| 1. |
- Saunois, Marielle, et al.
(författare)
-
The Global Methane Budget 2000–2017
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Earth System Science Data. - : Copernicus GmbH. - 1866-3516 .- 1866-3508. ; 12:3, s. 1561-1623
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Understanding and quantifying the global methane (CH4) budget is important for assessing realistic pathways to mitigate climate change. Atmospheric emissions and concentrations of CH4 continue to increase, making CH4 the second most important human-influenced greenhouse gas in terms of climate forcing, after carbon dioxide (CO2). The relative importance of CH4 compared to CO2 depends on its shorter atmospheric lifetime, stronger warming potential, and variations in atmospheric growth rate over the past decade, the causes of which are still debated. Two major challenges in reducing uncertainties in the atmospheric growth rate arise from the variety of geographically overlapping CH4 sources and from the destruction of CH4 by short-lived hydroxyl radicals (OH). To address these challenges, we have established a consortium of multidisciplinary scientists under the umbrella of the Global Carbon Project to synthesize and stimulate new research aimed at improving and regularly updating the global methane budget. Following Saunois et al. (2016), we present here the second version of the living review paper dedicated to the decadal methane budget, integrating results of top-down studies (atmospheric observations within an atmospheric inverse-modelling framework) and bottom-up estimates (including process-based models for estimating land surface emissions and atmospheric chemistry, inventories of anthropogenic emissions, and data-driven extrapolations).For the 2008–2017 decade, global methane emissions are estimated by atmospheric inversions (a top-down approach) to be 576 Tg CH4 yr−1 (range 550–594, corresponding to the minimum and maximum estimates of the model ensemble). Of this total, 359 Tg CH4 yr−1 or ∼ 60 % is attributed to anthropogenic sources, that is emissions caused by direct human activity (i.e. anthropogenic emissions; range 336–376 Tg CH4 yr−1 or 50 %–65 %). The mean annual total emission for the new decade (2008–2017) is 29 Tg CH4 yr−1 larger than our estimate for the previous decade (2000–2009), and 24 Tg CH4 yr−1 larger than the one reported in the previous budget for 2003–2012 (Saunois et al., 2016). Since 2012, global CH4 emissions have been tracking the warmest scenarios assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Bottom-up methods suggest almost 30 % larger global emissions (737 Tg CH4 yr−1, range 594–881) than top-down inversion methods. Indeed, bottom-up estimates for natural sources such as natural wetlands, other inland water systems, and geological sources are higher than top-down estimates. The atmospheric constraints on the top-down budget suggest that at least some of these bottom-up emissions are overestimated. The latitudinal distribution of atmospheric observation-based emissions indicates a predominance of tropical emissions (∼ 65 % of the global budget, < 30∘ N) compared to mid-latitudes (∼ 30 %, 30–60∘ N) and high northern latitudes (∼ 4 %, 60–90∘ N). The most important source of uncertainty in the methane budget is attributable to natural emissions, especially those from wetlands and other inland waters.Some of our global source estimates are smaller than those in previously published budgets (Saunois et al., 2016; Kirschke et al., 2013). In particular wetland emissions are about 35 Tg CH4 yr−1 lower due to improved partition wetlands and other inland waters. Emissions from geological sources and wild animals are also found to be smaller by 7 Tg CH4 yr−1 by 8 Tg CH4 yr−1, respectively. However, the overall discrepancy between bottom-up and top-down estimates has been reduced by only 5 % compared to Saunois et al. (2016), due to a higher estimate of emissions from inland waters, highlighting the need for more detailed research on emissions factors. Priorities for improving the methane budget include (i) a global, high-resolution map of water-saturated soils and inundated areas emitting methane based on a robust classification of different types of emitting habitats; (ii) further development of process-based models for inland-water emissions; (iii) intensification of methane observations at local scales (e.g., FLUXNET-CH4 measurements) and urban-scale monitoring to constrain bottom-up land surface models, and at regional scales (surface networks and satellites) to constrain atmospheric inversions; (iv) improvements of transport models and the representation of photochemical sinks in top-down inversions; and (v) development of a 3D variational inversion system using isotopic and/or co-emitted species such as ethane to improve source partitioning.The data presented here can be downloaded from https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-CH4-2019 (Saunois et al., 2020) and from the Global Carbon Project.
|
|
| 2. |
- Hantson, Stijn, et al.
