Transcript 3.3. Carbon fluxes

Brazilian Proposal - MATCH Project
Terrestrial Carbon Fluxes From
Land-Use Change and Forestry in the 1990s:
A Multi-Model Study
○ Akinori Ito, Joyce Penner, Michael Prather, Christiano Pires
de Campos, Richard Houghton, Tomomichi Kato, Atul Jain,
Xiaojuan Yang, George Hurtt, Steve Frolking, Matthew Fearon,
Loiuse Parsons Chini, Audrey Wang, and David Price
Kteam1 meeting 12/04/2007
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Methods
3. Results
3.1.
Land cover change area
3.2.
Carbon pools
3.3.
Carbon fluxes
3.4.
Country analysis
3.5.
Global and regional analysis for 1990s
3.6.
Historical analysis
4. Summary and conclusion
Brazilian Proposal - MATCH Project
1997
As part of the negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol, the delegation of Brazil
made a proposal, to set differentiated emissions reduction targets for
Annex I Parties of the UNFCCC according to the impact of their historic
emissions on temperature rise.
2002
After two expert meetings held under the auspices of the Subsidiary
Body on Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA), the SBSTA agreed
that the work should be continued by the scientific community.
Subsequently, further expert meetings were held on the initiative of the
governments of UK, Brazil and Germany for the now called “Ad-hoc
group for the modelling and assessment of contributions to climate
change (MATCH)”.
2007
“In-session special side event” at SBSTA 27, the presentation of MATCH
papers is delivered to UNFCCC delegations in Indonesia.
Global Estimates of Carbon Emissions From Land-Use Change
House et al. [2003]
Purpose
Compare estimates of C fluxes due to LUCF.
Identify the reasons for differences in estimates.
Focus on land-use change activities and carbon pools
over the 1990s.
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Methods
3. Results
3.1.
Land cover change area
3.2.
Carbon pools
3.3.
Carbon fluxes
3.4.
Country analysis
3.5.
Global and regional analysis for 1990s
3.6.
Historical analysis
4. Summary and conclusion
Land-Use Change Areas Data Sets
LUC1
Houghton, 2006
Region/country
FAO
LUC2
De Campos et al., 2006
Country
HYDE/FAOSAT
LUC3
Kato et al., 2007
T42 (2.8°)
SAGE/HYDE
LUC4
Hurtt et al., 2006
1°
HYDE/FAOSTAT
LUC5
Hurtt et al., 2006
1°
SAGE/LUC4
LUC6
Wang et al., 2006
0.5°
SAGE/GLC2000
Comparison Analysis of Land-Use Change Emissions
Net CO2 emissions
1. Inventory approach
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCC)
2. Forward model
Book-keeping models and Ecosystem models
3. Inverse model
LUCF Carbon Pool and Flux Data
EMI1
Houghton, 2006
Region/Country Book-keeping
LUC1
EMI2
UNFCCC, 2000
Country
Inventory
National inventory
EMI3
Olivier and Berdowski, 2001 Country
Inventory
FAO
EMI4
Hurtt et al., 2006/2002(USA) Country/1°(USA) Inventory/process National statistics
EMI5
De Campos et al., 2006
Country
Book-keeping
LUC2
EMI6
Kato et al., 2007
T42 (2.8°)
Process model
LUC3
EMI7
Jain and Yang, 2005
0.5°
Process model
SAGE
Reconciled Estimates in 10 regions
(EMI4 for USA)
(1) CO2/climate change N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
(2) Crop conversion
Data1.1 Data4.1 Data5.1
(3) Pasture conversion Data1.2 Data4.1 Data5.1
(4) Shifting cultivation Data1.3 N.A.
N.A.
(5) Harvest of wood
Data1.4 Data4.1 N.A.
(6) Afforestation
Data1.5 N.A.
N.A.
(7) Fire suppression
Data1.6 Data4.2 N.A.
