Download
carbon monitoring system cms n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Carbon Monitoring System (CMS) PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Carbon Monitoring System (CMS)

Carbon Monitoring System (CMS)

155 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Carbon Monitoring System (CMS)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Carbon Monitoring System (CMS) System Design Study Presented by Riley Duren (JPL) Applications Program Presented by Molly Brown (GSFC) 5 October 2011 Alexandria, VA

  2. NASA Carbon Monitoring System (CMS) Applications Program CMS Team: M. Brown, NASA M. Macauley, RFF V. Escobar, Sigma Space/NASA Leidner, AAAS fellow J. Howl, Sigma Space/NASA

  3. CMS Applications Activity Objective: to help CMS scientists understand who may use products from current work and to motivate options for future work From the CMS SDT Call: • Provide guidance on the nature of the data sets and initial pilot product(s) to be produced and how they may be used for carbon policy and carbon management decisions • How can they be made most useful? • What would make them easy to understand and use? • What data products or data product characteristics (e.g. latency, frequency, accuracy, etc.) are missing? • Provide liaison with the broader science, applications, and user communities or the related activities of other U.S. Federal agencies • In the case of the Biomass Pilot, participate in the development of a plan for a global terrestrial biomass product to follow the regional and national products

  4. CMS Biomass • CMS SDT briefings on the biomass product • Focus is on who will use the CMS-Biomass product and what product attributes (resolution, update frequency, etc.) are most useful? • Synthesizing our information into summary charts and tables as “a Framework for characterizing policy and management uses” • Meeting on 9 September 2011 brought together key stakeholders • Maryland Department of Natural Resources • US Forest Service • USGS • World Wildlife Fund • Forest Carbon Index (RFF) • Discussion of uses, promise and future of CMS biomass products

  5. Key Recommendations from the Biomass Briefing • Consider whether it is useful to expand CMS scope to exploit its relevance for forest watershed management, habitat protection for biodiversity, a database for markets for ecosystem services • Consider whether we would like to meet with large-scale private landholders (timber companies) –to share information about CMS • Give priority to building into the biomass product some consideration about ease of use, low cost (including costs of hardware/software/ analysis requirements, ease of interpretation) for a viable biomass product • Don’t hang CMS effort on expectation of widespread carbon markets • Engage with the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) of the UNFCCC as they establish MRV standards • See these discussions as continuing dialogs -- continue to keep sister agencies & other organizations informed (USGS, NGOs, private sector)

  6. CMS Flux • CMS SDT for Flux • Our focus has evolved from ‘who are the users’ to ‘how to characterize uncertainty and its relevance to users (key difference between biomass and flux products) • Understanding the tails in error distribution is very policy relevant • Need to combine multiple sources of error and their propagation– observations, satellite data, model error, spatial aggregation, temporal change • Build on work already done in understanding stakeholders in the flux arena before start of CMS • Collaboration with Riley and his team to characterize uncertainty

  7. Future work focuses on How good is “good enough” for product users? • Spatial scale: • “…verification of an emissions-trading and/or offset program would require monitoring at scales as small as a forest plantation or a farm.” (NRC 2010, 48) • “Because ecosystem carbon uptake and release fluctuate from year to year w/ changes in the weather and other factors, carbon gains caused by deliberate management will be best measured against the baseline carbon flux on similar lands w/out the management.” (NRC 2010, 48) • Frequency: • “…produce publicly available global maps of land-use and land cover change from Landsat and High-resolution satellite imagery at least every two years.” (NRC 2010, 50) • Accuracy (‘uncertainty’ to some users): • “Tier 2 accuracy is the minimum required for reliable estimates, and is achievable for monitoring deforestation at low cost. It is much more difficult and costly for other activities, such as degradation.” (DFID Infosheet 2010)

  8. Attributes of CMSproducts • We have developed a table to identify attributes of measurements being used for the major initiatives • We include these attributes • Resolution: spatial, spectral, temporal • Geographic breadth: global, continental, national, regional, local • Accuracy: =/- % confidence interval • We also ask: what improvements in these attributes are highest priority and why? • This task has been the most difficult • Many users of measurements lack these specifications • Many users simply use whatever data are available …(much like many people use US census data without knowledge about accuracy and data limitations) • Many users do not know the heritage of their data (for example, if they are MODIS, Landsat, etc) • Yet we feel that this task is critical for the overall CMS effort

  9. Next Steps: Focus on Communicating CMS • Web Site • CMS descriptions of results, access to products • Stories, podcasts • Publications (EOS transactions, others) • Meetings with stakeholder communities • Planning for “uncertainty” working group meeting now underway • Early February date • One-page policy briefs – forest conservation, economic benefit, others?

