Friedlingstein, Pierre; O’Sullivan, Michael; Jones, Matthew; Andrew, Robbie M.; Hauck, Judith; Olson, Are; Peters, Glen; Peters, Wouter; Pongratz, Julia; Sitch, Stephen; Quere, Corinne Le; Canadell, Josep G.; Ciais, Philippe; Jackson, Robert B.; Alin, Simone; Aragão, Luiz E. O. C.; Arneth, Almut; Arora, Vivek K.; Bates, Nicholas R.; Becker, Meike; Benoit-Cattin, Alice; Bittig, Henry C.; Bopp, Laurent; Bultan, Selma; Chandra, Naveen; Chevallier, Frédéric; Chini, Louise P.; Evans, Wiley; Florentie, Liesbeth; Forster, Piers; Gasser, Thomas; Gehlen, Marion; Gilfillan, Dennis; Gkritzalis, Thanos; Gregor, Luke; Gruber, Nicolas; Harris, Ian; Hartung, Kerstin; Haverd, Vanessa; Houghton, Richard A.; Ilyina, Tatiana; Jain, Atul K.; Joetzjer, Emilie; Kadono, Koji; Kato, Etsushi; Kitidis, Vassilis; Korsbakken, Jan Ivar; Landschutzer, Peter; Lefèvre, Nathalie; Lenton, Andrew; Lienert, Sebastian; Liu, Zhu; Lombardozzi, Danica; Marland, Gregg; Metzl, Nicolas; Munro, David R.; Nabel, Julia E. M. S.; Nakaoka, Shin-Ichiro; Niwa, Yosuke; O’Brien, Kevin M.; Ono, Tsuneo; Palmer, Paul; Pierrot, Denis; Poulter, Benjamin; Resplandy, Laure; Robertson, Eddy; Rödenbeck, Christian; Schwinger, Jörg; Seferian, Roland; Skjelvan, Ingunn; Smith, Adam; Sutton, Adrienne J.; Tanhua, Toste; Tans, Pieter P.; Tian, Hanqin; Tilbrook, Bronte; Werf, Guido R.; Vuichard, Nicolas; Walker, Anthony P.; Wanninkhof, Rik; Watson, Andrew; Willis, David; Wiltshire, Andrew J.; Yuan, Wenping; Yue, Xu; Zaehle, Sönke
Global Carbon Budget 2020 Journal Article
In: Earth System Science Data, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 3269–3340, 2020, ISSN: 1866-3508.
@article{fa675f813bc84ef1ae5f5fc05f4a7fa8,
title = {Global Carbon Budget 2020},
author = {Pierre Friedlingstein and Michael O'Sullivan and Matthew Jones and Robbie M. Andrew and Judith Hauck and Are Olson and Glen Peters and Wouter Peters and Julia Pongratz and Stephen Sitch and Corinne Le Quere and Josep G. Canadell and Philippe Ciais and Robert B. Jackson and Simone Alin and Luiz E. O. C. Aragão and Almut Arneth and Vivek K. Arora and Nicholas R. Bates and Meike Becker and Alice Benoit-Cattin and Henry C. Bittig and Laurent Bopp and Selma Bultan and Naveen Chandra and Frédéric Chevallier and Louise P. Chini and Wiley Evans and Liesbeth Florentie and Piers Forster and Thomas Gasser and Marion Gehlen and Dennis Gilfillan and Thanos Gkritzalis and Luke Gregor and Nicolas Gruber and Ian Harris and Kerstin Hartung and Vanessa Haverd and Richard A. Houghton and Tatiana Ilyina and Atul K. Jain and Emilie Joetzjer and Koji Kadono and Etsushi Kato and Vassilis Kitidis and Jan Ivar Korsbakken and Peter Landschutzer and Nathalie Lefèvre and Andrew Lenton and Sebastian Lienert and Zhu Liu and Danica Lombardozzi and Gregg Marland and Nicolas Metzl and David R. Munro and Julia E. M. S. Nabel and Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka and Yosuke Niwa and Kevin M. O'Brien and Tsuneo Ono and Paul Palmer and Denis Pierrot and Benjamin Poulter and Laure Resplandy and Eddy Robertson and Christian Rödenbeck and Jörg Schwinger and Roland Seferian and Ingunn Skjelvan and Adam Smith and Adrienne J. Sutton and Toste Tanhua and Pieter P. Tans and Hanqin Tian and Bronte Tilbrook and Guido R. Werf and Nicolas Vuichard and Anthony P. Walker and Rik Wanninkhof and Andrew Watson and David Willis and Andrew J. Wiltshire and Wenping Yuan and Xu Yue and Sönke Zaehle},
doi = {10.5194/essd-12-3269-2020},
issn = {1866-3508},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-12-11},
journal = {Earth System Science Data},
volume = {12},
number = {4},
pages = {3269–3340},
publisher = {Copernicus Publications},
abstract = {Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in a changing climate – the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe and synthesize data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFOS) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade 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), and ELUC 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 budget imbalance BIM of −0.1 GtC yr−1 indicating a near balance between estimated sources and sinks over the last decade. For the year 2019 alone, the growth in EFOS was only about 0.1 % with fossil emissions increasing to 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 was 5.4 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.5 ± 0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 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 CO2 concentration reached 409.85 ± 0.1 ppm averaged over 2019. Preliminary data for 2020, accounting for the COVID-19-induced changes in emissions, suggest a decrease in EFOS relative to 2019 of about −7 % (median estimate) based on individual estimates from four studies of −6 %, −7 %, −7 % (−3 % to −11 %), and −13 %. Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2019, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. Comparison of estimates from diverse approaches and observations shows (1) no consensus in 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 of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent discrepancy between the different methods for the ocean sink outside the tropics, particularly in the Southern Ocean. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Friedlingstein et al., 2019; Le Quéré et al., 2018b, a, 2016, 2015b, a, 2014, 2013).},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in a changing climate – the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe and synthesize data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFOS) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade 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), and ELUC 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 budget imbalance BIM of −0.1 GtC yr−1 indicating a near balance between estimated sources and sinks over the last decade. For the year 2019 alone, the growth in EFOS was only about 0.1 % with fossil emissions increasing to 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 was 5.4 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.5 ± 0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 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 CO2 concentration reached 409.85 ± 0.1 ppm averaged over 2019. Preliminary data for 2020, accounting for the COVID-19-induced changes in emissions, suggest a decrease in EFOS relative to 2019 of about −7 % (median estimate) based on individual estimates from four studies of −6 %, −7 %, −7 % (−3 % to −11 %), and −13 %. Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2019, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. Comparison of estimates from diverse approaches and observations shows (1) no consensus in 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 of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent discrepancy between the different methods for the ocean sink outside the tropics, particularly in the Southern Ocean. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Friedlingstein et al., 2019; Le Quéré et al., 2018b, a, 2016, 2015b, a, 2014, 2013).