(författare)
-
The status and challenge of global fire modelling
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Biogeosciences. - : Copernicus GmbH. - 1726-4170 .- 1726-4189. ; 13:11, s. 3359-3375
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Biomass burning impacts vegetation dynamics, biogeochemical cycling, atmospheric chemistry, and climate, with sometimes deleterious socio-economic impacts. Under future climate projections it is often expected that the risk of wildfires will increase. Our ability to predict the magnitude and geographic pattern of future fire impacts rests on our ability to model fire regimes, using either well-founded empirical relationships or process-based models with good predictive skill. While a large variety of models exist today, it is still unclear which type of model or degree of complexity is required to model fire adequately at regional to global scales. This is the central question underpinning the creation of the Fire Model Intercomparison Project (FireMIP), an international initiative to compare and evaluate existing global fire models against benchmark data sets for present-day and historical conditions. In this paper we review how fires have been represented in fire-enabled dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) and give an overview of the current state of the art in fire-regime modelling. We indicate which challenges still remain in global fire modelling and stress the need for a comprehensive model evaluation and outline what lessons may be learned from FireMIP.
|
|
| 3. |
- Stavert, Ann R., et al.
(författare)
-
Regional trends and drivers of the global methane budget
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Global Change Biology. - : Wiley. - 1354-1013 .- 1365-2486. ; 28:1, s. 182-200
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The ongoing development of the Global Carbon Project (GCP) global methane (CH4) budget shows a continuation of increasing CH4 emissions and CH4 accumulation in the atmosphere during 2000–2017. Here, we decompose the global budget into 19 regions (18 land and 1 oceanic) and five key source sectors to spatially attribute the observed global trends. A comparison of top-down (TD) (atmospheric and transport model-based) and bottom-up (BU) (inventory- and process model-based) CH4 emission estimates demonstrates robust temporal trends with CH4 emissions increasing in 16 of the 19 regions. Five regions—China, Southeast Asia, USA, South Asia, and Brazil—account for >40% of the global total emissions (their anthropogenic and natural sources together totaling >270 Tg CH4 yr−1 in 2008–2017). Two of these regions, China and South Asia, emit predominantly anthropogenic emissions (>75%) and together emit more than 25% of global anthropogenic emissions. China and the Middle East show the largest increases in total emission rates over the 2000 to 2017 period with regional emissions increasing by >20%. In contrast, Europe and Korea and Japan show a steady decline in CH4 emission rates, with total emissions decreasing by ~10% between 2000 and 2017. Coal mining, waste (predominantly solid waste disposal) and livestock (especially enteric fermentation) are dominant drivers of observed emissions increases while declines appear driven by a combination of waste and fossil emission reductions. As such, together these sectors present the greatest risks of further increasing the atmospheric CH4 burden and the greatest opportunities for greenhouse gas abatement.
|
|
| 4. |
- Chang, Kuang Yu, et al.
(författare)
-
Observational constraints reduce model spread but not uncertainty in global wetland methane emission estimates
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Global Change Biology. - 1354-1013. ; 29:15, s. 4298-4312
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The recent rise in atmospheric methane (CH4) concentrations accelerates climate change and offsets mitigation efforts. Although wetlands are the largest natural CH4 source, estimates of global wetland CH4 emissions vary widely among approaches taken by bottom-up (BU) process-based biogeochemical models and top-down (TD) atmospheric inversion methods. Here, we integrate in situ measurements, multi-model ensembles, and a machine learning upscaling product into the International Land Model Benchmarking system to examine the relationship between wetland CH4 emission estimates and model performance. We find that using better-performing models identified by observational constraints reduces the spread of wetland CH4 emission estimates by 62% and 39% for BU- and TD-based approaches, respectively. However, global BU and TD CH4 emission estimate discrepancies increased by about 15% (from 31 to 36 TgCH4 year−1) when the top 20% models were used, although we consider this result moderately uncertain given the unevenly distributed global observations. Our analyses demonstrate that model performance ranking is subject to benchmark selection due to large inter-site variability, highlighting the importance of expanding coverage of benchmark sites to diverse environmental conditions. We encourage future development of wetland CH4 models to move beyond static benchmarking and focus on evaluating site-specific and ecosystem-specific variabilities inferred from observations.
