Search

Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in a changing climate is critical 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 methodologies 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) is estimated with global ocean biogeochemistry models and observation-based data products. The terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) is estimated with dynamic global vegetation models. 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 ±1σ. For the year 2021, EFOS increased by 5.1 % relative to 2020, with fossil emissions at 10.1 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 (9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when the cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 1.1 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, for a total anthropogenic CO2 emission (including the cement carbonation sink) of 10.9 ± 0.8 GtC yr−1 (40.0 ± 2.9 GtCO2). Also, for 2021, GATM was 5.2 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.5 ± 0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 2.9 ± 0.4 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.5 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of −0.6 GtC yr−1 (i.e. the total estimated sources were too low or sinks were too high). The global atmospheric CO2 concentration averaged over 2021 reached 414.71 ± 0.1 ppm. Preliminary data for 2022 suggest an increase in EFOS relative to 2021 of +1.0 % (0.1 % to 1.9 %) globally and atmospheric CO2 concentration reaching 417.2 ppm, more than 50 % above pre-industrial levels (around 278 ppm). Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2021, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of annual to semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. Comparison of estimates from multiple approaches and observations shows (1) a persistent large uncertainty in the estimate of land-use change emissions, (2) a low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extratropics, and (3) a discrepancy between the different methods on the strength of the ocean sink over the last decade. 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. The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2022 (Friedlingstein et al., 2022b).

The Global Carbon Budget 2018 (GCB2018) estimated by the atmospheric CO₂ growth rate, fossil fuel emissions, and modeled (bottom-up) land and ocean fluxes cannot be fully closed, leading to a“budget imbalance,” highlighting uncertainties in GCB components. However, no systematic analysis has been performed on which regions or processes contribute to this term. To obtain deeper insight on the sources of uncertainty in global and regional carbon budgets, we analyzed differences in Net Biome Productivity (NBP) for all possible combinations of bottom-up and top-down data sets in GCB 2018: (i) 16 dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs), and (ii) 5 atmospheric inversions that match the atmospheric CO₂ growth rate. We find that the global mismatch between the two ensembles matches well the GCB 2018 budget imbalance, with Brazil, Southeast Asia, and Oceania as the largest contributors. Differences between DGVMs dominate global mismatches, while at regional scale differences between inversions contribute the most to uncertainty. At both global and regional scales, disagreement on NBP interannual variability between the two approaches explains a large fraction of differences. We attribute this mismatch to distinct responses to El Niño–Southern Oscillation variability between DGVMs and inversions and to uncertainties in land use change emissions, especially in South America and Southeast Asia. We identify key needs to reduce uncertainty in carbon budgets: reducing uncertainty in atmospheric inversions (e.g., through more observations in the tropics) and in land use change fluxes, including more land use processes and evaluating land use transitions (e.g., using high-resolution remote-sensing), and, finally, improving tropical hydroecological processes and fire representation within DGVMs.

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 and 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 +/- 1 sigma. For the last decade available (2008-2017), E-FF was 9.4 +/- 0.5 GtC yr(-1), E-LUC 1.5 +/- 0.7 GtC yr(-1), G(ATM) 4.7 +/- 0.02 GtC yr(-1), S-OCEAN 2.4 +/- 0.5 GtC yr(-1), and S-LAND 3.2 +/- 0.8 GtC yr(-1), with a budget imbalance B-IM of 0.5 GtC yr(-1) indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2017 alone, the growth in E-FF was about 1.6 % and emissions increased to 9.9 +/- 0.5 GtC yr(-1). Also for 2017, E-LUC was 1.4 +/- 0.7 GtC yr(-1), G(ATM) was 4.6 +/- 0.2 GtC yr(-1), S-OCEAN was 2.5 +/- 0.5 GtC yr(-1), and S-LAND was 3.8 +/- 0.8 GtC yr(-1), with a B-IM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 405.0 +/- 0.1 ppm averaged over 2017. For 2018, preliminary data for the first 6-9 months indicate a renewed growth in E-FF of +2.7 % (range of 1.8 % to 3.7 %) based on national emission projections for China, the US, 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. The analysis presented here shows that the mean and trend in the five components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period of 1959-2017, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr(-1) 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 show (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land -use change emissions, (2) a persistent low agreement among 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, originating 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 the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quere et al., 2018, 2016, 2015a, b, 2014, 2013). All results presented here can be downloaded from

