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): 47-85, doi:10.5194/essd-7-47-2015.

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, 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 and cement production data, respectively, 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 (2004–2013), EFF was 8.9 ± 0.4 GtC yr−1, ELUC 0.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, GATM 4.3 ± 0.1 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN 2.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 2.9 ± 0.8 GtC yr−1. For year 2013 alone, EFF grew to 9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, 2.3% above 2012, continuing the growth trend in these emissions, ELUC was 0.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, GATM was 5.4 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN was 2.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 2.5 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1. GATM was high in 2013, reflecting a steady increase in EFF and smaller and opposite changes between SOCEAN and SLAND compared to the past decade (2004–2013). The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 395.31 ± 0.10 ppm averaged over 2013. We estimate that EFF will increase by 2.5% (1.3–3.5%) to 10.1 ± 0.6 GtC in 2014 (37.0 ± 2.2 GtCO2 yr−1), 65% above emissions in 1990, based on projections of world gross domestic product and recent changes in the carbon intensity of the global economy. From this projection of EFF and assumed constant ELUC for 2014, cumulative emissions of CO2 will reach about 545 ± 55 GtC (2000 ± 200 GtCO2) for 1870–2014, about 75% from EFF and 25% from ELUC. This paper documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new carbon budget compared with previous publications of this living data set (Le Quéré et al., 2013, 2014). All observations presented here can be downloaded from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (doi:10.3334/CDIAC/GCP_2014).

Description: NERC provided funding to C. Le Quéré, R. Moriarty, and the GCP though their International Opportunities Fund specifically to support this publication (NE/103002X/1), and to U. Schuster through UKOARP (NE/H017046/1). G. P. Peters and R. M. Andrews were supported by the Norwegian Research Council (236296). 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 DEAC05- 00OR22725. Y. Bozec was supported by Region Bretagne, CG29, and INSU (LEFE/MERMEX) for CARBORHONE cruises. J. G. Canadell and M. R. Raupach were supported by the Australian Climate Change Science Programme. M. Hoppema received ICOSD funding through the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) to the AWI (01 LK 1224I). J. I. House was supported by a Leverhulme Early Career Fellowship. 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 the NASA LCLUC programme (NASA NNX14AD94G). E. Kato was supported by the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (S-10) of the Ministry of Environment of Japan. 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. I. D. Lima was supported by the U.S. 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. A. Olsen was supported by the Centre for Climate Dynamics at the Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research. J. E. Salisbury was supported by grants from NOAA/NASA. T. Steinhoff was supported by ICOS-D (BMBF FK 01LK1101C). B. D. Stocker was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation and FP7 funding through project EMBRACE (282672). A. J. Sutton was supported by NOAA. T. Takahashi was supported by grants from NOAA and the Comer Education and Science Foundation. B. Tilbrook was supported by the Australian Department of the Environment and the Integrated Marine Observing System. A.Wiltshire was supported by the Joint UK DECC/Defra Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme (GA01101). P. Ciais,W. Peters, C. Le Quére, P. Regnier, and U. Schuster were supported by the EU FP7 through project GEOCarbon (283080). A. Arneth, P. Ciais, S. Sitch, and A. Wiltshire were supported by COMBINE (226520). V. Kitidis, M. Hoppema, N. Metzl, C. Le Quéré, U. Schuster, J. Schwiger, J. Segschneider, and T. Steinhoff were supported by the EU FP7 through project CARBOCHANGE (264879). A. Arnet, P. Friedlingstein, B. Poulter, and S. Sitch were supported by the EU FP7 through projects LUC4C (GA603542). P. Friedlingstein was also supported by EMBRACE (GA282672). F. Chevallier and G. R. van der Werf were supported by the EU FP7 through project MACC-II (283576).

Description: © The Author(s), 2016. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Earth System Science Data 8 (2016): 605-649, doi:10.5194/essd-8-605-2016.