|
|
| 5. |
- Fluet-Chouinard, Etienne, et al.
(författare)
-
Extensive global wetland loss over the past three centuries
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Nature. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0028-0836 .- 1476-4687. ; 614:7947, s. 281-286
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Wetlands have long been drained for human use, thereby strongly affecting greenhouse gas fluxes, flood control, nutrient cycling and biodiversity1,2. Nevertheless, the global extent of natural wetland loss remains remarkably uncertain3. Here, we reconstruct the spatial distribution and timing of wetland loss through conversion to seven human land uses between 1700 and 2020, by combining national and subnational records of drainage and conversion with land-use maps and simulated wetland extents. We estimate that 3.4 million km2 (confidence interval 2.9–3.8) of inland wetlands have been lost since 1700, primarily for conversion to croplands. This net loss of 21% (confidence interval 16–23%) of global wetland area is lower than that suggested previously by extrapolations of data disproportionately from high-loss regions. Wetland loss has been concentrated in Europe, the United States and China, and rapidly expanded during the mid-twentieth century. Our reconstruction elucidates the timing and land-use drivers of global wetland losses, providing an improved historical baseline to guide assessment of wetland loss impact on Earth system processes, conservation planning to protect remaining wetlands and prioritization of sites for wetland restoration4.
|
|
| 6. |
- Hantson, Stijn, et al.
(författare)
-
Quantitative assessment of fire and vegetation properties in simulations with fire-enabled vegetation models from the Fire Model Intercomparison Project
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Geoscientific Model Development. - : Copernicus GmbH. - 1991-959X .- 1991-9603. ; 13:7, s. 3299-3318
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Global fire-vegetation models are widely used to assess impacts of environmental change on fire regimes and the carbon cycle and to infer relationships between climate, land use and fire. However, differences in model structure and parameterizations, in both the vegetation and fire components of these models, could influence overall model performance, and to date there has been limited evaluation of how well different models represent various aspects of fire regimes. The Fire Model Intercomparison Project (FireMIP) is coordinating the evaluation of state-of-the-art global fire models, in order to improve projections of fire characteristics and fire impacts on ecosystems and human societies in the context of global environmental change. Here we perform a systematic evaluation of historical simulations made by nine FireMIP models to quantify their ability to reproduce a range of fire and vegetation benchmarks. The FireMIP models simulate a wide range in global annual total burnt area (39-536 Mha) and global annual fire carbon emission (0.91-4.75 Pg C yr-1) for modern conditions (2002-2012), but most of the range in burnt area is within observational uncertainty (345-468 Mha). Benchmarking scores indicate that seven out of nine FireMIP models are able to represent the spatial pattern in burnt area. The models also reproduce the seasonality in burnt area reasonably well but struggle to simulate fire season length and are largely unable to represent interannual variations in burnt area. However, models that represent cropland fires see improved simulation of fire seasonality in the Northern Hemisphere. The three FireMIP models which explicitly simulate individual fires are able to reproduce the spatial pattern in number of fires, but fire sizes are too small in key regions, and this results in an underestimation of burnt area. The correct representation of spatial and seasonal patterns in vegetation appears to correlate with a better representation of burnt area. The two older fire models included in the FireMIP ensemble (LPJ-GUESS-GlobFIRM, MC2) clearly perform less well globally than other models, but it is difficult to distinguish between the remaining ensemble members; some of these models are better at representing certain aspects of the fire regime; none clearly outperforms all other models across the full range of variables assessed.
|
|
| 7. |
- Pellegrini, Adam F.A., et al.
