Search for: All records

The northern permafrost region has been projected to shift from a net sink to a net source of carbon under global warming. However, estimates of the contemporary net greenhouse gas (GHG) balance and budgets of the permafrost region remain highly uncertain. Here, we construct the first comprehensive bottom‐up budgets of CO₂, CH₄, and N₂O across the terrestrial permafrost region using databases of more than 1000 in situ flux measurements and a land cover‐based ecosystem flux upscaling approach for the period 2000–2020. Estimates indicate that the permafrost region emitted a mean annual flux of 12 (−606, 661) Tg CO₂–C yr⁻¹, 38 (22, 53) Tg CH₄–C yr⁻¹, and 0.67 (0.07, 1.3) Tg N₂O–N yr⁻¹to the atmosphere throughout the period. Thus, the region was a net source of CH₄and N₂O, while the CO₂balance was near neutral within its large uncertainties. Undisturbed terrestrial ecosystems had a CO₂sink of −340 (−836, 156) Tg CO₂–C yr⁻¹. Vertical emissions from fire disturbances and inland waters largely offset the sink in vegetated ecosystems. When including lateral fluxes for a complete GHG budget, the permafrost region was a net source of C and N, releasing 144 (−506, 826) Tg C yr⁻¹and 3 (2, 5) Tg N yr⁻¹. Large uncertainty ranges in these estimates point to a need for further expansion of monitoring networks, continued data synthesis efforts, and better integration of field observations, remote sensing data, and ecosystem models to constrain the contemporary net GHG budgets of the permafrost region and track their future trajectory.

 

Fossil fuel combustion, land use change and other human activities have increased the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) abundance by about 50% since the beginning of the industrial age. The atmospheric CO₂growth rates would have been much larger if natural sinks in the land biosphere and ocean had not removed over half of this anthropogenic CO₂. As these CO₂emissions grew, uptake by the ocean increased in response to increases in atmospheric CO₂partial pressure (pCO₂). On land, gross primary production also increased, but the dynamics of other key aspects of the land carbon cycle varied regionally. Over the past three decades, CO₂uptake by intact tropical humid forests declined, but these changes are offset by increased uptake across mid‐ and high‐latitudes. While there have been substantial improvements in our ability to study the carbon cycle, measurement and modeling gaps still limit our understanding of the processes driving its evolution. Continued ship‐based observations combined with expanded deployments of autonomous platforms are needed to quantify ocean‐atmosphere fluxes and interior ocean carbon storage on policy‐relevant spatial and temporal scales. There is also an urgent need for more comprehensive measurements of stocks, fluxes and atmospheric CO₂in humid tropical forests and across the Arctic and boreal regions, which are experiencing rapid change. Here, we review our understanding of the atmosphere, ocean, and land carbon cycles and their interactions, identify emerging measurement and modeling capabilities and gaps and the need for a sustainable, operational framework to ensure a scientific basis for carbon management.

 

Understanding the sensitivity of ecosystem production and respiration to climate change is critical for predicting terrestrial carbon dynamics. Here we show that the primary control on the inter-annual variability of net ecosystem carbon exchange switches from production to respiration at a precipitation threshold between 750 and 950 mm yr⁻¹in the contiguous United States. This precipitation threshold is evident across multiple datasets and scales of observation indicating that it is a robust result and provides a new scaling relationship between climate and carbon dynamics. However, this empirical precipitation threshold is not captured by dynamic global vegetation models, which tend to overestimate the sensitivity of production and underestimate the sensitivity of respiration to water availability in more mesic regions. Our results suggest that the short-term carbon balance of ecosystems may be more sensitive to respiration losses than previously thought and that model simulations may underestimate the positive carbon–climate feedbacks associated with respiration.

 

Scenarios that limit global warming to below 2 °C by 2100 assume significant land-use change to support large-scale carbon dioxide (CO₂) removal from the atmosphere by afforestation/reforestation, avoided deforestation, and Biomass Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS). The more ambitious mitigation scenarios require even greater land area for mitigation and/or earlier adoption of CO₂removal strategies. Here we show that additional land-use change to meet a 1.5 °C climate change target could result in net losses of carbon from the land. The effectiveness of BECCS strongly depends on several assumptions related to the choice of biomass, the fate of initial above ground biomass, and the fossil-fuel emissions offset in the energy system. Depending on these factors, carbon removed from the atmosphere through BECCS could easily be offset by losses due to land-use change. If BECCS involves replacing high-carbon content ecosystems with crops, then forest-based mitigation could be more efficient for atmospheric CO₂removal than BECCS.

 

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). 

Abstract. Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide(CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere,ocean, and terrestrial biosphere – the “global carbon budget” – isimportant to better understand the global carbon cycle, support thedevelopment of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here wedescribe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components ofthe global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2emissions (EFF) are based on energy statistics and cementproduction data, while emissions from land use and land-use change (ELUC),mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data andbookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measureddirectly and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annualchanges in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN)and terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated withglobal process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbonbudget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimatedtotal emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, andterrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding ofthe contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade available (2008–2017), EFF was9.4±0.5 GtC yr−1, ELUC 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM 4.7±0.02 GtC yr−1,SOCEAN 2.4±0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.2±0.8 GtC yr−1, with a budget imbalance BIM of0.5 GtC yr−1 indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimatedsinks. For the year 2017 alone, the growth in EFF was about 1.6 %and emissions increased to 9.9±0.5 GtC yr−1. Also for 2017,ELUC was 1.4±0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM was 4.6±0.2 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN was 2.5±0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.8±0.8 GtC yr−1,with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmosphericCO2 concentration reached 405.0±0.1 ppm averaged over 2017.For 2018, preliminary data for the first 6–9 months indicate a renewedgrowth in EFF of +2.7 % (range of 1.8 % to 3.7 %) basedon national emission projections for China, the US, the EU, and India andprojections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in thecarbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. The analysispresented here shows that the mean and trend in the five components of theglobal carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period of 1959–2017,but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representationof semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. A detailed comparisonamong individual estimates and the introduction of a broad range ofobservations show (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land-use changeemissions, (2) a persistent low agreement among the different methods onthe magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics,and (3) an apparent underestimation of the CO2 variability by oceanmodels, originating outside the tropics. This living data update documentschanges in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budgetand the progress in understanding the global carbon cycle compared withprevious publications of this data set (Le Quéré et al., 2018, 2016,2015a, b, 2014, 2013). All results presented here can be downloaded fromhttps://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2018. 

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.