Description: 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 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 and 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, respectively, 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. 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 (2006–2015), EFF was 9.3 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, ELUC 1.0 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, GATM 4.5 ± 0.1 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN 2.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.1 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1. For year 2015 alone, the growth in EFF was approximately zero and emissions remained at 9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, showing a slowdown in growth of these emissions compared to the average growth of 1.8 % yr−1 that took place during 2006–2015. Also, for 2015, ELUC was 1.3 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, GATM was 6.3 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN was 3.0 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 1.9 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1. GATM was higher in 2015 compared to the past decade (2006–2015), reflecting a smaller SLAND for that year. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 399.4 ± 0.1 ppm averaged over 2015. For 2016, preliminary data indicate the continuation of low growth in EFF with +0.2 % (range of −1.0 to +1.8 %) based on national emissions projections for China and USA, and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. In spite of the low growth of EFF in 2016, the growth rate in atmospheric CO2 concentration is expected to be relatively high because of the persistence of the smaller residual terrestrial sink (SLAND) in response to El Niño conditions of 2015–2016. From this projection of EFF and assumed constant ELUC for 2016, cumulative emissions of CO2 will reach 565 ± 55 GtC (2075 ± 205 GtCO2) for 1870–2016, 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., 2015b, a, 2014, 2013). All observations presented here can be downloaded from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (doi:10.3334/CDIAC/GCP_2016).

Description: Australia, Integrated Marine Observing System and Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC BT; European Commission (EC) Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service, European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) FC; EC H2020 (AtlantOS; grant no. 633211) NL, AO; EC H2020 (CRESCENDO; grant no. 641816) CD, RS, OA, PF; EC H2020 European Research Council (ERC) (QUINCY; grant no. 647204). SZ; EC H2020 ERC Synergy grant (IMBALANCE-P; grant no. ERC-2013-SyG-610028) PC; France, BNP Paribas Foundation grant to support the Global Carbon Atlas PC; French Institut National des Sciences de l’Univers (INSU) and Institut Paul Emile Victor (IPEV) for OISO cruises NM; French Institut de recherche pour le développement (IRD) NL; German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant no. 01LK1224I ICOS-D) MH; German Research Foundation’s Emmy Noether Programme (grant no. PO1751/1-1) JN; German Max Planck Society CR, SZ; Germany, Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) AK; Germany, Helmholtz Postdoc Programme (Initiative and Networking Fund of the Helmholtz Association) JH; Japan Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) OT; Japan Ministry of Environment SN; Japan Ministry of Environment (grant no. ERTDF S-10) EK; NASA LCLUC programme (grant no. NASA NNX14AD94G) AJ; New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) Core Funding KC; Norway Research Council (grant no. 229752) AMO; Norway Research Council (grant no. 569980) GPP, RMA, JIK; Norway Research Council (project EVA; grant no. 229771) JS; Norwegian Environment Agency (grant no. 16078007) IS; Research Fund – Flanders (FWO; formerly Hercules Foundation) TG; South Africa Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) PMSM; UK Natural Environment Research Council (RAGANRAoCC; grant no. NE/K002473/1) US; UK Newton Fund through the Met Office Climate Science for Service Partnership Brazil (CSSP Brazil) AJW; US Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture (grant no. 2015-67003- 23485) DL; US Department of Energy (grant no. DE-FC03-97ER62402/A010) DL; US Department of Energy, Biological and Environmental Research Program, Office of Science (grant no. DE-AC05-00OR22725) APW; US Department of Commerce, NOAA’s Climate Observation Division of the Climate Program Office SRA, AJS; US Department of Energy, Office of Science and BER programme (grant no. DOE DE-SC0016323) AJ; US National Science Foundation (grant no. AGS-1048827) SD; US National Science Foundation (grant no. AOAS-1543457) DRM; US National Science Foundation (grant no. AOAS-1341647) DRM; US NOAA’s Climate Observation Division of the Climate Program Office (grant no. N8R1SE3P00); US NOAA’s Ocean Acidification Program (grant no. N8R3CEAP00) DP, LB; US National Science Foundation (grant no. NSF AGS 12-43071)