(8) Soils
Data1.7 N.A.
N.A.
Data6.1
Data6.2
Data6.2
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Data7.1
Data7.2
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Methods
3. Results
3.1.
Land cover change area
3.2.
Carbon pools
3.3.
Carbon fluxes
3.4.
Country analysis
3.5.
Global and regional analysis for 1990s
3.6.
Historical analysis
4. Summary and conclusion
Global land-use change areas (102 km2 yr-1) in forests
SAGE Afforestation (+)
SAGE
SAGE
HYDE
HYDE
Cropland
Brazil
Pastureland
deforestation (-)
HYDE; Klein Goldewijk, 2001, SAGE; Ramankutty and Foley, 1998, 1999
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Methods
3. Results
3.1.
Land cover change area
3.2.
Carbon pools
3.3.
Carbon fluxes
3.4.
Country analysis
3.5.
Global and regional analysis for 1990s
3.6.
Historical analysis
4. Summary and conclusion
Global Carbon Pools (PgC) in 1990s
SOC: Soil organic carbon + litter
VC: Vegetation carbon
USA
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Methods
3. Results
3.1.
Land cover change area
3.2.
Carbon pools
3.3.
Carbon fluxes
3.4.
Country analysis
3.5.
Global and regional analysis for 1990s
3.6.
Historical analysis
4. Summary and conclusion
Global LUCF Fluxes (TgC yr-1) in 1990s
1. Carbon pool
2. LUCF + environmental factors
Global LUCF Fluxes (TgC yr-1) in 1990s
Each LUCF + environmental factors
Global Carbon stock changes (TgC yr-1) in 1990s
Global Carbon stock changes (TgC yr-1) in 1990s
Global LUCF Fluxes (TgC yr-1) in 1990s
LUCF
ENV
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Methods
3. Results
3.1.
Land cover change area
3.2.
Carbon pools
3.3.
Carbon fluxes
3.4.
Country analysis
3.5.
Global and regional analysis for 1990s
3.6.
Historical analysis
4. Summary and conclusion
Carbon Pools (PgC) for USA in 1990s
VC
SOC + LIT
LIT
USA Carbon Stock Change (TgC yr-1) in 1990s
SOC + LIT
LIT
VC
USA Carbon Fluxes (TgC yr-1) in 1990s
Inverse estimate [Baker et al., 2006]: −1100 ± 230 TgC yr-1
Other sinks [Pacala et al., 2001]: −40 to −170 TgC yr-1
Brazil LUC (102 km2 yr-1) in forests
Pastureland
Cropland
Brazil Carbon Fluxes (TgC yr-1) in 1990s
Pasture conversion
LUC
ENV
Inter-annual variability for Latin America in 1990s
EMI1
EMI5
EMI8
EMI6
EMI7
Inverse estimate [Baker et al., 2006]: 0.43 ± 0.86 PgC yr-1
Take Home Messages
● There are large differences between LUCF estimates at the regional
level due to different reasons in different countries. Clearly, further work
is required to reduce the differences between these estimates.
– Our consolidated estimate of the global terrestrial carbon flux (–0.4
PgC/yr) is within the uncertainty range given in the AR4 assessment
(which was derived from a combination of inverse models and
observations) (–1.0 ± 0.6 PgC/yr).
– Our consolidated estimate of terrestrial carbon flux yields a rather
low result for Latin America (−0.17 PgC/yr) in 1990s but within the
uncertainty range of inversion estimates (0.43 ± 0.86 PgC/yr)
[Baker et al., 2006]. However, our consolidated estimate shows
smaller interannual variability for Latin America and a weaker uptake
than the inverse estimates for Temperate North America. The
differences between the net fluxes estimated by the emissions
models and by the atmospheric inversions can be caused by large
uncertainties in LIT and SOC sinks for the USA and by significant
uncertainties in short-term fluxes for Latin America, as well as by
different responses to LUCF and ENV.