ALBERT

Description: To assess global carbon cycle variability, we decompose the net land carbon sink into the sum of gross primary productivity (GPP), terrestrial ecosystem respiration (TER), and fire emissions and apply a Bayesian framework to constrain these fluxes between 1980 and 2014. The constrained GPP and TER fluxes show an increasing trend of only half of the prior trend simulated by models. From the optimization, we infer that TER increased in parallel with GPP from 1980 to 1990, but then stalled during the cooler periods, in 1990–1994 coincident with the Pinatubo eruption, and during the recent warming hiatus period. After each of these TER stalling periods, TER is found to increase faster than GPP, explaining a relative reduction of the net land sink. These results shed light on decadal variations of GPP and TER and suggest that they exhibit different responses to temperature anomalies over the last 35 years. ©2018. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.

Description: © The Author(s), 2015. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Biogeosciences 12 (2015): 653-679, doi:10.5194/bg-12-653-2015.

Description: The land and ocean absorb on average just over half of the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) every year. These CO2 "sinks" are modulated by climate change and variability. Here we use a suite of nine dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) and four ocean biogeochemical general circulation models (OBGCMs) to estimate trends driven by global and regional climate and atmospheric CO2 in land and oceanic CO2 exchanges with the atmosphere over the period 1990–2009, to attribute these trends to underlying processes in the models, and to quantify the uncertainty and level of inter-model agreement. The models were forced with reconstructed climate fields and observed global atmospheric CO2; land use and land cover changes are not included for the DGVMs. Over the period 1990–2009, the DGVMs simulate a mean global land carbon sink of −2.4 ± 0.7 Pg C yr−1 with a small significant trend of −0.06 ± 0.03 Pg C yr−2 (increasing sink). Over the more limited period 1990–2004, the ocean models simulate a mean ocean sink of −2.2 ± 0.2 Pg C yr−1 with a trend in the net C uptake that is indistinguishable from zero (−0.01 ± 0.02 Pg C yr−2). The two ocean models that extended the simulations until 2009 suggest a slightly stronger, but still small, trend of −0.02 ± 0.01 Pg C yr−2. Trends from land and ocean models compare favourably to the land greenness trends from remote sensing, atmospheric inversion results, and the residual land sink required to close the global carbon budget. Trends in the land sink are driven by increasing net primary production (NPP), whose statistically significant trend of 0.22 ± 0.08 Pg C yr−2 exceeds a significant trend in heterotrophic respiration of 0.16 ± 0.05 Pg C yr−2 – primarily as a consequence of widespread CO2 fertilisation of plant production. Most of the land-based trend in simulated net carbon uptake originates from natural ecosystems in the tropics (−0.04 ± 0.01 Pg C yr−2), with almost no trend over the northern land region, where recent warming and reduced rainfall offsets the positive impact of elevated atmospheric CO2 and changes in growing season length on carbon storage. The small uptake trend in the ocean models emerges because climate variability and change, and in particular increasing sea surface temperatures, tend to counter\-act the trend in ocean uptake driven by the increase in atmospheric CO2. Large uncertainty remains in the magnitude and sign of modelled carbon trends in several regions, as well as regarding the influence of land use and land cover changes on regional trends.

Description: S. Sitch acknowledges financial support by RCUK through NERC (grant no. NE/J010154/). N. Gruber and C. Heinze acknowledge financial support by the European Commission through the EU FP7 projects CARBOCHANGE (grant no. 264879) and GEOCARBON (grant no. 283080). N. Gruber was additionally supported through ETH Zurich. S. C. Doney acknowledges support from the US National Science Foundation (NSF AGS-1048827). P. Friedlingstein, A. Arneth, and S. Zaehle acknowledge support by the European Commission through the EU FP7 project EMBRACE (grant no. 282672). A. Arneth and S. Sitch acknowledge the support of the European Commission-funded project LUC4C (grant no. 603542). The research leading to these results received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7 2007–2013) under grant agreement no. 238366. A. Ahlström and B. Smith acknowledge funding through the Mistra Swedish Research Programme on Climate, Impacts and Adaptation (SWECIA). C. Heinze acknowledges support from NOTUR/NorStore projects NN2980K and NS2980K.

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.