Description: © The Author(s), 2019. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Sutton, A. J., Feely, R. A., Maenner-Jones, S., Musielwicz, S., Osborne, J., Dietrich, C., Monacci, N., Cross, J., Bott, R., Kozyr, A., Andersson, A. J., Bates, N. R., Cai, W., Cronin, M. F., De Carlo, E. H., Hales, B., Howden, S. D., Lee, C. M., Manzello, D. P., McPhaden, M. J., Melendez, M., Mickett, J. B., Newton, J. A., Noakes, S. E., Noh, J. H., Olafsdottir, S. R., Salisbury, J. E., Send, U., Trull, T. W., Vandemark, D. C., & Weller, R. A. Autonomous seawater pCO(2) and pH time series from 40 surface buoys and the emergence of anthropogenic trends. Earth System Science Data, 11(1), (2019):421-439, doi:10.5194/essd-11-421-2019.

Description: Ship-based time series, some now approaching over 3 decades long, are critical climate records that have dramatically improved our ability to characterize natural and anthropogenic drivers of ocean carbon dioxide (CO2) uptake and biogeochemical processes. Advancements in autonomous marine carbon sensors and technologies over the last 2 decades have led to the expansion of observations at fixed time series sites, thereby improving the capability of characterizing sub-seasonal variability in the ocean. Here, we present a data product of 40 individual autonomous moored surface ocean pCO2 (partial pressure of CO2) time series established between 2004 and 2013, 17 also include autonomous pH measurements. These time series characterize a wide range of surface ocean carbonate conditions in different oceanic (17 sites), coastal (13 sites), and coral reef (10 sites) regimes. A time of trend emergence (ToE) methodology applied to the time series that exhibit well-constrained daily to interannual variability and an estimate of decadal variability indicates that the length of sustained observations necessary to detect statistically significant anthropogenic trends varies by marine environment. The ToE estimates for seawater pCO2 and pH range from 8 to 15 years at the open ocean sites, 16 to 41 years at the coastal sites, and 9 to 22 years at the coral reef sites. Only two open ocean pCO2 time series, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Hawaii Ocean Time-series Station (WHOTS) in the subtropical North Pacific and Stratus in the South Pacific gyre, have been deployed longer than the estimated trend detection time and, for these, deseasoned monthly means show estimated anthropogenic trends of 1.9±0.3 and 1.6±0.3 µatm yr−1, respectively. In the future, it is possible that updates to this product will allow for the estimation of anthropogenic trends at more sites; however, the product currently provides a valuable tool in an accessible format for evaluating climatology and natural variability of surface ocean carbonate chemistry in a variety of regions. Data are available at https://doi.org/10.7289/V5DB8043 and https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/ocads/oceans/Moorings/ndp097.html (Sutton et al., 2018).

Description: We gratefully acknowledge the major funders of the pCO2 and pH observations: the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce, including resources from the Ocean Observing and Monitoring Division of the Climate Program Office (fund reference number 100007298) and the Ocean Acidification Program. We rely on a long list of scientific partners and technical staff who carry out buoy maintenance, sensor deployment, and ancillary measurements at sea. We thank these partners and their funders for their continued efforts in sustaining the platforms that support these long-term pCO2 and pH observations, including the following institutions: the Australian Integrated Marine Observing System, the Caribbean Coastal Ocean Observing System, Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary, the Marine and Freshwater Research Institute, the Murdock Charitable Trust, the National Data Buoy Center, the National Science Foundation Division of Ocean Sciences, NOAA–Korean Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries Joint Project Agreement, the Northwest Association of Networked Ocean Observing Systems, the Research Moored Array for African-Asian-Australian Monsoon Analysis and Prediction (i.e., RAMA), the University of Washington, the US Integrated Ocean Observing System, and the Washington Ocean Acidification Center. The open ocean sites are part of the OceanSITES program of the Global Ocean Observing System and the Surface Ocean CO2 Observing Network. All sites are also part of the Global Ocean Acidification Observing Network. This paper is PMEL contribution number 4797.