Search

Robust estimates of CO2 budget, CO2 exchanged between the atmosphere and terrestrial biosphere, are necessary to better understand the role of the terrestrial biosphere in mitigating anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Over the past decade, this field of research has advanced through understanding of the differences and similarities of two fundamentally different approaches: “top‐down” atmospheric inversions and “bottom‐up” biosphere models. Since the first studies were undertaken, these approaches have shown an increasing level of agreement, but disagreements in some regions still persist, in part because they do not estimate the same quantity of atmosphere–biosphere CO2 exchange. Here, we conducted a thorough comparison of CO2 budgets at multiple scales and from multiple methods to assess the current state of the science in estimating CO2 budgets. Our set of atmospheric inversions and biosphere models, which were adjusted for a consistent flux definition, showed a high level of agreement for global and hemispheric CO2 budgets in the 2000s. Regionally, improved agreement in CO2 budgets was notable for North America and Southeast Asia. However, large gaps between the two methods remained in East Asia and South America. In other regions, Europe, boreal Asia, Africa, South Asia, and Oceania, it was difficult to determine whether those regions act as a net sink or source because of the large spread in estimates from atmospheric inversions. These results highlight two research directions to improve the robustness of CO2 budgets: (a) to increase representation of processes in biosphere models that could contribute to fill the budget gaps, such as forest regrowth and forest degradation; and (b) to reduce sink–source compensation between regions (dipoles) in atmospheric inversion so that their estimates become more comparable. Advancements on both research areas will increase the level of agreement between the top‐down and bottom‐up approaches and yield more robust knowledge of regional CO2 budgets.

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. Fossil CO2 emissions (E(FF)) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land use change (E(LUC)), 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 (G(ATM)) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (S(OCEAN)) and terrestrial CO2 sink (S(LAND)) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (B(IM)), 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 ±1σ. For the last decade available (2009–2018), E(FF) was 9.5±0.5 GtC/yr, E(LUC) 1.5±0.7 GtC/yr, G(ATM) 4.9±0.02 GtC/yr (2.3±0.01 ppm/yr), S(OCEAN) 2.5±0.6 GtC/yr, and S(LAND) 3.2±0.6 GtC/yr, with a budget imbalance B(IM) of 0.4 GtC/yr indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2018 alone, the growth in E(FF) was about 2.1 % and fossil emissions increased to 10.0±0.5 GtC/yr, reaching 10 GtC/yr for the first time in history, E(LUC) was 1.5±0.7 GtC/yr, for total anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 11.5±0.9 GtC/yr (42.5±3.3 GtCO2). Also for 2018, G(ATM) was 5.1±0.2 GtC/yr (2.4±0.1 ppm/yr), S(OCEAN) was 2.6±0.6 GtC/yr, and S(LAND) was 3.5±0.7 GtC/yr, with a B(IM) of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 407.38±0.1 ppm averaged over 2018. For 2019, preliminary data for the first 6–10 months indicate a reduced growth in E(FF) of +0.6 % (range of −0.2 % to 1.5 %) based on national emissions projections for China, the USA, the EU, 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. Overall, the mean and trend in the five components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2018, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC/yr persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. A detailed comparison among individual estimates and the introduction of a broad range of 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 underestimation of the CO2 variability by ocean models outside the tropics. 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 (Le Quéré et al., 2018a, b, 2016, 2015a, b, 2014, 2013).