Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The carbon cycle science community recently began an effort to update and revise the very successful 1999 A U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Plan – written by a committee chaired by Jorge Sarmiento and Steve Wofsy. We now have the opportunity to decide how to outline and prioritize a research agenda on the carbon cycle for the next decade. Given the 1999 Plan and 10 years of experience as a point of departure, we have the opportunity now to ask what has been completed or is no longer a high priority? Which research items need to be continued? What questions should be added? Do we need a change in emphasis or a change in priorities? How has our vision of the priority needs been altered by 10 years of activity?
In fact, this activity starts with a virtually clean slate. We can work from the 1999 Plan or begin anew. Four co-chairs have been selected for this activity and an effort has been made to select a working group that represents the breadth of the U.S. carbon cycle research community. We invite you to review the posts here and on our webpage (Carbon Cycle Science Planning for the Next Decade) and to share your comments on these documents and on the broader topic of planning for the future of carbon cycle science in the United States in the comments sections of individual posts.
We look forward to hearing from the broader carbon cycle science community and capturing a vision that addresses a creative research program.
Sincerely,
Anna M. Michalak
Rob Jackson
Gregg Marland
Chris Sabine
6 comments:
The "Building Block" document is a very good start. A couple comments:
(1) In my experience, a more significant barrier to sustaining long-term observations is not the 3-year grant cycle, but the unwillingness of most agencies to embrace long-term observations as an essential part of their portfolio. A broader commitment across agencies is probably the most important first step to sustaining long-term observations. One idea might be to create an obligation, similar to the SBIR program, to advance a cross-cutting goal of recognized societal benefit (here:long-term obs; for SBIR: tech transfer) that otherwise falls through the crack. Getting a discussion going on this would be good.
(2) The discussion under "carbon cycle observations and observational networks" should have clarified that the relevant atmospheric observations include, not just measurements of CO2 and CH4 concentrations, but also related tracers, such as O2/N2, stable isotopes and radiocarbon in CO2 and CH4, CO, OCS, etc...
(3) Some mention of other threats to marine ecosystems besides acidification would have been appropriate, e.g. changes in dissolved O2, nutrients, temperature.
In addition to Landsat and SeaWiFS, you need to mention the MODIS sensors on NASA's Aqua and Terra satellites in this paragraph.
Carbon cycle science is at a crossroads, with a need to continue long-term measurements and to initiate new observations and manipulations. Many tools providing long-term measurements of the carbon cycle may diminish or disappear in the near future unless they are continued or replaced. Examples include the 35-year record provided by Landsat satellites, ocean color measurements
from SeaWiFS, and river and stream gauging stations that integrate carbon cycle processes in their watersheds. Additionally, funding is
needed to initiate new programs and fill data gaps in existing ones.
Also, it would be very important to emphasize the critical importance of ocean biogeochemistry time series in a separate paragraph, since they are relevant in this paragraph as well as in the "ocean acidification, "Stronger links with related research programs", and "Carbon cycle monitoring and analysis" as a minumum. The ocean time series supported by the USA and various international partners (CARIACO, BATS, and HOT) are critical elements of the program and need to be fully integrated into any planning for long-term viability.
I agree that the building block document is a good start, but I have a couple of comments:
Comment 1 - I think one of the challenges in developing a new carbon cycle science plan is to not only identify the critical issues that need to be addressed, but also to help present perspective on the relative importance of different research areas vis-à-vis their importance in understanding exchanges of carbon between the atmosphere, ocean, and the terrestrial biosphere, as well as developing approaches that will provide decisions makers the information and tools to develop a comprehensive policies and approaches for carbon cycle management. Along these lines, I think the present priorities expressed in the Strategic Planning Building Block may be somewhat out of balance. Since this is a plan to address issues related to understanding and quantifying the global carbon cycle, one must question setting a high priority “on studying the direct effects of increased CO2 on ocean ecosystems “, especially since it is acknowledged that this issue “may not have a substantial feedback to the global carbon cycle itself.” I would think that other elements of the U.S. Climate Change Research Program will address the issue of ocean acidification, and setting research priorities for this issue should rest with these other efforts.
