Search for: All records

Abstract Effective nitrogen fertilizer management is crucial for reducing nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions while ensuring food security within planetary boundaries. However, climate change might also interact with management practices to alter N₂O emission and emission factors (EFs), adding further uncertainties to estimating mitigation potentials. Here, we developed a new hybrid modeling framework that integrates a machine learning model with an ensemble of eight process‐based models to project EFs under different climate and nitrogen policy scenarios. Our findings reveal that EFs are dynamically modulated by environmental changes, including climate, soil properties, and nitrogen management practices. Under low‐ambition nitrogen regulation policies, EF would increase from 1.18%–1.22% in 2010 to 1.27%–1.34% by 2050, representing a relative increase of 4.4%–11.4% and exceeding the IPCC tier‐1 EF of 1%. This trend is particularly pronounced in tropical and subtropical regions with high nitrogen inputs, where EFs could increase by 0.14%–0.35% (relative increase of 11.9%–17%). In contrast, high‐ambition policies have the potential to mitigate the increases in EF caused by climate change, possibly leading to slight decreases in EFs. Furthermore, our results demonstrate that global EFs are expected to continue rising due to warming and regional drying–wetting cycles, even in the absence of changes in nitrogen management practices. This asymmetrical influence of nitrogen fertilizers on EFs, driven by climate change, underscores the urgent need for immediate N₂O emission reductions and further assessments of mitigation potentials. This hybrid modeling framework offers a computationally efficient approach to projecting future N₂O emissions across various climate, soil, and nitrogen management scenarios, facilitating socio‐economic assessments and policy‐making efforts. 

This dataset contains yearly projections of emission factors (EFs) for fertilizer-induced direct nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions across the global agricultural lands with a spatial resolution of 0.5° × 0.5° from 1990 to 2050. Emission factor (EF) is defined as the amount of N2O emitted per unit of nitrogen (N) fertilizer applied, expressed in percentage (%). They are developed from a hybrid modeling framework, Dym-EF (more details can be found in Li et al., 2024). The framework integrates machine learning approaches with an ensemble of eight process-based models from The Global N2O Model Intercomparison Project phase 2 (NMIP2) to learn the relationship between EF dynamics and multiple environmental factors, such as climate, soil properties, nitrogen fertilizer input, and other agricultural management practices. After the hybrid modeling framework was extensively validated, we applied it to develop EF projections under different nitrogen management policies and climate change scenarios, including future climate data from 37 Global Climate Models (GCMs). The annual median and standard deviation (SD) of EF under each scenario represent the projection median and variability derived from climate input data using the 37 GCMs.The dataset filenames follow the structure: 'Scenario'_'N regulation'_'Median/SD', where 'Scenario' corresponds to the different nitrogen management and climate scenarios (e.g., INMS1, INMS2, and INMS3), 'N regulation' corresponds to the different nitrogen management levels (e.g., BAU, LowNRegul, and MedNRegul), and 'Median/SD' indicates whether the file contains the median (Median) or standard deviation (SD) of the projections. All relevant data and further details can be found in the supplementary materials and the cited references.INMS1: Business-as-usual, Land use regulation: Medium, Diet: Meat & dairy-rich, Ambition level: LowINMS2: Low-nitrogen regulation, Land use regulation: Medium, Diet: Medium meat & dairy, Ambition level: LowINMS3: Medium-nitrogen regulation, Land use regulation: Medium, Diet: Medium meat & dairy, Ambition level: ModerateINMS4: High-nitrogen regulation, Land use regulation: Medium, Diet: Medium meat & dairy, Ambition level: HighINMS5: Best-case, Land use regulation: Strong, Diet: Low meat & dairy, Ambition level: HighINMS6: Best-case “Plus”, Land use regulation: Strong, Diet: Ambitious diet shift and food-loss/waste reductions, Ambition level: HighINMS7: Bioenergy, Land use regulation: Strong, Diet: Low meat & dairy, Ambition level: HighWe developed this data using the “ranger” package in R 4.1.1, which is accessible at https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ranger/. The optimization of the two hyperparameters (ntree and mtry) was performed using the ‘caret’ package, available at https://topepo.github.io/caret/.This database is developed by Li, L., C. Lu, W. Winiwarter, H. Tian, J. Canadell, A. Ito, A.K. Jain, S. Kou-Giesbrecht, S. Pan, N. Pan, H. Shi, Q. Sun, N. Vuichard, S. Ye., S. Zaehle, Q. Zhu. Enhanced nitrous oxide emission factors due to climate change increase the mitigation challenge in the agricultural sector Global Change Biology (In Press) 

