ALBERT

Description: Sediments were sampled at nine stations on a transect across a 7–10 m thick Holocene mud layer in Aarhus Bay, Denmark, to investigate the linkages between CH4 dynamics and the rate and depth distribution of organic matter degradation. High-resolution sulfate reduction rates determined by tracer experiments (35S-SRR) decreased by several orders of magnitude down through the mud layer. The rates showed a power law dependency on sediment age: SRR (nmol cm−3 d−1) = 106.18 × Age−2.17. The rate data were used to independently quantify enhanced SO42− transport by bioirrigation. Field data (SO42–, TCO2, T13CO2, NH4+ and CH4 concentrations) could be simulated with a reaction-transport model using the derived bioirrigation rates and assuming that the power law was continuous into the methanogenic sediments below the sulfate-methane transition zone (SMTZ). The model predicted an increase in anaerobic organic carbon mineralization rates across the transect from 2410 to 3540 nmol C cm−2 d−1 caused by an increase in the sediment accumulation rate. Although methanogenesis accounted for only ∼1% of carbon mineralization, a large relative increase in methanogenesis along the transect led to a considerable shallowing of the SMTZ from 428 to 257 cm. Methane gas bubbles appeared once a threshold in the sedimentation accumulation rate was surpassed. The 35S-measured SRR data indicated active sulfate reduction throughout the SO42− zone whereas quasi-linear SO42− gradients over the same zone indicated insignificant sulfate reduction. This apparent inconsistency, observed at all stations, was reconciled by considering the transport of SO42− into the sediment by bioirrigation, which accounted for 94 ± 2% of the total SO42− flux across the sediment-water interface. The SRR determined from the quasi-linear SO42− gradients were two orders of magnitude lower than measured rates. We conclude that models solely based on SO42− concentration gradients will not capture high SRRs at the top of the sulfate reduction zone if they do not properly account for (i) SO42− influx by bioirrigation, and/or (ii) the continuity of organic matter reactivity with sediment depth or age.

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).