Several important, new findings since the development of the initial Sarmiento and Wofsy US Carbon Cycle Science Plan have shown that the current NA forest carbon sink is particularly vulnerable to impacts of climate-driven disturbance, and that the soil carbon in permafrost regions is not only larger than previously estimated, but may be particularly vulnerable to anthropogenic climate warming. An argument could be made that understanding the role of climate change and disturbance on carbon sinks should have as high a priority in the new planning activity as the study of the impacts of ocean acidification.
Comment 2 - Such a prioritization has important implications for the new strategic plan, especially when it comes to expansion (and perhaps a redesign) of existing monitoring networks. While it is appropriate to identify areas where additional monitoring is needed, one must also be pragmatic enough to realize that the possibility exists that the resources required for implementation of all recommendations may not be available, and that a reallocation of funds devoted to existing monitoring networks may be required. For example, if insufficient funds are available to expand the current AmeriFlux network to understand the impacts of large-scale disturbances, how should the limited resources be reallocated?
Comment 3 - On the bottom of page 3, the role of process experiments and manipulations are discussed in the context of providing a fundamental understanding of how ecosystems are regulating carbon storage and carbon flux. What is missing from this discussion is the critical need for the observational studies and long-term monitoring that is required to develop a basic understanding of how ecosystem composition and function is changing in response to the combined effects of variations in climate and disturbance regimes. The long-term monitoring of the impacts of disturbance is not well represented within the current ecological monitoring programs such as the LTER. In high northern latitudes, many ecosystems are presently undergoing novel reorganizations in ways that have previously not been recognized, and such responses require observations in order to properly design the process experiments and manipulations discussed in this section.
Ralph,
Thank you for your comments. We will address each of your comments as you have numbered them:
1) This is an interesting idea that should be discussed more thoroughly.
2) We had many discussions about what to specifically include or not include in the short text. In the end we agreed that the plan is focused on understanding CO2 and CH4. The measurement of any other compounds that help us to better understand the CO2 and CH4 cycles would be covered under this plan, but we did not want to limit the possibilities by trying to specifically list the relevant compounds.
3)We were severely limited in our ability to expand upon any of the discussion because of imposed word limits. I am sure the full report will do a better job of discussing ecosystem impacts beyond just ocean acidification.
Sincerely,
CCSP Working Group leaders
Frank,
Thank you for your comments. We agree that ocean biogeochemical time series are important components of the program and they will certainly be included in the full science plan as it is developed.
Sincerely,
CCSP Working Group leaders
Dear Eric,
We will address each of your comments as you have numbered them:
1) Understanding the role of climate change and disturbance on carbon sinks is certainly a high priority in the plan. This aspect is included in the very first question: how do natural processes and human actions affect the carbon cycle, on land, in the atmosphere, and in the oceans? However, in our discussions with the carbon cycle community so far we have heard a clear message that we should not neglect the impacts of carbon cycle changes on ecosystems just because it may not have a strong feedback to the atmosphere. Ecosystem changes on land and in the ocean can dramatically impact society and insofar as they are a consequence of rising CO2, they are relevant to carbon cycle research.
2) We agree that prioritization is difficult but a very important part of developing the full science plan. We are hopeful that we will get lots of feedback regarding priorities for the next decade. Your thoughts on how the carbon cycle elements should be prioritized are greatly appreciated.
3) Long-term monitoring and directed process studies are both important and provide complimentary information about the carbon cycle. Unfortunately the building blocks document had a strict word limit that would not allow us to fully explain all of the components of the plan and how they should fit together. As we start to flesh out the full document, we will be counting on people like you to help us properly develop a strategy for getting the necessary observations.
Sincerely,
CCSP Working Group leaders
Post a Comment