Abstract Nitrous oxide (N₂O) is a greenhouse gas and stratospheric ozone‐depleting substance with large and growing anthropogenic emissions. Previous studies identified the influx of N₂O‐depleted air from the stratosphere to partly cause the seasonality in tropospheric N₂O (aN₂O), but other contributions remain unclear. Here, we combine surface fluxes from eight land and four ocean models from phase 2 of the Nitrogen/N₂O Model Intercomparison Project with tropospheric transport modeling to simulate aN₂O at eight remote air sampling sites for modern and pre‐industrial periods. Models show general agreement on the seasonal phasing of zonal‐average N₂O fluxes for most sites, but seasonal peak‐to‐peak amplitudes differ several‐fold across models. The modeled seasonal amplitude of surface aN₂O ranges from 0.25 to 0.80 ppb (interquartile ranges 21%–52% of median) for land, 0.14–0.25 ppb (17%–68%) for ocean, and 0.28–0.77 ppb (23%–52%) for combined flux contributions. The observed seasonal amplitude ranges from 0.34 to 1.08 ppb for these sites. The stratospheric contributions to aN₂O, inferred by the difference between the surface‐troposphere model and observations, show 16%–126% larger amplitudes and minima delayed by ∼1 month compared to Northern Hemisphere site observations. Land fluxes and their seasonal amplitude have increased since the pre‐industrial era and are projected to grow further under anthropogenic activities. Our results demonstrate the increasing importance of land fluxes for aN₂O seasonality. Considering the large model spread, in situ aN₂O observations and atmospheric transport‐chemistry models will provide opportunities for constraining terrestrial and oceanic biosphere models, critical for projecting carbon‐nitrogen cycles under ongoing global warming. 

Abstract. Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a long-lived potent greenhouse gas and stratospheric ozone-depleting substance that has been accumulating in the atmosphere since the preindustrial period. The mole fraction of atmospheric N2O has increased by nearly 25 % from 270 ppb (parts per billion) in 1750 to 336 ppb in 2022, with the fastest annual growth rate since 1980 of more than 1.3 ppb yr−1 in both 2020 and 2021. According to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR6), the relative contribution of N2O to the total enhanced effective radiative forcing of greenhouse gases was 6.4 % for 1750–2022. As a core component of our global greenhouse gas assessments coordinated by the Global Carbon Project (GCP), our global N2O budget incorporates both natural and anthropogenic sources and sinks and accounts for the interactions between nitrogen additions and the biogeochemical processes that control N2O emissions. We use bottom-up (BU: inventory, statistical extrapolation of flux measurements, and process-based land and ocean modeling) and top-down (TD: atmospheric measurement-based inversion) approaches. We provide a comprehensive quantification of global N2O sources and sinks in 21 natural and anthropogenic categories in 18 regions between 1980 and 2020. We estimate that total annual anthropogenic N2O emissions have increased 40 % (or 1.9 Tg N yr−1) in the past 4 decades (1980–2020). Direct agricultural emissions in 2020 (3.9 Tg N yr−1, best estimate) represent the large majority of anthropogenic emissions, followed by other direct anthropogenic sources, including fossil fuel and industry, waste and wastewater, and biomass burning (2.1 Tg N yr−1), and indirect anthropogenic sources (1.3 Tg N yr−1) . For the year 2020, our best estimate of total BU emissions for natural and anthropogenic sources was 18.5 (lower–upper bounds: 10.6–27.0) Tg N yr−1, close to our TD estimate of 17.0 (16.6–17.4) Tg N yr−1. For the 2010–2019 period, the annual BU decadal-average emissions for both natural and anthropogenic sources were 18.2 (10.6–25.9) Tg N yr−1 and TD emissions were 17.4 (15.8–19.20) Tg N yr−1. The once top emitter Europe has reduced its emissions by 31 % since the 1980s, while those of emerging economies have grown, making China the top emitter since the 2010s. The observed atmospheric N2O concentrations in recent years have exceeded projected levels under all scenarios in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6), underscoring the importance of reducing anthropogenic N2O emissions. To evaluate mitigation efforts and contribute to the Global Stocktake of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, we propose the establishment of a global network for monitoring and modeling N2O from the surface through to the stratosphere. The data presented in this work can be downloaded from https://doi.org/10.18160/RQ8P-2Z4R (Tian et al., 2023). 

