodic update and check with NACP SSG -Legislative requirements, DOI and USGS responses -Major questions the assessment is designed to answer -Technical plan (methodology) for the assessment -Issues and opportunities

32. Major questions to be addressed …  What may be the current and future trend of ecosystem carbon sequestration capacity and GHG flux, considering their controlling processes?  Will the future trend be different if we manage ecosystems differently (i.e. evaluating mitigation actions)?  How are the GHG fluxes/C sequestration distributed over space and time?  What are the effects and effectiveness of various controlling processes such as climate change, land use change, wildland fire, or land management activities?

33. Timeline and Milestones Public Review Draft: A Method for Assessing Carbon Stocks, Carbon Sequestration, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Ecosystems of the United States Under Present Conditions and Future Scenarios. Z. Zhu (ed.), U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report Summer 2009- summer 2010 Development of assessment methodology July - September, 2010 Methodology and project plan open for public comments October, 2010Begin the national assessment – will take 3-4 years to complete

34. Current technical plan Carbon and GHG measures Ecosystems ForestCroplandShrub/grasslandWetlandAquatic Carbon stocks NECB C flux N 2 O flux CH 4 flux Lateral C flux (DOC, DIC, POC) GWP An example table reporting assessment results Results summarized by pools, scenarios and time dimension BaselineProjections

35. Scale Issues  Scenarios, validation, uncertainty analysis are conducted at the scale of EPA ecoregion level II; assessment reported for the ecoregions  Terrestrial methods use a common 250-m pixel size to produce a series of GIS maps  Aquatic methods are run by major watersheds for rivers, lakes/reservoirs, and estuaries  Resulting GIS maps and datasets will likely be distributed – users will need to determine how they will use the data

36. Current Limitations Given the current resource and time constraints, the assessment has the following major limitations  The assessment does not contain additional research or data collection components (will rely on existing data and R&D efforts)  Is not “bottom-up”, does not consider land use trade-offs or economic driving forces to arrive at an equilibrium solution  Provides a range of scenarios and effects supporting policies, but does not estimate economic values or management costs  Additionality, leakage, and avoided loss are addressed at a regional scale via scenarios  Life-cycle emissions will have high uncertainties and will rely on existing tools (e.g. Forest Service algorithms)  Project-level restoration activities not included

37. New Assessments/Projects

38. http://cce.nasa.gov/terrestrial_ecology/sco ping.html

40. http://cce.nasa.gov/cce/cms/index.html

42. The National Climate Assessment October 13, 2010 Kathy Jacobs Assistant Director for Climate Assessments and Adaptation, OSTP Office of Science & Technology Policy Executive Office of the President Climate Change: National Policy, Reserve Initiatives And How the Two May Meet

43. Interagency Adaptation Task Force Chaired by CEQ, OSTP, NOAA Report due to President that provides recommendations towards a National Strategy Focused on the role of the federal government 23 Agencies Mainstream adaptation planning within agencies Facilitate the science – policy interface Cross-cutting issues: water, public health, insurance, communities Support international adaptation efforts Align the efforts of federal agencies, eg climate services, assessment, adaptation efforts Next steps: expanding partnerships beyond the federal government

44. Mandated by Congress in the Global Change Research Act of 1990 Goals: -To improve understanding of uncertainties in climate science -To expand the global observing systems -To develop science-based resources to support policymaking and resource management -To communicate findings among scientific and stakeholder communities U.S. Global Change Research Program Climate Change Mitigation (mitigation & response) Climate Change Science (understanding & forecasting) Climate Change Adaptation (assessment & response) Office of Science & Technology Policy Executive Office of the President

45. The National Climate Assessment Section 106 GCRA: Scientific Assessment On a periodic basis (not less frequently than every 4 years), the Council, through the Committee, shall prepare and submit to the President and the Congress an assessment which – integrates, evaluates, and interprets the findings of the Program and discusses the scientific uncertainties associated with such findings; analyzes the effects of global change on the natural environment, agriculture, energy production and use, land and water resources, transportation, human health and welfare, human social systems, and biological diversity; and analyzes current trends in global change, both human- induced and natural, and projects major trends for the subsequent 25 to 100 years.

46. Tony Janetos The First National Assessment Completed in 2000

47. The New National Climate Assessment Sustainable process with multiple products over time (not just every four years) New topics, cross-sectoral studies Consistent national indicators to measure changes Permanent central coordination office Regional and sectoral networks to engage stakeholders as partners; building assessment capacity Recognizes international context Education and communications focus Web-based data and tools Process workshops to establish methodologies

48. Proposals USFA NIFA (4 institutes on climate, bioenergy, environment) –2012 = Mixed hardwood NSF Earth System Modeling NOAA – in review (48 submitted, $9M/$3m avail) NOAA NCS FY2012 DOE TES 2012, Manipulative experiment NASA FY11 Climate Initiative (satellite) NSF Marcosystems Ecology (April)