1 / 18

Main objectives

Can the effective CO 2 reduction in the atmosphere in response to fossil fuel emission reduction and enhanced carbon sequestration on land be detected in the context of the Kyoto commitments of Europe?. Main objectives.

roza
Download Presentation

Main objectives

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Can the effective CO2 reduction in the atmosphere in response to fossil fuel emission reduction and enhanced carbon sequestration on land be detected in the context of the Kyoto commitments of Europe?

  2. Main objectives • To provide an observation system of atmospheric measurements and a modelling framework to detect changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the time frame of a Kyoto commitment period. (connection with uncertainties) • To develop the outline of a carbon accounting system for the second Commitment period based on measuring carbon fluxes, stock changes by soil and biomass inventories, vegetation properties by remote sensing, and atmospheric concentrations (discuss avoiding deforestation, carbon management). • To assess vulnerability of carbon pools and interactions with other trace gases (N2O, CH4)

  3. Recent acceleration in global fossil fuel emissions • 1980’s = 5.3 GtC y-1 • 1990’s = 6.3 GtC y-1 • Since 2000 = 7.2 GtCy-1 (8.7 GtCy-1 including deforestation) • Increase in emissions from 6.7 in 2000 to 7.9 in 2005 • (+28% compared to +3.2% during the 1990’s) • Reversal in the carbon intensity of GDP since 2000

  4. Prof. Riccardo Valentini E-mail: Rik@unitus.it

  5. Fast process (1 – 102 days) Slow process (103 – 104 days) Global C Budget: “Slow in – Fast out” Atmospheric accumulation rate 3.2 GtC per year 1990s Atmosphere Surface biosphere 6.3 F Fuel, Cement 2.2 Land-Use Change 2.9 Land Uptake 2.4 Ocean Uptake Gruber et al 2003 , SCOPE project

  6. The “Gap Paradigm” BIOSPHERE Source or sink?

  7. Fast Track Approach • Develop of a synthesis report on major findings which have implications for UNFCCC/Kyoto/Climate Policy

  8. 0. Are we able to attribute the current changes of atmospheric concentration to Fossil fuel versus biospheric fluxes ?

  9. What are the controlling driving forces of biospheric fluxes ? • Photosynthesis is temperature driven in northern European ecosystems and water limited in southern European ecosystems However terrestrial carbon uptake is weakly coupled with mean climate

  10. Extreme climate events or disturbances have a strong effect on biosphere-astmosphere exchanges Change in hydrologic regimes in mediterranean ecosystems

  11. Extreme climate events or disturbances have a strong effect on biosphere-astmosphere exchanges Annual mean 1850-2000: 35 M m3 of forest wood damaged by natural disturbances in Europe. 53% wind throw 16% fire 16% biotic (insects) 3% snow 5% other abiotic Tatra Experiment CarboEurope

  12. Forest carbon sink account for 50% of NEP of the forest and 25% of the maximum observed NEP

  13. Forest management dominate forest carbon uptake Elevated nitrogen deposition is unlikely to enhance vegetation carbon sink significantly because of climatic limitations (Galina Churkina)

  14. European Grasslands are taking up more carbon than previous estimate Also including other GHG effects

  15. + Meteorological controls ++ Land-use history + Meteorological controls ++ Management (harvest, tillage) Climaxic ecosystem grassland agriculture recovering grassland time C sequestration potential of abandoned croplands of Russian Federation is significant Implications with art. 3.4 of Kyoto Protocol Photo:G.Petrusov, 1935- harvest

  16. SCENARIO C Russian Federation Carbon sequestration potential (1990-2012): 158.41 Mt C= 580.85 MtCO2

  17. New ideas to include in the Kyoto report ?

More Related