  10. CMS System Design Study 5 October 2011 System Engineering Team: Riley Duren, Chuck Weisbin, Matt Bennett, Bill Lincoln w/contributions from M. Gunson, C. Miller, M. Lee, K. Bowman, S. Saatchi, T. Freeman NASA JPL This work is supported by NASA’s Carbon Monitoring System program http://carbon.nasa.gov

  11. Mapping CMS to NASA’s “program of record” Mission data sets (2011-2021) Related Research & Analysis Related Applications CMS program Flux Pilot Biomass Pilot Future CMS Projects? CMS Products CMS Users 30+ space/airborne missions & instruments: land & ocean carbon, atmospheric composition & transport Systematic study looking across the NASA program of record – towards moving beyond methodological studies to deliver policy-relevant data products

  12. System design study process(8 month initial effort) User Engagement* Anthropogenic & Natural Signal, Error & Sensitivity Analysis Policy analysis GHGIS, IPCC TFI, GEO, others (2008-2011) CMS Applications task (2011) Driving policy questions What do we need to know? Use-case scenarios *mostly focused on mitigation (so far) CMS Level 1 performance goals NASA program of record How well do we need to know it? Capability/Gap Assessment What, specifically, is needed to deliver the product? How well can we do? Level 2 needs for observations, research, applications When can we deliver it? What preparations needed? Notional roadmap through 2021 (green boxes indicate efforts underway)

  13. Selected use-case scenarios for CMS(down-selected from larger list*) “Level 1” performance targets for CMS products FLUXES (F1) Near-surface flux maps of total CO2 with 98% global completeness between +/- 59 latitude, flux uncertainty (precision) < 50 gCm-2yr-1 (countries) and 500 gCm-2yr-1 (cities), bi-weekly temporal resolution, 1 sqdeg global grid scale with 10km nested grids (approximately 50 each < 10,000 km2) for selected cities and N (TBD) area sources of CO2. (F2) similar for CH4 but TBD flux uncertainty and TBD number of targets, (F3) similar for CO, NOx, and aerosols/BC, (F4) Final (anthropogenic CO2) map product derived from correlation of CO2, CO, NOx and/or surface-based radio-isotope observations to robustly separate anthropogenic and natural CO2 fluxes, (F5) Per-entity emission estimates (annual and multi-year trends), (F6) Synthesis products indicating biases and potential errors between top-down and bottom-up emission flux estimates (where space-time resolved inventories are available), (F7) Uncertainty estimates and meta-data (supporting reconstruction) for all of the above. BIOMASS (B1) Maps of baseline forest biomas carbon stocks for the year 2015 (TBR) with 98% completeness for the US and pan-tropics (+30/-40 deg latitude), uncertainty < +/- 10% (95% confidence interval) at a project scale of 1000 ha (TBR), 0.1 deg global grid, (B2) Disturbance maps at 5 and 10 year intervals for above product with TBD precision. *this is a mitigation focus; support for adaptation/ecosystem services or improved projections (IAMs) not (yet) addressed here

  14. Observations of marine biogeochem Observations of parameters affecting ocean circ. Observations of land cover, disturbance, etc Framework for flux signals, errors, & uncertainties* Observations of FFactivity (or proxies) Ocean organic carbon model Ecosystem model Ocean physical circ. model Fossil Fuel combustion model D Land surface model C Ocean surface model E Observations of atmospheric composition F Surface flux (total) Assimilation modeling A Attribution B FF emissions Ocean exhange What are the driving sensitivities for Flux F? Example: Atmospheric meteorology & transport model AFOLU Forest NEE Observations of parameters affecting atmospheric state where A = f{Nobs, XCO2, vert res, calibration, etc} Where’s the biggest bang for the buck for improvements? *Notional & preliminary; credit (& apologies) to Mike Gunson

  15. Challenges & Opportunities • Staying ahead (or at least keeping up with) evolving policies • Policy relevant uncertainty quantification & communication • Sustained delivery & support for products • Attribution of anthropogenic fluxes (on policy relevant scales) • Complex, interdisciplinary topic  warrants a sustained research focus • Probably need (much) denser observations and multiple gas species • Total forcing on multiple policy time-horizons • Probably need to address all carbon including short-lived agents Suggests a potential convergence of Carbon, Climate & Air Quality (at NASA & other agencies)