Atmospheric CO2 inversions estimate surface carbon fluxes from an optimal fit to atmospheric CO2 measurements, usually including prior constraints on the flux estimates. Eleven sets of carbon flux estimates are compared, generated by different inversions systems that vary in their inversions methods, choice of atmospheric data, transport model and prior information. The inversions were run for at least 5 yr in the period between 1990 and 2010. Mean fluxes for 2001–2004, seasonal cycles, interannual variability and trends are compared for the tropics and northern and southern extra-tropics, and separately for land and ocean. Some continental/basin-scale subdivisions are also considered where the atmospheric network is denser. Four-year mean fluxes are reasonably consistent across inversions at global/latitudinal scale, with a large total (land plus ocean) carbon uptake in the north (−3.4 Pg C yr−1 (±0.5 Pg C yr−1 standard deviation), with slightly more uptake over land than over ocean), a significant although more variable source over the tropics (1.6 ± 0.9 Pg C yr−1) and a compensatory sink of similar magnitude in the south (−1.4 ± 0.5 Pg C yr−1) corresponding mainly to an ocean sink. Largest differences across inversions occur in the balance between tropical land sources and southern land sinks. Interannual variability (IAV) in carbon fluxes is larger for land than ocean regions (standard deviation around 1.06 versus 0.33 Pg C yr−1 for the 1996–2007 period), with much higher consistency among the inversions for the land. While the tropical land explains most of the IAV (standard deviation ~ 0.65 Pg C yr−1), the northern and southern land also contribute (standard deviation ~ 0.39 Pg C yr−1). Most inversions tend to indicate an increase of the northern land carbon uptake from late 1990s to 2008 (around 0.1 Pg C yr−1, predominantly in North Asia. The mean seasonal cycle appears to be well constrained by the atmospheric data over the northern land (at the continental scale), but still highly dependent on the prior flux seasonality over the ocean. Finally we provide recommendations to interpret the regional fluxes, along with the uncertainty estimates.

We present results from an intercomparison program of CO2, delta(O-2/N-2) and delta(CO2)-C-13 measurements from atmospheric flask samples. Flask samples are collected on a biweekly basis at the High Altitude Research Station Jungfraujoch in Switzerland for three European laboratories: the University of Bern, Switzerland, the University of Groningen, the Netherlands and the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany. Almost 4 years of measurements of CO2, delta(O-2/N-2) and delta(CO2)-C-13 are compared in this paper to assess the measurement compatibility of the three laboratories. While the average difference for the CO2 measurements between the laboratories in Bern and Jena meets the required compatibility goal as defined by the World Meteorological Organization, the standard deviation of the average differences between all laboratories is not within the required goal. However, the obtained annual trend and seasonalities are the same within their estimated uncertainties. For delta(O-2/N-2) significant differences are observed between the three laboratories. The comparison for delta(CO2)-C-13 yields the least compatible results and the required goals are not met between the three laboratories. Our study shows the importance of regular intercomparison exercises to identify potential biases between laboratories and the need to improve the quality of atmospheric measurements.

We report results from our atmospheric flask sampling network for three European sites: Lutjewad in the Netherlands, Mace Head in Ireland and the North Sea F3 platform. The air samples from these stations are analyzed for their CO2 and O2 concentrations. In this paper we present the CO2 and O2 data series from these sites between 1998 and 2009, as well as the atmospheric potential oxygen (APO). The seasonal pattern and long term trends agree to a large extent between our three measurement locations. We however find a changing gradient between Mace Head and Lutjewad, both for CO2 and O2. To explain the potential contribution of fossil fuel emissions to this changing gradient we use an atmospheric transport model in combination with CO2 emission data and information on the fossil fuel mix per region. Using the APO trend from Mace Head we obtain an estimate for the global oceanic CO2 uptake of 1.8 ± 0.8 PgC/year.

Since 2004, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is being measured at the High Altitude Research Station Jungfraujoch by the division of Climate and Environmental Physics at the University of Bern (KUP) using a nondispersive infrared gas analyzer (NDIR) in combination with a paramagnetic O2 analyzer. In January 2010, CO2 measurements based on cavity ring-down spectroscopy (CRDS) as part of the Swiss National Air Pollution Monitoring Network were added by the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (Empa). To ensure a smooth transition – a prerequisite when merging two data sets, e.g., for trend determinations – the two measurement systems run in parallel for several years. Such a long-term intercomparison also allows the identification of potential offsets between the two data sets and the collection of information about the compatibility of the two systems on different time scales. A good agreement of the seasonality, short-term variations and, to a lesser extent mainly due to the short common period, trend calculations is observed. However, the comparison reveals some issues related to the stability of the calibration gases of the KUP system and their assigned CO2 mole fraction. It is possible to adapt an improved calibration strategy based on standard gas determinations, which leads to better agreement between the two data sets. By excluding periods with technical problems and bad calibration gas cylinders, the average hourly difference (CRDS – NDIR) of the two systems is −0.03 ppm ± 0.25 ppm. Although the difference of the two data sets is in line with the compatibility goal of ±0.1 ppm of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the standard deviation is still too high. A significant part of this uncertainty originates from the necessity to switch the KUP system frequently (every 12 min) for 6 min from ambient air to a working gas in order to correct short-term variations of the O2 measurement system. Allowing additional time for signal stabilization after switching the sample, an effective data coverage of only one-sixth for the KUP system is achieved while the Empa system has a nearly complete data coverage. Additionally, different internal volumes and flow rates may affect observed differences.

