Publication Date:
2022-05-26
Description:
© The Author(s), 2015. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Earth System Science Data 7 (2015): 349–396, doi:10.5194/essd-7-349-2015.
Description:
Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere 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 a methodology to quantify all major components of the global carbon budget, including their uncertainties, based on the combination of a range of data, algorithms, statistics, and model estimates and their interpretation by a broad scientific community. We discuss changes compared to previous estimates as well as consistency within and among components, alongside methodology and data limitations. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry (EFF) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on combined evidence from land-cover-change data, fire activity associated with deforestation, and models. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its rate of growth (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The mean ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) is based on observations from the 1990s, while the annual anomalies and trends are estimated with ocean models. The variability in SOCEAN is evaluated with data products based on surveys of ocean CO2 measurements. The global residual terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) is estimated by the difference of the other terms of the global carbon budget and compared to results of independent dynamic global vegetation models forced by observed climate, CO2, and land-cover change (some including nitrogen–carbon interactions). We compare the mean land and ocean fluxes and their variability to estimates from three atmospheric inverse methods for three broad latitude bands. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ, reflecting the current capacity to characterise the annual estimates of each component of the global carbon budget. For the last decade available (2005–2014), EFF was 9.0 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, ELUC was 0.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, GATM was 4.4 ± 0.1 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN was 2.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.0 ± 0.8 GtC yr−1. For the year 2014 alone, EFF grew to 9.8 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, 0.6 % above 2013, continuing the growth trend in these emissions, albeit at a slower rate compared to the average growth of 2.2 % yr−1 that took place during 2005–2014. Also, for 2014, ELUC was 1.1 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, GATM was 3.9 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN was 2.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 4.1 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1. GATM was lower in 2014 compared to the past decade (2005–2014), reflecting a larger SLAND for that year. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 397.15 ± 0.10 ppm averaged over 2014. For 2015, preliminary data indicate that the growth in EFF will be near or slightly below zero, with a projection of −0.6 [range of −1.6 to +0.5] %, based on national emissions projections for China and the USA, and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the global economy for the rest of the world. From this projection of EFF and assumed constant ELUC for 2015, cumulative emissions of CO2 will reach about 555 ± 55 GtC (2035 ± 205 GtCO2) for 1870–2015, about 75 % from EFF and 25 % from ELUC. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new carbon budget compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quéré et al., 2015, 2014, 2013). All observations presented here can be downloaded from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (doi:10.3334/CDIAC/GCP_2015).
Description:
NERC provided funding to C. Le Quéré, R. Moriarty, and the
GCP through their International Opportunities Fund specifically
to support this publication (NE/103002X/1). G. P. Peters and
R. M. Andrew were supported by the Norwegian Research
Council (236296). J. G. Canadell was supported by the Australian
Climate Change Science Programme. S. Sitch was supported
by EU FP7 for funding through projects LUC4C (GA603542).
R. J. Andres was supported by US Department of Energy, Office
of Science, Biological and Environmental Research (BER)
programmes under US Department of Energy contract DE-AC05-
00OR22725. T. A. Boden was supported by US Department
of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental
Research (BER) programmes under US Department of Energy
contract DE-AC05-00OR22725. J. I. House was supported by the
Leverhulme foundation and the EU FP7 through project LUC4C
(GA603542). P. Friedlingstein was supported by the EU FP7 for
funding through projects LUC4C (GA603542) and EMBRACE
(GA282672). A. Arneth was supported by the EU FP7 for funding
through LUC4C (603542), and the Helmholtz foundation and its
ATMO programme. D. C. E. Bakker was supported by the EU
FP7 for funding through project CARBOCHANGE (284879), the
UK Ocean Acidification Research Programme (NE/H017046/1;
funded by the Natural Environment Research Council, the Department
for Energy and Climate Change and the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). L. Barbero was supported
by NOAA’s Ocean Acidification Program and acknowledges support for this work from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) ROSES Carbon Cycle Science under
NASA grant 13-CARBON13_2-0080. P. Ciais acknowledges
support from the European Research Council through Synergy
grant ERC-2013-SyG-610028 “IMBALANCE-P”. M. Fader was
supported by the EU FP7 for funding through project LUC4C
(GA603542). J. Hauck was supported by the Helmholtz Postdoc
Programme (Initiative and Networking Fund of the Helmholtz
Association). R. A. Feely and A. J. Sutton were supported by the
Climate Observation Division, Climate Program Office, NOAA,
US Department of Commerce. A. K. Jain was supported by the
US National Science Foundation (NSF AGS 12-43071) the US
Department of Energy, Office of Science and BER programmes
(DOE DE-SC0006706) and NASA LCLUC programme (NASA
NNX14AD94G). E. Kato was supported by the ERTDF (S-10)
from the Ministry of Environment, Japan. K. Klein Goldewijk
was supported by the Dutch NWO VENI grant no. 863.14.022.
