Sentences with phrase «land carbon flux»

Generally, low correlations between fire weather season length and global land carbon uptake are to be expected because wildfires represent a small proportion of the total land carbon flux.

Nonetheless, our global fire weather season length metrics were significantly correlated to global net land carbon flux.

Likewise, fire weather season length and long fire weather season affected area were significantly correlated with global net land carbon flux calculated from an analysis of the global carbon budget from 1979 to 2012 (ref.

The highest correlations between the net land carbon flux and continental biome mean fire weather season metrics were observed in the tropical and subtropical forests, grasslands and savannas and xeric shrublands of South America where regional fire weather season length metrics accounted for between 15.7 and 29.7 % of the variations in global net land carbon flux (Table 5).

In addition, when correlations were constrained to the time period that satellite burned area observations were available from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS)(2001 - 2012), and thus where estimates of land - use change carbon emissions were more certain2, correlations between fire weather season length, long fire season affected area and net land carbon fluxes increased substantially to ρ = − 0.797 and ρ = − 0.825, respectively, n = 12, P < 0.01).

Not exact matches

His research efforts will contribute to a better understanding of vertical and lateral carbon fluxes — the amount of carbon exchanged between the land and the atmosphere, and the amount of carbon exchanged between the land and the coastal ocean — in tidal coastal wetlands.

Here, greenhouse gas «fluxes» refers to the cycling of carbon between land, plants and the atmosphere.

Human - induced changes to carbon fluxes across the land - ocean interface can influence the global carbon cycle, yet the impacts of rapid urbanization and establishment of wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) on coastal ocean carbon cycles are poorly known.

Eighty - eight percent of the reported carbon fluxes in the land - use change and forestry category are from the changes in forest and other woody biomass stocks sub-category.

Burning wood instead of coal therefore creates a carbon debt — an immediate increase in atmospheric CO2 compared to fossil energy — that can be repaid over time only as — and if — NPP [net primary production] rises above the flux of carbon from biomass and soils to the atmosphere on the harvested lands.»

We'd driving the models with the GHG concentrations, and using carbon cycle models within the climate models to simulate the natural carbon fluxes (atmosphere - land and atmosphere - ocean), which themselves are affected by the simulated climate change, and the residual needed to balance the carbon budget then indicates the anthropogenic emissions that would give the prescribed scenario of CO2 rise.

However, by Houghton, R.A. 2008 he found, «The estimated global total net flux of carbon from changes in land use increased from 500.6 Tg C in 1850 to a maximum of 1712.5 Tg C in 1991 ``.

Houghton's method of reconstructing Land - Use Based Net Flux of Carbon appears arbitrary and susceptible to bias; i.e. «Rates of land - use change, including clearing for agriculture and harvest of wood, were reconstructed from statistical and historic documents for 9 world regions and used, along with the per ha [hectare] changes in vegetation and soil that result from land management, to calculate the annual flux of carbon between land and atmosphere.&raLand - Use Based Net Flux of Carbon appears arbitrary and susceptible to bias; i.e. «Rates of land - use change, including clearing for agriculture and harvest of wood, were reconstructed from statistical and historic documents for 9 world regions and used, along with the per ha [hectare] changes in vegetation and soil that result from land management, to calculate the annual flux of carbon between land and atmosphere.&raFlux of Carbon appears arbitrary and susceptible to bias; i.e. «Rates of land - use change, including clearing for agriculture and harvest of wood, were reconstructed from statistical and historic documents for 9 world regions and used, along with the per ha [hectare] changes in vegetation and soil that result from land management, to calculate the annual flux of carbon between land and atmosphere.&raland - use change, including clearing for agriculture and harvest of wood, were reconstructed from statistical and historic documents for 9 world regions and used, along with the per ha [hectare] changes in vegetation and soil that result from land management, to calculate the annual flux of carbon between land and atmosphere.&raland management, to calculate the annual flux of carbon between land and atmosphere.&raflux of carbon between land and atmosphere.&raland and atmosphere.»

Furthermore Houghton's findings have varied significantly over time, i.e. in Houghton & Hackler, 2001 they found that, «The estimated global total net flux of carbon from changes in land use increased from 397 Tg of carbon in 1850 to 2187 Tg or 2.2 Pg of carbon in 1989 and then decreased slightly to 2103 Tg or 2.1 Pg of carbon in 1990 ``.

Changes in vegetation carbon residence times can cause major shifts in the distribution of carbon between pools, overall fluxes, and the time constants of terrestrial carbon transitions, with consequences for the land carbon balance and the associated state of ecosystems.

The need to adapt to a changing climate and eventually to mitigate climate change increasingly requires more accurate information on fluxes across the traditional domains atmosphere, ocean, land in order to improve our understanding of the major climatic cycles, carbon, water and energy.

The following sections explain the controls on these fluxes, with special reference to processes by which anthropogenic changes may influence the overall carbon balance of the land and oceans on time - scales from years to centuries.

Fluxes of carbon can be estimated from changes in inventoried carbon stocks (e.g., UN - ECE / FAO, 2000), or from combining data on land - use change with methods to calculate changes in carbon stock (e.g., Houghton, 1999).

«As a result, the loss of glacier mass worldwide, along with the corresponding release of carbon, will affect high latitude marine ecosystems, particularly those surrounding the major ice sheets that now receive fairly limited land - to - ocean fluxes of carbon.»

You might also look at the global carbon fluxes at http://lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/lequere/co2/ which includes an estimate of effects due to land - use changes.

Well - known examples of such cases are the direct radiative forcing of black carbon (BC) and other absorbing aerosols and the changes in latent and sensible heat fluxes due to land - use modifications.

The overall net emission over this period = + 0.5 units yet we can see how anthropogenic and sea (e.g. warming) contribute equally to this figure while net natural emission (i.e. sea + land) is — 0.5 Do we really know enough about the carbon cycle, in particular the natural fluxes of CO2, to rule out that some thing like this is going on?

Scientific confidence of the occurrence of climate change include, for example, that over at least the last 50 years there have been increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2; increased nitrogen and soot (black carbon) deposition; changes in the surface heat and moisture fluxes over land; increases in lower tropospheric and upper ocean temperatures and ocean heat content; the elevation of sea level; and a large decrease in summer Arctic sea ice coverage and a modest increase in Antarctic sea ice coverage.

The emissions and their partitioning only include the fluxes that have changed since 1750, and not the natural CO2 fluxes (e.g., atmospheric CO2 uptake from weathering, outgassing of CO2 from lakes and rivers, and outgassing of CO2 by the ocean from carbon delivered by rivers) between the atmosphere, land and ocean reservoirs that existed before that time and still exist today.

There are also large soil carbon stocks in boreal systems — to the extent that boreal soil carbon flux is linked with land use / land cover, that's another important wrinkle to the boreal forest climate story.

I haven't yet studied the article in detail but my thoughts are that the relative uncertainties are high, as expected since the atmospheric CO2 level at a given time is the response of the complex carbon cycle to the net anthro increase (6 Gt from fossil + est 2 Gt from land use change), small but not negligible compared to the gross carbon cycle fluxes (90 Gt to / from ocean, 120 Gt to / from biosphere).

Neither the carbon stock of different land use types is clear nor is the co2 flux data.