Current estimates of the terrestrial carbon fluxes in Asia show large uncertainties particularly in the boreal and mid-latitudes and in China. In this paper, we present an updated carbon flux estimate for Asia ("Asia" refers to lands as far west as the Urals and is divided into boreal Eurasia, temperate Eurasia and tropical Asia based on TransCom regions) by introducing aircraft CO2 measurements from the CONTRAIL (Comprehensive Observation Network for Trace gases by Airline) program into an inversion modeling system based on the CarbonTracker framework. We estimated the averaged annual total Asian terrestrial land CO2 sink was about -1.56 Pg C yr-1 over the period 2006-2010, which offsets about one-third of the fossil fuel emission from Asia (+4.15 Pg C yr-1). The uncertainty of the terrestrial uptake estimate was derived from a set of sensitivity tests and ranged from -1.07 to -1.80 Pg C yr-1, comparable to the formal Gaussian error of ±1.18 Pg C yr-1 (1-sigma). The largest sink was found in forests, predominantly in coniferous forests (-0.64 ± 0.70 Pg C yr-1) and mixed forests (-0.14 ± 0.27 Pg C yr-1); and the second and third large carbon sinks were found in grass/shrub lands and croplands, accounting for -0.44 ± 0.48 Pg C yr-1 and -0.20 ± 0.48 Pg C yr-1, respectively. The carbon fluxes per ecosystem type have large a priori Gaussian uncertainties, and the reduction of uncertainty based on assimilation of sparse observations over Asia is modest (8.7-25.5%) for most individual ecosystems. The ecosystem flux adjustments follow the detailed a priori spatial patterns by design, which further increases the reliance on the a priori biosphere exchange model. The peak-to-peak amplitude of inter-annual variability (IAV) was 0.57 Pg C yr-1 ranging from -1.71 Pg C yr-1 to -2.28 Pg C yr-1. The IAV analysis reveals that the Asian CO2 sink was sensitive to climate variations, with the lowest uptake in 2010 concurrent with a summer flood and autumn drought and the largest CO2 sink in 2009 owing to favorable temperature and plentiful precipitation conditions. We also found the inclusion of the CONTRAIL data in the inversion modeling system reduced the uncertainty by 11% over the whole Asian region, with a large reduction in the southeast of boreal Eurasia, southeast of temperate Eurasia and most tropical Asian areas.

The 222Radon tracer method is a powerful tool to estimate local and regional surface emissions of, e.g., greenhouse gases. In this paper we demonstrate that in practice, the method as it is commonly used, produces inaccurate results in case of nonhomogeneously spread emission sources, and we propose a different approach to account for this. We have applied the new methodology to ambient observations of CO2 and 222Radon to estimate CO2 surface emissions for the city of Bern, Switzerland. Furthermore, by utilizing combined measurements of CO2 and δ(O2/N2) we obtain valuable information about the spatial and temporal variability of the main emission sources. Mean net CO2 emissions based on 2 years of observations are estimated at (11.2 ± 2.9) kt km−2 a−1. Oxidative ratios indicate a significant influence from the regional biosphere in summer/spring and fossil fuel combustion processes in winter/autumn. Our data indicate that the emissions from fossil fuels are, to a large degree, related to the combustion of natural gas which is used for heating purposes.