  16. USGCRP Strategic Plan 2012-2021 http://strategicplancomments.globalchange.gov/

  17. backup

  18. Motivation • From the NASA 2010 Climate-Centric Architecture plan (re: CMS) • “provide an improving set of products on carbon storage and exchange between the surface and biosphere for regular delivery to policy and decision-makers, ” • “enhance the use of data from the increasing range of NASA satellites and improvement in NASA’s modeling, data assimilation, and systems engineering capabilities to provide improved products in the future” • From the CMS 2010 Workshop Report & CMS Website • The scoping study will map NASA’s evolving observational and modeling capability and the ability of the research and applied science community to use this capability to enhance information products to meet policy and decision-making requirements. This effort will focus on streamlining the flow of information products to decision-makers from future research efforts and planned observation capabilities, allowing NASA to engage the carbon policy and decision-making community. Suggests a systematic and strategic study looking across the NASA program of record – focused on moving beyond methodological studies to deliver policy-relevant data products

  19. What we hope to learn • An INITIAL assessment of… • What do we need to know (policy/user questions for CMS)? • How well do we need to know it (performance attributes of CMS products)? • What, specifically, is required in terms of observations, research, & applications? • How well can we do (with the NASA program of record)? • When can we deliver it (CMS products)? • What else should we be doing to prepare? (including specific focus areas)

  20. Potentially relevant mission data sets Plus: Known airborne data sets (e.g, CARVE, AirMOSS, others) Plus: potential new satellite & airborne data sets (Ventures) Plus: Data from international partners (e.g., GOSAT, Sentinel-5P, others)

  21. Potential CMS users (partial list)operational agencies supporting decision-makers in national, state, and local govts; NGOs; private industry and individual stakeholders *IPCC TFI and member agencies is a potential related user

  22. Potential Policy Questions (partial, unconstrained list) • Are all parties to GHG stabilization treaties meeting their commitments? • Do the annual reported GHG emissions (e.g., national emission inventories) for the top N treaty parties reflect their true emissions for a given year? • What are the trends of fossil-fuel CO2 for the top 7 emitting countries (~85% of the total) over 10 years? • What are the trends of total CO2 and CH4 emissions for the entities expected to undergo the most rapid change (growth and stabilization) over the next 10 years? • What are the annual net emissions of AFOLU area sources of CO2 and all sources of CH4 for a given inventory? • What are the trends in FF CO2 emissions from all major urban areas (as a proxy for national level emissions)? • Are specific mitigation actions by the world’s largest cities (~75% of the total) having the expected impact on trends of local, regional and global atmospheric concentrations of fossil-fuel CO2? • What are the annual CO2 emissions of each of the 1500 largest fossil-fuel power plants (~90% of the total)? • What impact are projects to transform energy production and residential fuel use in developing countries having on trends of air-quality/aerosols and various long- and short-lived GHGs? • How are policies focused on near-term (20 year) climate forcing impacting atmospheric concentrations of short-lived forcing agents? • Are the baseline claimed offset credits for a given forest or agricultural soil project accurate/real? • Are the claimed offset credits for a given carbon project permanent (are they being disturbed)? • How is ocean acidification changing in response to specific GHG mitigation policies? • What is the magnitude of “lateral flux” contributed by coastal (EEZ) ocean-air carbon to the net emissions of the largest emitting countries with coastlines? And for all, how good is good enough? (e.g., ±X% uncertaintyat Y% confidence interval

  23. Sensitivity Analyses • Several options for assessing sensitivities • Error propagation analysis (iterative) • Forward model runs • Full-blown OSSE simulations • Resource-limited on how many permutations we can explore • Initial foci for our study • Sensitivity to biomass uncertainty to selected observational parameters (for various carbon offset project spatial scales) • 4 OSSE runs to assess sensitivity of CO2 flux uncertainty estimate (expressed as fractional flux uncertainty reduction relative to prior) on 2.5 x 2 sqdeggrid, monthly  addresses XCO2sampling • GOSAT only • GOSAT + OCO-2 • GOSAT + OCO-2 + OCO-3 (on ISS) • GOSAT + OCO-2 + OCO-3 + Geostationary Vis/IR sounder (1 possibility for GeoCAPE) • How should we represent relative performance that doesn’t mask the “true uncertainty”?

