Search for: All records

Interdigitated microchannels embedded in porous electrodes containing nickel hexacyanoferrate enable flow-through electrochemical desalination with low energy input when used with aqueous feeds having either seawater, brackish-water, or hypersaline-brine salinity. 

Abstract We review observations of solar activity, geomagnetic variation, and auroral visibility for the extreme geomagnetic storm on 1872 February 4. The extreme storm (referred to here as the Chapman–Silverman storm) apparently originated from a complex active region of moderate area (≈ 500μsh) that was favorably situated near disk center (S19° E05°). There is circumstantial evidence for an eruption from this region at 9–10 UT on 1872 February 3, based on the location, complexity, and evolution of the region, and on reports of prominence activations, which yields a plausible transit time of ≈29 hr to Earth. Magnetograms show that the storm began with a sudden commencement at ≈14:27 UT and allow a minimum Dst estimate of ≤ −834 nT. Overhead aurorae were credibly reported at Jacobabad (British India) and Shanghai (China), both at 19.°9 in magnetic latitude (MLAT) and 24.°2 in invariant latitude (ILAT). Auroral visibility was reported from 13 locations with MLAT below ∣20∣° for the 1872 storm (ranging from ∣10.°0∣–∣19.°9∣ MLAT) versus one each for the 1859 storm (∣17.°3∣ MLAT) and the 1921 storm (∣16.°2∣ MLAT). The auroral extension and conservative storm intensity indicate a magnetic storm of comparable strength to the extreme storms of 1859 September (25.°1 ± 0.°5 ILAT and −949 ± 31 nT) and 1921 May (27.°1 ILAT and −907 ± 132 nT), which places the 1872 storm among the three largest magnetic storms yet observed. 

Abstract Within vascular plants, the partitioning of hydraulic resistance along the soil‐to‐leaf continuum affects transpiration and its response to environmental conditions. In trees, the fractional contribution of leaf hydraulic resistance (R_leaf) to total soil‐to‐leaf hydraulic resistance (R_total), or fR_leaf(=R_leaf/R_total), is thought to be large, but this has not been tested comprehensively. We compiled a multibiome data set of fR_leafusing new and previously published measurements of pressure differences within trees in situ. Across 80 samples, fR_leafaveraged 0.51 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.46−0.57) and it declined with tree height. We also used the allometric relationship between field‐based measurements of soil‐to‐leaf hydraulic conductance and laboratory‐based measurements of leaf hydraulic conductance to compute the average fR_leaffor 19 tree samples, which was 0.40 (95% CI = 0.29−0.56). The in situ technique produces a more accurate descriptor of fR_leafbecause it accounts for dynamic leaf hydraulic conductance. Both approaches demonstrate the outsized role of leaves in controlling tree hydrodynamics. A larger fR_leafmay help stems from loss of hydraulic conductance. Thus, the decline in fR_leafwith tree height would contribute to greater drought vulnerability in taller trees and potentially to their observed disproportionate drought mortality. 

Abstract. Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions andtheir redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biospherein a changing climate is critical to better understand the global carboncycle, support the development of climate policies, and project futureclimate change. Here we describe and synthesize datasets and methodology toquantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and theiruncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFOS) are based on energystatistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change(ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use changedata and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measureddirectly, and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annualchanges in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) is estimatedwith global ocean biogeochemistry models and observation-baseddata products. The terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) is estimated withdynamic global vegetation models. The resulting carbon budget imbalance(BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and theestimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is ameasure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carboncycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the firsttime, an approach is shown to reconcile the difference in our ELUCestimate with the one from national greenhouse gas inventories, supportingthe assessment of collective countries' climate progress. For the year 2020, EFOS declined by 5.4 % relative to 2019, withfossil emissions at 9.5 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 (9.3 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when the cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 0.9 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, for a total anthropogenic CO2 emission of10.2 ± 0.8 GtC yr−1 (37.4 ± 2.9 GtCO2). Also, for2020, GATM was 5.0 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.4 ± 0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 3.0 ± 0.4 GtC yr−1, and SLANDwas 2.9 ± 1 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of −0.8 GtC yr−1. Theglobal atmospheric CO2 concentration averaged over 2020 reached 412.45 ± 0.1 ppm. Preliminary data for 2021 suggest a rebound in EFOSrelative to 2020 of +4.8 % (4.2 % to 5.4 %) globally. Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budgetare consistently estimated over the period 1959–2020, but discrepancies ofup to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of annual tosemi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. Comparison of estimates frommultiple approaches and observations shows (1) a persistent largeuncertainty in the estimate of land-use changes emissions, (2) a lowagreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the landCO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) a discrepancy betweenthe different methods on the strength of the ocean sink over the lastdecade. This living data update documents changes in the methods and datasets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understandingof the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this dataset (Friedlingstein et al., 2020, 2019; LeQuéré et al., 2018b, a, 2016, 2015b, a, 2014, 2013). Thedata presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2021 (Friedlingstein et al., 2021). 

Abstract. Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions andtheir redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biospherein a changing climate – the “global carbon budget” – is important tobetter understand the global carbon cycle, support the development ofclimate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe andsynthesize data sets and methodology to quantify the five major componentsof the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2emissions (EFOS) are based on energy statistics and cement productiondata, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainlydeforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data andbookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directlyand its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes inconcentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrialCO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process modelsconstrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance(BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and theestimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is ameasure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carboncycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the lastdecade available (2010–2019), EFOS was 9.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 excluding the cement carbonation sink (9.4 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when the cement carbonation sink is included), andELUC was 1.6 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1. For the same decade, GATM was 5.1 ± 0.02 GtC yr−1 (2.4 ± 0.01 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN 2.5 ±  0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.4 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1, with a budgetimbalance BIM of −0.1 GtC yr−1 indicating a near balance betweenestimated sources and sinks over the last decade. For the year 2019 alone, thegrowth in EFOS was only about 0.1 % with fossil emissions increasingto 9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 excluding the cement carbonation sink (9.7 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 1.8 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, for total anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 11.5 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1 (42.2 ± 3.3 GtCO2). Also for 2019, GATM was5.4 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.5 ± 0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEANwas 2.6 ± 0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.1 ± 1.2 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2concentration reached 409.85 ± 0.1 ppm averaged over 2019. Preliminarydata for 2020, accounting for the COVID-19-induced changes in emissions,suggest a decrease in EFOS relative to 2019 of about −7 % (medianestimate) based on individual estimates from four studies of −6 %, −7 %,−7 % (−3 % to −11 %), and −13 %. Overall, the mean and trend in thecomponents of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over theperiod 1959–2019, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for therepresentation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. Comparison ofestimates from diverse approaches and observations shows (1) no consensusin the mean and trend in land-use change emissions over the last decade, (2)a persistent low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude ofthe land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparentdiscrepancy between the different methods for the ocean sink outside thetropics, particularly in the Southern Ocean. This living data updatedocuments changes in the methods and data sets used in this new globalcarbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cyclecompared with previous publications of this data set (Friedlingstein et al.,2019; Le Quéré et al., 2018b, a, 2016, 2015b, a, 2014,2013). The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2020 (Friedlingstein et al., 2020).