S. K. Lauvset was supported by the project “Monitoring ocean
acidification in Norwegian waters” from the Norwegian Ministry
of Climate and Environment. V. Kitidis was supported by the EU
FP7 for funding through project CARBOCHANGE (264879).
C. Koven was supported by the Director, Office of Science, Office
of Biological and Environmental Research of the US Department
of Energy under contract no. DE-AC02-05CH11231 as part of their
Regional and Global Climate Modeling Program. P. Landschützer
was supported by GEOCarbon. I. T. van der Lann-Luijkx received
financial support from OCW/NWO for ICOS-NL and computing
time from NWO (SH-060-13). I. D. Lima was supported by the
US National Science Foundation (NSF AGS-1048827). N. Metzl
was supported by Institut National des Sciences de l’Univers
(INSU) and Institut Paul Emile Victor (IPEV) for OISO cruises.
D. R. Munro was supported by the US National Science Foundation
(NSF PLR-1341647 and NSF AOAS-0944761). J. E. M. S. Nabel
was supported by the German Research Foundation’s Emmy
Noether Programme (PO1751/1-1) and acknowledges Julia Pongratz
and Kim Naudts for their contributions. Y. Nojiri and
S. Nakaoka were supported by the Global Environment Research
Account for National Institutes (1432) by the Ministry of Environment
of Japan. A. Olsen appreciates support from the Norwegian
Research Council (SNACS, 229752). F. F. Pérez were supported by
BOCATS (CTM2013-41048-P) project co-founded by the Spanish
government and the Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional
(FEDER). B. Pfeil was supported through the European Union’s
Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme AtlantOS under
grant agreement no. 633211. D. Pierrot was supported by NOAA
through the Climate Observation Division of the Climate Program
Office. B. Poulter was supported by the EU FP7 for funding through
GEOCarbon. G. Rehder was supported by BMBF (Bundesministerium
für Bildung und Forschung) through project ICOS, grant
no. 01LK1224D. U. Schuster was supported by NERC UKOARP
(NE/H017046/1), NERC RAGANRoCC (NE/K002473/1), the
European Space Agency (ESA) OceanFlux Evolution project, and
EU FP7 CARBOCHANGE (264879). T. Steinhoff was supported
by ICOS-D (BMBF FK 01LK1101C) and EU FP7 for funding
through project CARBOCHANGE (264879). J. Schwinger was
supported by the Research Council of Norway through project
EVA (229771), and acknowledges the Norwegian Metacenter
for Computational Science (NOTUR, project nn2980k), and the
Norwegian Storage Infrastructure (NorStore, project ns2980k) for supercomputer time and storage resources. T. Takahashi was
supported by grants from NOAA and the Comer Education and
Science Foundation. B. Tilbrook was supported by the Australian
Department of Environment and the Integrated Marine Observing
System. B. D. Stocker was supported by the Swiss National
Science Foundation and FP7 funding through project EMBRACE
(282672). S. van Heuven was supported by the EU FP7 for funding
through project CARBOCHANGE (264879). G. R. van der Werf
was supported by the European Research Council (280061).
A. Wiltshire was supported by the Joint UK DECC/Defra Met
Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme (GA01101) and EU
FP7 Funding through project LUC4C (603542). S. Zaehle was
supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European
Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme
(QUINCY; grant agreement no. 647204). ISAM (PI: Atul K. Jain)
simulations were carried out at the National Energy Research
Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), which is supported by the
US DOE under contract DE-AC02-05CH11231.
Repository Name:
Woods Hole Open Access Server
Type:
Article
Permalink