Description: Knowledge of the spatial distribution of the fluxes of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and their temporal variability as well as flux attribution to natural and anthropogenic processes is essential to monitoring the progress in mitigating anthropogenic emissions under the Paris Agreement and to inform its global stocktake. This study provides a consolidated synthesis of CH4 and N2O emissions using bottom-up (BU) and top-down (TD) approaches for the European Union and UK (EU27 + UK) and updates earlier syntheses (Petrescu et al., 2020, 2021). The work integrates updated emission inventory data, process-based model results, data-driven sector model results and inverse modeling estimates, and it extends the previous period of 1990–2017 to 2019. BU and TD products are compared with European national greenhouse gas inventories (NGHGIs) reported by parties under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2021. Uncertainties in NGHGIs, as reported to the UNFCCC by the EU and its member states, are also included in the synthesis. Variations in estimates produced with other methods, such as atmospheric inversion models (TD) or spatially disaggregated inventory datasets (BU), arise from diverse sources including within-model uncertainty related to parameterization as well as structural differences between models. By comparing NGHGIs with other approaches, the activities included are a key source of bias between estimates, e.g., anthropogenic and natural fluxes, which in atmospheric inversions are sensitive to the prior geospatial distribution of emissions. For CH4 emissions, over the updated 2015–2019 period, which covers a sufficiently robust number of overlapping estimates, and most importantly the NGHGIs, the anthropogenic BU approaches are directly comparable, accounting for mean emissions of 20.5 Tg CH4 yr−1 (EDGARv6.0, last year 2018) and 18.4 Tg CH4 yr−1 (GAINS, last year 2015), close to the NGHGI estimates of 17.5±2.1 Tg CH4 yr−1. TD inversion estimates give higher emission estimates, as they also detect natural emissions. Over the same period, high-resolution regional TD inversions report a mean emission of 34 Tg CH4 yr−1. Coarser-resolution global-scale TD inversions result in emission estimates of 23 and 24 Tg CH4 yr−1 inferred from GOSAT and surface (SURF) network atmospheric measurements, respectively. The magnitude of natural peatland and mineral soil emissions from the JSBACH–HIMMELI model, natural rivers, lake and reservoir emissions, geological sources, and biomass burning together could account for the gap between NGHGI and inversions and account for 8 Tg CH4 yr−1. For N2O emissions, over the 2015–2019 period, both BU products (EDGARv6.0 and GAINS) report a mean value of anthropogenic emissions of 0.9 Tg N2O yr−1, close to the NGHGI data (0.8±55 % Tg N2O yr−1). Over the same period, the mean of TD global and regional inversions was 1.4 Tg N2O yr−1 (excluding TOMCAT, which reported no data). The TD and BU comparison method defined in this study can be operationalized for future annual updates for the calculation of CH4 and N2O budgets at the national and EU27 + UK scales. Future comparability will be enhanced with further steps involving analysis at finer temporal resolutions and estimation of emissions over intra-annual timescales, which is of great importance for CH4 and N2O, and may help identify sector contributions to divergence between prior and posterior estimates at the annual and/or inter-annual scale. Even if currently comparison between CH4 and N2O inversion estimates and NGHGIs is highly uncertain because of the large spread in the inversion results, TD inversions inferred from atmospheric observations represent the most independent data against which inventory totals can be compared. With anticipated improvements in atmospheric modeling and observations, as well as modeling of natural fluxes, TD inversions may arguably emerge as the most powerful tool for verifying emission inventories for CH4, N2O and other GHGs.

Description: Published

Description: 1197–1268

Description: OSA2: Evoluzione climatica: effetti e loro mitigazione

Description: JCR Journal

Description: © The Author(s), 2014. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Earth System Science Data 6 (2014): 235-263, doi:10.5194/essd-6-235-2014.

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, consistency within and among components, alongside methodology and data limitations. CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel combustion and cement production (EFF) are based on energy statistics, 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 for the first time in this budget 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). 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 (2003–2012), EFF was 8.6 ± 0.4 GtC yr−1, ELUC 0.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, GATM 4.3 ± 0.1 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN 2.5 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 2.8 ± 0.8 GtC yr−1. For year 2012 alone, EFF grew to 9.7 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, 2.2% above 2011, reflecting a continued growing trend in these emissions, GATM was 5.1 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN was 2.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, and assuming an ELUC of 1.0 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 (based on the 2001–2010 average), SLAND was 2.7 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1. GATM was high in 2012 compared to the 2003–2012 average, almost entirely reflecting the high EFF. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 392.52 ± 0.10 ppm averaged over 2012. We estimate that EFF will increase by 2.1% (1.1–3.1%) to 9.9 ± 0.5 GtC in 2013, 61% above emissions in 1990, based on projections of world gross domestic product and recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy. With this projection, cumulative emissions of CO2 will reach about 535 ± 55 GtC for 1870–2013, about 70% from EFF (390 ± 20 GtC) and 30% from ELUC (145 ± 50 GtC).

Description: We thank the many researchers and funding agencies responsible for the collection and quality control of the data included in SOCAT, and the support of the International Ocean Carbon Coordination Project (IOCCP), the Surface Ocean Lower Atmosphere Study (SOLAS), and the Integrated Marine Biogeochemistry and Ecosystem Research program (IMBER). The UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) provided funding to C. Le Quéré, R. Moriarty and the GCP though their International Opportunities Fund specifically to support this publication (project NE/103002X/1). R. J. Andres and T. A. Boden were supported by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research (BER) programs under US Department of Energy contract DE-AC05- 00OR22725. G. P. Peters and R. M. Andrews were supported by the Norwegian Research Council (221355). A. Arneth, A. Omar, C. Le Quéré, J. Schwinger, P. Ciais, P. Friedlingstein, P. Regnier, J. Segschneider, S. Sitch and S. Zaehle were supported by the EU FP7 for funding through projects GEOCarbon (283080), COMBINE (226520), CARBOCHANGE (264879), EMBRACE (GA282672), and LUC4C (GA603542). A. Harper was supported by the NERC Joint Weather and Climate Research Programme. 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 programs (DOE DE-SC0006706) and NASA LCLUC program (NASA NNX14AD94G). B. D. Stocker was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation. A. Wiltshire was supported by the Joint UK DECC/Defra Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme (GA01101). E. Kato was supported by the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (S-10) of the Ministry of Environment of Japan. J. G. Canadell and M. R. Raupach were supported by the Australian Climate Change Science Program. J. I. House was supported by a Leverhulme Research Fellowship. S. C. Doney was supported by the US National Science Foundation (NSF AGS-1048827).