Global Carbon Budget 2020

Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Judith Hauck, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Stephen Sitch, Corinne Le Quéré, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone Alin, Luiz E.O.C. Aragão, Almut Arneth, Vivek Arora, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike BeckerAlice Benoit-Cattin, Henry C. Bittig, Laurent Bopp, Selma Bultan, Naveen Chandra, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Wiley Evans, Liesbeth Florentie, Piers M. Forster, Thomas Gasser, Marion Gehlen, Dennis Gilfillan, Thanos Gkritzalis, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Ian Harris, Kerstin Hartung, Vanessa Haverd, Richard A. Houghton, Tatiana Ilyina, Atul K. Jain, Emilie Joetzjer, Koji Kadono, Etsushi Kato, Vassilis Kitidis, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Peter Landschützer, Nathalie Lefèvre, Andrew Lenton, Sebastian Lienert, Zhu Liu, Danica Lombardozzi, Gregg Marland, Nicolas Metzl, David R. Munro, Julia E.M.S. Nabel, Shin Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Kevin O'Brien, Tsuneo Ono, Paul I. Palmer, Denis Pierrot, Benjamin Poulter, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Ingunn Skjelvan, Adam J.P. Smith, Adrienne J. Sutton, Toste Tanhua, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Guido Van Der Werf, Nicolas Vuichard, Anthony P. Walker, Rik Wanninkhof, Andrew J. Watson, David Willis, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

24 Scopus citations

Abstract

Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in a changing climate 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 and synthesize data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFOS) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its growth rate (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 ±1s. For the last decade 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), and ELUC 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 budget imbalance BIM of -0.1 GtC yr-1 indicating a near balance between estimated sources and sinks over the last decade. For the year 2019 alone, the growth in EFOS was only about 0.1 % with fossil emissions increasing to 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 was 5.4 ± 0.2 GtC yr-1 (2.5 ± 0.1 ppm yr-1), SOCEAN was 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 CO2 concentration reached 409.85 ± 0.1 ppm averaged over 2019. Preliminary data for 2020, accounting for the COVID-19-induced changes in emissions, suggest a decrease in EFOS relative to 2019 of about -7 % (median estimate) based on individual estimates from four studies of -6 %, -7 %, -7 % (-3 % to -11 %), and -13 %. Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959 2019, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr-1 persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. Comparison of estimates from diverse approaches and observations shows (1) no consensus in 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 of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent discrepancy between the different methods for the ocean sink outside the tropics, particularly in the Southern Ocean. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared 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).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3269-3340
Number of pages72
JournalEarth System Science Data
Volume12
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 11 2020

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Earth and Planetary Sciences(all)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Global Carbon Budget 2020'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this