(författare)
-
Soil carbon storage capacity of drylands under altered fire regimes
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Nature Climate Change. - 1758-678X. ; 13:10, s. 1089-1094
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The determinants of fire-driven changes in soil organic carbon (SOC) across broad environmental gradients remains unclear, especially in global drylands. Here we combined datasets and field sampling of fire-manipulation experiments to evaluate where and why fire changes SOC and compared our statistical model to simulations from ecosystem models. Drier ecosystems experienced larger relative changes in SOC than humid ecosystems—in some cases exceeding losses from plant biomass pools—primarily explained by high fire-driven declines in tree biomass inputs in dry ecosystems. Many ecosystem models underestimated the SOC changes in drier ecosystems. Upscaling our statistical model predicted that soils in savannah–grassland regions may have gained 0.64 PgC due to net-declines in burned area over the past approximately two decades. Consequently, ongoing declines in fire frequencies have probably created an extensive carbon sink in the soils of global drylands that may have been underestimated by ecosystem models.
|
|
| 8. |
- Rabin, Sam S., et al.
(författare)
-
The Fire Modeling Intercomparison Project (FireMIP), phase 1 : Experimental and analytical protocols with detailed model descriptions
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Geoscientific Model Development. - : Copernicus GmbH. - 1991-959X .- 1991-9603. ; 10:3, s. 1175-1197
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The important role of fire in regulating vegetation community composition and contributions to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols make it a critical component of dynamic global vegetation models and Earth system models. Over 2 decades of development, a wide variety of model structures and mechanisms have been designed and incorporated into global fire models, which have been linked to different vegetation models. However, there has not yet been a systematic examination of how these different strategies contribute to model performance. Here we describe the structure of the first phase of the Fire Model Intercomparison Project (FireMIP), which for the first time seeks to systematically compare a number of models. By combining a standardized set of input data and model experiments with a rigorous comparison of model outputs to each other and to observations, we will improve the understanding of what drives vegetation fire, how it can best be simulated, and what new or improved observational data could allow better constraints on model behavior. In this paper, we introduce the fire models used in the first phase of FireMIP, the simulation protocols applied, and the benchmarking system used to evaluate the models. We have also created supplementary tables that describe, in thorough mathematical detail, the structure of each model.
|
|
| 9. |
- Zhang, Zhen, et al.
(författare)
-
Characterizing Performance of Freshwater Wetland Methane Models Across Time Scales at FLUXNET-CH4 Sites Using Wavelet Analyses
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences. - 2169-8953. ; 128:11
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Process-based land surface models are important tools for estimating global wetland methane (CH4) emissions and projecting their behavior across space and time. So far there are no performance assessments of model responses to drivers at multiple time scales. In this study, we apply wavelet analysis to identify the dominant time scales contributing to model uncertainty in the frequency domain. We evaluate seven wetland models at 23 eddy covariance tower sites. Our study first characterizes site-level patterns of freshwater wetland CH4 fluxes (FCH4) at different time scales. A Monte Carlo approach was developed to incorporate flux observation error to avoid misidentification of the time scales that dominate model error. Our results suggest that (a) significant model-observation disagreements are mainly at multi-day time scales (<15 days); (b) most of the models can capture the CH4 variability at monthly and seasonal time scales (>32 days) for the boreal and Arctic tundra wetland sites but have significant bias in variability at seasonal time scales for temperate and tropical/subtropical sites; (c) model errors exhibit increasing power spectrum as time scale increases, indicating that biases at time scales <5 days could contribute to persistent systematic biases on longer time scales; and (d) differences in error pattern are related to model structure (e.g., proxy of CH4 production). Our evaluation suggests the need to accurately replicate FCH4 variability, especially at short time scales, in future wetland CH4 model developments.
|
|
