Is Europe heading for a more drought prone future?

Parched landscape of Europe during the 2018 drought. Image credit: NASA, CC0

In 2018, Europe was hit with one of the worst droughts so far in the 21st century in terms of its extent, severity and duration. This had large-scale effects on the vegetation, both agricultural and natural. Harvest yields were substantially reduced, by up to 40% in some regions, and widescale browning of vegetation occurred.

A consortium of international researchers, including members of the Atmospheric Chemistry Research Group (ACRG) at the University of Bristol, asked the question: given the major impacts on vegetation, which plays an essential role in removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air, was there an observable change in the amount of carbon uptake across Europe during this event?

There are at least two ways to quantify the impact that the drought had on the terrestrial carbon sink: a bottom-up or top-down approach. Our plans and timelines to mitigate climate change rely on using these methods to predict how much of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions can be taken up by the natural biosphere. Currently, the terrestrial carbon sink (i.e. vegetation and soils) takes up approximately a third of manmade emissions. The oceans take up about a similar amount. But this important carbon sink is subject to variation brought about by naturally occurring variation in the climate and manmade climate change.

To investigate the impact of the drought on the European terrestrial carbon sink, modellers can predict how individual processes that contribute to the terrestrial sink would respond to the climate during that period – a bottom-up approach. For example, a study by Bastos et al. (2019) compared the estimates of net ecosystem exchange during the drought period from 11 vegetation models. Net ecosystem exchange quantifies the amount of CO2 that is either taken up or released from the ecosystem and is usually quantified as a flux of CO2 to the atmosphere. This value is negative if the ecosystem is a sink and positive if it is a source of CO2 to the atmosphere. The consensus from previous studies was that an unusually sunny spring led to early vegetation growth, which depleted soil moisture, which intensified the drought during the summer period. Although more CO2 was taken up by the biosphere in spring, in some European regions, like Central Europe, the lack of rain during the summer months meant that the soils, already depleted in water, could not maintain the vegetation, and this led to CO2 losses from the ecosystem.

At the ACRG we use measurements of gases in the atmosphere, like CO2, to improve estimates of emissions and uptake of these gases using a top-down approach called inverse modelling. Measurements are obtained from carefully calibrated instruments that are part of global networks of measurement sites like AGAGE (Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment) and ICOS (Integrated Carbon Observation System). We also require initial estimates of the fluxes, which we obtain from several sources, including vegetation models and bottom-up inventories, and a model that describes atmospheric transport of the gas (a model that describes how a pocket of air will travel in the atmosphere). Using a statistical approach, we can then improve on those initial estimates to get better agreement between the modelled and observed concentrations at the measurement sites. With this method, we have to account for all sources of a gas, both anthropogenic and natural, as the concentration that is recorded at a measurement site is the sum of all contributions from all sources.

In a recent publication by Thompson et al. (2020), we compared the CO2 flux estimates for regions in Europe over the last ten years using the ACRG modelling method, along with four other approaches. The combined estimate from these five modelling systems indicated that the temperate region of Europe (i.e. Central Europe) was a small source of CO2 during 2018. This means that when carbon losses due to plant and soil respiration are compared with the carbon uptake by photosynthesis, then a small positive amount was emitted to the atmosphere on balance. This is described by a positive net flux of 0.09 ± 0.06 PgC y-1 (mean ± SD) to the atmosphere, compared with the mean of the last 10 years of -0.08 ± 0.17 PgC y-1, which is a net sink of carbon, meaning that over the last 10 years more carbon was taken up by photosynthesis than emitted through ecosystem respiration. Northern Europe was also found to be a small source in 2018. This publication was part of a special issue on the impacts of the 2018 drought on Europe.

So what does this tell us about how carbon uptake might change in the future? A 2018 study by Samaniego et al. considered future projections from climate models under different scenarios ranging from 1°C to 3°C global temperature rise. They concluded that soil moisture droughts were set to become 40% more likely by the end of the 21st century under the current 3°C future compared with 1.5°C set out in the Paris Climate Agreement. Droughts like the previous “Lucifer” event in 2003, where as many as 35,000 people lost their lives due to the effects of the drought, are expected to become twice as likely. Failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so that we mitigate the global temperature rise will impact on our ability to grow food and make killer drought events more likely. Our study shows that more frequent droughts will reduce the biosphere’s ability to take up our CO2 emissions due to the impact of a warmer climate on the soil and vegetation of key natural sinks, and lead to fundamental changes in the structure and species composition of these systems into the future. Unfortunately, this will further exacerbate the effects of climate change.