  24. Representative literature • US Carbon Cycle Science Plan (update in progress 2011), http://www.carboncyclescience.gov/ • NASA Carbon Monitoring System Scoping Study Workshop Report (2010), http://carbon.nasa.gov/pdfs/2010%20CMS_Scoping%20Study%20Workshop%20Report.pdf • IPCC Expert Meeting on Uncertainty and Validation of Emission Inventories (2010), http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/meeting/pdfiles/1003_Uncertainty%20meeting_report.pdf • US National Research Council (NRC): Verifying GHG emissions: methods to support international climate agreements (2010) http://www.nap.edu/ • GEO Carbon Strategy (2010) http://www.earthobservations.org/documents/sbas/cl/201006_geo_carbon_strategy_report.pdf • RFF report on Forest measurement and monitoring (2010) http://www.rff.org/Publications/ • GHG Information System (GHGIS) Interagency Workshops on Needs and Capabilities (2008 & 2009)http://climate.nasa.gov/Documents/ • The First State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR): The North American Carbon Budget and Implications for the Global Carbon Cycle (2007)http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/ • U.S. Climate Change Technology Program, Strategic Plan, Chapter 8 - Enhancing Capabilities to Measure and Monitor Greenhouse Gases (2006) http://www.climatetechnology.gov/stratplan/final • R. Duren, P. DeCola, C. Miller, “Global, geospatially resolved CO2 atmospheric flux constraints on reported anthropogenic emissions”, B. American Met. Soc., 2011, in prep. • R. Duren and C. Miller, “CO2 and the city”, Nature, 2011, submitted. • R. Duren and C. Miller, “Towards robust global greenhouse gas monitoring”, J. Greenhouse Gas Meas and Manag., May 2011.

  25. Time horizons of climate policies: (including short-lived species) Focusing on CARBON species (including short-lived) nets 86-89% of total forcing (100 & 20 yr)

  26. Global distribution of FF CO2 emissions(to see NO2 map, click in presentation mode) (example NO2 emission grid – OMI 0.25 deg) (example CO2 emission grid – Edgar 10km) Pre-decisional discussion material

  27. Total CO2 fluxes from individual countries (100km, annual)(Duren, DeCola, Miller, BAMS 2011 in prep) See slide note section below for references ATTRIBUTION CHALLENGE: Anthropogenic fluxes of individual countries at 100 km (typically <200 gCm-2yr-1) are ≥4X smaller than natural fluxes (+/- 800 gCm-2yr-1) FLUX SENSITIVITY CHALLENGE: achieving uncertainties in estimated fluxes (e) comparable to Annex I inventories (<10%) requires flux sensitivity >100X better than current capability (5 vs >500 gCm-2yr-1)

  28. Distribution of fossil-fuel CO2 fluxes in the US* (100km) *similar patterns, different magnitutes in other large regions (e.g., China, EU, Russia)

  29. Distribution of fossil-fuel CO2 fluxes in the US (10km) Figure 3. 2006 fossil fuel CO2 emissions for the US plotted on a 1° x 1° grid (after CDIAC) in units Megatons Carbon, with a higher threshold than shown in Figure 2 indicating that 75% of fossil fuel emissions in the US come from < 10% of the surface area of the 48 contiguous states and Hawaii at 100 km scale, with a mean flux of about 600 gC m-2 yr-1 fromthose areas. The inset shows a detailed estimate of the same on a 10km x 10km grid for 2004 (Vulcan) for the city of Indianapolis, where peak fluxes exceed 20,000 gC m-2 yr-1.

  30. FF CO2 fluxes from cities (annual) Table 2. Surface areas, reported CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use, and resulting emission fluxes for some of the world’s largest cities (after NRC, 2010). The rightmost column indicates the resulting range of uncertainties on net emission estimates assuming the target flux sensitivity of 500 gC m-2 yr-1 could be achieved for a 10km resolution, diurnal CO2 flux map product. Uncertainties in the emission estimates for each city are not available and hence not shown here. However, the true fluxes could be ±50% of those shown here.

  31. Likely future trends in FF CO2(for the countries & cities undergoing the most rapid change) WORK IN PROGRESS Table 3. Exploration of potential future change scenarios for several “big trenders”: 2 developing countries (China and India), 2 developed countries/regions (UK and EU), and 2 developed cities (LA and Paris). Business As Usual (BAU) Emission Growth indicates best estimate of typical annual emissions growth during the period 2000-2010. Reduction pledge indicates proposed near-term targets for stabilization policies. Likely Future Change explores the hypothetical integrated 10 year change for the period 2010-2020 for either BAU growth or stabilization. These numbers suggest the ability to robustly detect a 15-20% change (growth or stabilization) over a 5 year interval would help confirm the effects of policies (or lack thereof).