Abstract. Land surface modellers need measurable proxies toconstrain the quantity of carbon dioxide (CO2) assimilated bycontinental plants through photosynthesis, known as gross primary production(GPP). Carbonyl sulfide (COS), which is taken up by leaves through theirstomates and then hydrolysed by photosynthetic enzymes, is a candidate GPPproxy. A former study with the ORCHIDEE land surface model used a fixedratio of COS uptake to CO2 uptake normalised to respective ambientconcentrations for each vegetation type (leaf relative uptake, LRU) tocompute vegetation COS fluxes from GPP. The LRU approach is known to havelimited accuracy since the LRU ratio changes with variables such asphotosynthetically active radiation (PAR): while CO2 uptake slows underlow light, COS uptake is not light limited. However, the LRU approach hasbeen popular for COS–GPP proxy studies because of its ease of applicationand apparent low contribution to uncertainty for regional-scaleapplications. In this study we refined the COS–GPP relationship andimplemented in ORCHIDEE a mechanistic model that describes COS uptake bycontinental vegetation. We compared the simulated COS fluxes againstmeasured hourly COS fluxes at two sites and studied the model behaviour andlinks with environmental drivers. We performed simulations at a global scale,and we estimated the global COS uptake by vegetation to be −756 Gg S yr−1,in the middle range of former studies (−490 to −1335 Gg S yr−1). Basedon monthly mean fluxes simulated by the mechanistic approach in ORCHIDEE, wederived new LRU values for the different vegetation types, ranging between0.92 and 1.72, close to recently published averages for observed values of1.21 for C4 and 1.68 for C3 plants. We transported the COS using the monthlyvegetation COS fluxes derived from both the mechanistic and the LRUapproaches, and we evaluated the simulated COS concentrations at NOAA sites.Although the mechanistic approach was more appropriate when comparing tohigh-temporal-resolution COS flux measurements, both approaches gave similarresults when transporting with monthly COS fluxes and evaluating COSconcentrations at stations. In our study, uncertainties between these twoapproaches are of secondary importance compared to the uncertainties in theCOS global budget, which are currently a limiting factor to the potential ofCOS concentrations to constrain GPP simulated by land surface models on theglobal scale. 

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). 

Abstract. Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere – 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 data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry (EFF) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, respectively, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land-cover change data and bookkeeping models. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its rate of growth (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 (2007–2016), EFF was 9.4 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, ELUC 1.3 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM 4.7 ± 0.1 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN 2.4 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.0 ± 0.8 GtC yr−1, with a budget imbalance BIM of 0.6 GtC yr−1 indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For year 2016 alone, the growth in EFF was approximately zero and emissions remained at 9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1. Also for 2016, ELUC was 1.3 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM was 6.1 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN was 2.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 2.7 ± 1.0 GtC yr−1, with a small BIM of −0.3 GtC. GATM continued to be higher in 2016 compared to the past decade (2007–2016), reflecting in part the high fossil emissions and the small SLAND consistent with El Niño conditions. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 402.8 ± 0.1 ppm averaged over 2016. For 2017, preliminary data for the first 6–9 months indicate a renewed growth in EFF of +2.0 % (range of 0.8 to 3.0 %) based on national emissions projections for China, USA, and India, and projections of gross domestic product (GDP) corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quéré et al., 2016, 2015b, a, 2014, 2013). All results presented here can be downloaded from https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2017 (GCP, 2017).