Bibliography

A. Bastos, P. Ciais, P. Friedlingstein, S. Sitch, J. Pongratz, L. Fan, J. P. Wigneron, U. Weber, M. Reichstein, Z. Fu, P. Anthoni, A. Arneth, V. Haverd, A. K. Jain, E. Joetzjer, J. Knauer, S. Lienert, T. Loughran, P. C. McGuire, H. Tian, N. Viovy, S. Zaehle. Direct and seasonal legacy effects of the 2018 heat wave and drought on European ecosystem productivity. Science Advances, 2020; 6 (24): eaba2724 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aba2724

M. Reuter, M. Buchwitz, M. Hilker, J. Heymann, H. Bovensmann, J.P. Burrows, S. Houweling, Y.Y. Liu, R. Nassar, F. Chevallier, P. Ciais, J. Marshall, M. Reichstein. How much CO2 is taken up by the European Terrestrial Biosphere? Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2017; 98 (4): 665-671 DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00310.1

L. Samaniego, S. Thober, R. Kumar, N. Wanders, O. Rakovec, M. Pan, M. Zink, J. Sheffield, E.F. Wood, A. Marx. Anthropogenic warming exacerbates European soil moisture droughts. Nature Climate Change, 2018; 8, 421-426 DOI: 10.1038/s41558-018-0138-5

R.L. Thompson, G. Broquet, C. Gerbig, T. Kock, M. Lang, G. Monteil, S. Munassar, A. Nickless, M. Scholze, M. Ramonet, U. Karstens, E. van Schaik, Z. Wu, C. Rödenbeck. Changes in net ecosystem exchange over Europe during the 2018 drought based on atmospheric observations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 2020; 375 (1810): 20190512 DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2019.0512

————————————-

This blog is written by Cabot Institute member Dr Alecia Nickless, a research associate in the School of Chemistry at the University of Bristol.

The end of the road for diesel?

Smoggy day in Bristol
The Volkswagen (VW) emissions scandal is now into its second week, and with each day the enormity of the deception seems to increase. What started off as a few hundred thousand cars in the US has now become an astonishing 11 million cars worldwide that VW says may have to be recalled. In addition to the VW brand, diesel models of Audi, Skoda and SEAT cars have all been affected, with 1.2 million in the UK alone.
 
At the heart of this deception is the use of software, designed to be able to detect when a car was under test conditions, in order to reduce the emissions of a group of nitrogen and oxygen compounds, commonly referred to as NOx.  However, these emissions controls would not be switched on during normal driving.
 
Given that the cars were clearly built with the potential to emit less NOx, it’s not immediately clear why the emissions controls were applied only under test conditions.  Although VW have admitted they “screwed up”, they don’t seem to have said why. However, it’s a fair assumption that the emissions controls would affect the performance of the car, both in terms of drive and fuel economy. Since fuel economy is probably the main selling point of a diesel car, anything detrimentally affecting it, could easily lead to a decline in sales.
 
In addition to the flouting of the rules by VW, the wider issue is the NOx emissions themselves, which are a seemingly inevitable product of diesel powered vehicles.
 
The use of diesel as a fuel in cars has been on the up (in Europe at least) over the last couple of decades, with a supposedly superior fuel economy and hence lower CO2 emissions, meaning they have been incentivised in Britain with lower tax. However, this policy failed to take into account other pollutant emissions such as NOx and particulate matter that have been linked with thousands of premature deaths. Indeed, this push to diesel was labelled in a Channel 4 documentary earlier this year “the great car con” and just this week former science minister Lord Drayson called this policy a mistake.
 
Due in part to this push for more diesel vehicles on the roads in the UK and Europe, Bristol is just one of many cities which fail to meet the 40 μg/m3 annual mean WHO guideline level for NO2 (one of the collection of NOx gases). NOx levels in the UK have seen only a very small decline over the last decade or so, despite vehicle manufacturers telling us they make the cleanest cars yet. This contrasts with petrol vehicles, which have seen a dramatic decrease in NOx emissions over this time.
 

Why is NOx bad?

 
The presence of NOx in the lowermost part of our atmosphere, along with other pollutants such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) promotes the formation of ozone. Not to be confused with the protective ozone layer which is much higher up in the atmosphere, ozone near the surface has detrimental health effects, mostly involving the respiratory system, in addition to being a greenhouse gas. Furthermore, NO2 has itself been linked with certain respiratory health problems
 

Is there a simple solution?

 
Well, technologies exist to reduce NOx emissions from diesel vehicles, such as urea injection, only it seems that the VW group chose to cheat the system rather than use it, since it would add cost and weight to the car. If these technologies are implemented manufacturers claim to be able to filter out particulate emissions and greatly reduce NOx emissions. But, given the current furore, why on earth should we believe them?
 
In addition, a recent report from the International Council of Clean Transportation (ICCT) said that the real-world CO2 emissions of diesel (and petrol) cars are well above those in tests. There go the supposed CO2 savings of diesel then. Again you can’t help but question why diesel cars continue to enjoy a tax break in this country.
 

The death knell tolls for diesel…

 
…Ok, maybe not. Given the massive investment that the automobile industry has put into diesel over the last 20 years or so, they’re unlikely to suddenly jack it all in. What will probably follow is a splurge of marketing diarrhoea about how each new car is the ‘greenest yet’, all the while completely ignoring the fact that the simplest way to cut emissions would be to have fewer cars not more. Nevertheless, the current news story highlights how frivolously pollutant regulations, and the health implications, are taken when set against generating a profit. It also serves to impress the need for independent verification of emissions, such as those that uncovered VW’s fraudulent behaviour. The Atmospheric Chemistry Research Group here at Bristol, performs similar verification at the national level for greenhouse gases. It has been said that not taking the time to verify emissions statistics is like dieting without weighing oneself. Well, in this case I guess they did make it to the scales, but no one bothered to check they’d been calibrated properly. 
 
————————————
This blog has been written by Cabot Institute member Mark Lunt, from the University of Bristol’s Atmospheric Chemistry Research Group.