We present results from an intercomparison program of CO2, δ(O2/N2) and δ13CO2 measurements from atmospheric flask samples. Flask samples are collected on a bi-weekly basis at the High Altitude Research Station Jungfraujoch in Switzerland for three European laboratories: the University of Bern, Switzerland, the University of Groningen, the Netherlands and the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany. Almost 4 years of measurements of CO2, δ(O2/N2) and δ13CO2 are compared in this paper to assess the measurement compatibility of the three laboratories. While the average difference for the CO2 measurements between the laboratories in Bern and Jena meets the required compatibility goal as defined by the World Meteorological Organization, the standard deviation of the average differences between all laboratories is not within the required goal. However, the obtained annual trend and seasonalities are the same within their estimated uncertainties. For δ(O2/N2) significant differences are observed between the three laboratories. The comparison for δ13CO2 yields the least compatible results and the required goals are not met between the three laboratories. Our study shows the importance of regular intercomparison exercises to identify potential biases between laboratories and the need to improve the quality of atmospheric measurements.

Surface emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion (phi FFCO2) are estimated for the Netherlands for the period of May 2006-June 2009 using ambient atmospheric observations taken at station Lutjewad in the Netherlands (6 degrees 21'E, 53 degrees 24'N, 1 m. a.s.l.). Measurements of delta 14C on 2-weekly integrations of CO2 and CO mixing ratios are combined to construct a quasi-continuous proxy record (FFCO2*) from which surface fluxes (phi FFCO2*) are determined using the 222Rn flux method. The trajectories of the air masses are analysed to determine emissions, which are representative for the Netherlands. We compared our observationally based estimates to the national inventories and we evaluated our methodology using the regional atmospheric transport model REMO. Based on 3 yr of observations we find annual mean phi FFCO2* emissions of (4.7 +/- 1.6) kt km-2 a-1 which is in very good agreement with the Dutch inventories of (4.5 +/- 0.2) kt km-2 a-1 (average of 2006-2008).

The Global Carbon Budget 2018 (GCB2018) estimated by the atmospheric CO 2 growth rate, fossil fuel emissions, and modeled (bottom-up) land and ocean fluxes cannot be fully closed, leading to a “budget imbalance,” highlighting uncertainties in GCB components. However, no systematic analysis has been performed on which regions or processes contribute to this term. To obtain deeper insight on the sources of uncertainty in global and regional carbon budgets, we analyzed differences in Net Biome Productivity (NBP) for all possible combinations of bottom-up and top-down data sets in GCB2018: (i) 16 dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs), and (ii) 5 atmospheric inversions that match the atmospheric CO 2 growth rate. We find that the global mismatch between the two ensembles matches well the GCB2018 budget imbalance, with Brazil, Southeast Asia, and Oceania as the largest contributors. Differences between DGVMs dominate global mismatches, while at regional scale differences between inversions contribute the most to uncertainty. At both global and regional scales, disagreement on NBP interannual variability between the two approaches explains a large fraction of differences. We attribute this mismatch to distinct responses to El Niño–Southern Oscillation variability between DGVMs and inversions and to uncertainties in land use change emissions, especially in South America and Southeast Asia. We identify key needs to reduce uncertainty in carbon budgets: reducing uncertainty in atmospheric inversions (e.g., through more observations in the tropics) and in land use change fluxes, including more land use processes and evaluating land use transitions (e.g., using high-resolution remote-sensing), and, finally, improving tropical hydroecological processes and fire representation within DGVMs.

The Global Carbon Budget 2018 (GCB2018) estimated by the atmospheric CO₂ growth rate, fossil fuel emissions, and modeled (bottom-up) land and ocean fluxes cannot be fully closed, leading to a“budget imbalance,” highlighting uncertainties in GCB components. However, no systematic analysis has been performed on which regions or processes contribute to this term. To obtain deeper insight on the sources of uncertainty in global and regional carbon budgets, we analyzed differences in Net Biome Productivity (NBP) for all possible combinations of bottom-up and top-down data sets in GCB 2018: (i) 16 dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs), and (ii) 5 atmospheric inversions that match the atmospheric CO₂ growth rate. We find that the global mismatch between the two ensembles matches well the GCB 2018 budget imbalance, with Brazil, Southeast Asia, and Oceania as the largest contributors. Differences between DGVMs dominate global mismatches, while at regional scale differences between inversions contribute the most to uncertainty. At both global and regional scales, disagreement on NBP interannual variability between the two approaches explains a large fraction of differences. We attribute this mismatch to distinct responses to El Niño–Southern Oscillation variability between DGVMs and inversions and to uncertainties in land use change emissions, especially in South America and Southeast Asia. We identify key needs to reduce uncertainty in carbon budgets: reducing uncertainty in atmospheric inversions (e.g., through more observations in the tropics) and in land use change fluxes, including more land use processes and evaluating land use transitions (e.g., using high-resolution remote-sensing), and, finally, improving tropical hydroecological processes and fire representation within DGVMs.