Search for: All records

Drylands cover ca. 40% of the land surface and are hypothesised to play a major role in the global carbon cycle, controlling both long-term trends and interannual variation. These insights originate from land surface models (LSMs) that have not been extensively calibrated and evaluated for water-limited ecosystems. We need to learn more about dryland carbon dynamics, particularly as the transitory response and rapid turnover rates of semi-arid systems may limit their function as a carbon sink over multi-decadal scales. We quantified aboveground biomass carbon (AGC; inferred from SMOS L-band vegetation optical depth) and gross primary productivity (GPP; from PML-v2 inferred from MODIS observations) and tested their spatial and temporal correspondence with estimates from the TRENDY ensemble of LSMs. We found strong correspondence in GPP between LSMs and PML-v2 both in spatial patterns (Pearson’s r = 0.9 for TRENDY-mean) and in inter-annual variability, but not in trends. Conversely, for AGC we found lesser correspondence in space (Pearson’s r = 0.75 for TRENDY-mean, strong biases for individual models) and in the magnitude of inter-annual variability compared to satellite retrievals. These disagreements likely arise from limited representation of ecosystem responses to plant water availability, fire, and photodegradation that drive dryland carbon dynamics. We assessed inter-model agreement and drivers of long-term change in carbon stocks over centennial timescales. This analysis suggested that the simulated trend of increasing carbon stocks in drylands is in soils and primarily driven by increased productivity due to CO 2 enrichment. However, there is limited empirical evidence of this 50-year sink in dryland soils. Our findings highlight important uncertainties in simulations of dryland ecosystems by current LSMs, suggesting a need for continued model refinements and for greater caution when interpreting LSM estimates with regards to current and future carbon dynamics in drylands and by extension the global carbon cycle. 

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 biosphere– the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand theglobal carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, andproject future climate change. Here we describe data sets and methodology toquantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and theiruncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFF) 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 annual changesin concentration. 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 (2009–2018), EFF was 9.5±0.5 GtC yr−1,ELUC 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM 4.9±0.02 GtC yr−1 (2.3±0.01 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN 2.5±0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.2±0.6 GtC yr−1, with a budgetimbalance BIM of 0.4 GtC yr−1 indicating overestimated emissionsand/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2018 alone, the growth in EFF wasabout 2.1 % and fossil emissions increased to 10.0±0.5 GtC yr−1, reaching 10 GtC yr−1 for the first time in history,ELUC was 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, for total anthropogenicCO2 emissions of 11.5±0.9 GtC yr−1 (42.5±3.3 GtCO2). Also for 2018, GATM was 5.1±0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.4±0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 2.6±0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 407.38±0.1 ppm averaged over 2018. For 2019, preliminary data for the first 6–10 months indicate a reduced growth in EFF of +0.6 % (range of−0.2 % to 1.5 %) based on national emissions projections for China, theUSA, the EU, and India and projections of gross domestic product correctedfor recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest ofthe world. Overall, the mean and trend in the five components of the globalcarbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2018, butdiscrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation ofsemi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. A detailed comparison amongindividual estimates and the introduction of a broad range of observationsshows (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land use change emissionsover the last decade, (2) a persistent low agreement between the differentmethods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northernextra-tropics, and (3) an apparent underestimation of the CO2variability by ocean models outside the tropics. 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 (Le Quéré etal., 2018a, b, 2016, 2015a, b, 2014, 2013). The data generated bythis work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2019 (Friedlingsteinet al., 2019). 

Robust estimates of CO₂budget, CO₂exchanged between the atmosphere and terrestrial biosphere, are necessary to better understand the role of the terrestrial biosphere in mitigating anthropogenic CO₂emissions. Over the past decade, this field of research has advanced through understanding of the differences and similarities of two fundamentally different approaches: “top‐down” atmospheric inversions and “bottom‐up” biosphere models. Since the first studies were undertaken, these approaches have shown an increasing level of agreement, but disagreements in some regions still persist, in part because they do not estimate the same quantity of atmosphere–biosphere CO₂exchange. Here, we conducted a thorough comparison of CO₂budgets at multiple scales and from multiple methods to assess the current state of the science in estimating CO₂budgets. Our set of atmospheric inversions and biosphere models, which were adjusted for a consistent flux definition, showed a high level of agreement for global and hemispheric CO₂budgets in the 2000s. Regionally, improved agreement in CO₂budgets was notable for North America and Southeast Asia. However, large gaps between the two methods remained in East Asia and South America. In other regions, Europe, boreal Asia, Africa, South Asia, and Oceania, it was difficult to determine whether those regions act as a net sink or source because of the large spread in estimates from atmospheric inversions. These results highlight two research directions to improve the robustness of CO₂budgets: (a) to increase representation of processes in biosphere models that could contribute to fill the budget gaps, such as forest regrowth and forest degradation; and (b) to reduce sink–source compensation between regions (dipoles) in atmospheric inversion so that their estimates become more comparable. Advancements on both research areas will increase the level of agreement between the top‐down and bottom‐up approaches and yield more robust knowledge of regional CO₂budgets.