• Energy Research

Abstract. Regional land carbon budgets provide insights on the spatial distribution of the land uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and can be used to evaluate carbon cycle models and to define baselines for land-based additional mitigation efforts. The scientific community has been involved in providing observation-based estimates of regional carbon budgets either by downscaling atmospheric CO2 observations into surface fluxes with atmospheric inversions, by using inventories of carbon stock changes in terrestrial ecosystems, by upscaling local field observations such as flux towers with gridded climate and remote sensing fields or by integrating data-driven or process-oriented terrestrial carbon cycle models. The first coordinated attempt to collect regional carbon budgets for nine regions covering the entire globe in the RECCAP-1 project has delivered estimates for the decade 2000–2009, but these budgets were not comparable between regions, due to different definitions and component fluxes reported or omitted. The recent recognition of lateral fluxes of carbon by human activities and rivers, that connect CO2 uptake in one area with its release in another also requires better definition and protocols to reach harmonized regional budgets that can be summed up to the globe and compared with the atmospheric CO2 growth rate and inversion results. In this study, for the international initiative RECCAP-2 coordinated by the Global Carbon Project, which aims as an update of regional carbon budgets over the last two decades based on observations, for 10 regions covering the globe, with a better harmonization that the precursor project, we provide recommendations for using atmospheric inversions results to match bottom-up carbon accounting and models, and we define the different component fluxes of the net land atmosphere carbon exchange that should be reported by each research group in charge of each region. Special attention is given to lateral fluxes, inland water fluxes and land use fluxes.

AbstractIn the framework of the RECCAP2 initiative, we present the greenhouse gas (GHG) and carbon (C) budget of Europe. For the decade of the 2010s, we present a bottom‐up (BU) estimate of GHG net‐emissions of 3.9 Pg CO2‐eq. yr−1 (using a global warming potential on a 100 years horizon), which are largely dominated by fossil fuel emissions. In this decade, terrestrial ecosystems acted as a net GHG sink of 0.9 Pg CO2‐eq. yr−1, dominated by a CO2 sink that was partially counterbalanced by net emissions of CH4 and N2O. For CH4 and N2O, we find good agreement between BU and top‐down (TD) estimates from atmospheric inversions. However, our BU land CO2 sink is significantly higher than the TD estimates. We further show that decadal averages of GHG net‐emissions have declined by 1.2 Pg CO2‐eq. yr−1 since the 1990s, mainly due to a reduction in fossil fuel emissions. In addition, based on both data driven BU and TD estimates, we also find that the land CO2 sink has weakened over the past two decades. A large part of the European CO2 and C sinks is located in Northern Europe. At the same time, we find a decreasing trend in sink strength in Scandinavia, which can be attributed to an increase in forest management intensity. These are partly offset by increasing CO2 sinks in parts of Eastern Europe and Northern Spain, attributed in part to land use change. Extensive regions of high CH4 and N2O emissions are mainly attributed to agricultural activities and are found in Belgium, the Netherlands and the southern UK. We further analyzed interannual variability in the GHG budgets. The drought year of 2003 shows the highest net‐emissions of CO2 and of all GHGs combined.

AbstractTwo major droughts in the past decade had large impacts on carbon exchange in the Amazon. Recent analysis of vertical profile measurements of atmospheric CO2 and CO by Gatti et al. (2014) suggests that the 2010 drought turned the normally close‐to‐neutral annual Amazon carbon balance into a substantial source of nearly 0.5 PgC/yr, revealing a strong drought response. In this study, we revisit this hypothesis and interpret not only the same CO2/CO vertical profile measurements but also additional constraints on carbon exchange such as satellite observations of CO, burned area, and fire hot spots. The results from our CarbonTracker South America data assimilation system suggest that carbon uptake by vegetation was indeed reduced in 2010 but that the magnitude of the decrease strongly depends on the estimated 2010 and 2011 biomass burning emissions. We have used fire products based on burned area (Global Fire Emissions Database version 4), satellite‐observed CO columns (Infrared Atmospheric Sounding Interferometer), fire radiative power (Global Fire Assimilation System version 1), and fire hot spots (Fire Inventory from NCAR version 1), and found an increase in biomass burning emissions in 2010 compared to 2011 of 0.16 to 0.24 PgC/yr. We derived a decrease of biospheric uptake ranging from 0.08 to 0.26 PgC/yr, with the range determined from a set of alternative inversions using different biomass burning estimates. Our numerical analysis of the 2010 Amazon drought results in a total reduction of carbon uptake of 0.24 to 0.50 PgC/yr and turns the balance from carbon sink to source. Our findings support the suggestion that the hydrological cycle will be an important driver of future changes in Amazonian carbon exchange.

Abstract. 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 the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. 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 land-cover change data and bookkeeping models. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its rate of growth (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 our imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade available (2007–2016), EFF was 9.4 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, ELUC 1.3 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM 4.7 ± 0.1 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN 2.4 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.0 ± 0.8 GtC yr−1, with a budget imbalance BIM of 0.6 GtC yr−1 indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For year 2016 alone, the growth in EFF was approximately zero and emissions remained at 9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1. Also for 2016, ELUC was 1.3 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM was 6.1 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN was 2.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 and SLAND was 2.7 ± 1.0 GtC yr−1, with a small BIM of −0.3 GtC. GATM continued to be higher in 2016 compared to the past decade (2007–2016), reflecting in part the higher fossil emissions and smaller SLAND for that year consistent with El Niño conditions. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 402.8 ± 0.1 ppm averaged over 2016. For 2017, preliminary data indicate a renewed growth in EFF of +2.0 % (range of 0.8 % to 3.0 %) based on national emissions projections for China, USA, and India, and projections of Gross Domestic Product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. For 2017, initial data indicate an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration of around 5.3 GtC (2.5 ppm), attributed to a combination of increasing emissions and receding El Niño conditions. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quéré et al., 2016; 2015b; 2015a; 2014; 2013). All results presented here can be downloaded from https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2017.