Suchergebnisse

With the international goals of the Paris Agreement and the growing number of time-bound national goals for emissions reductions, reliable estimates of CO(2) emissions are becoming more and more important. In particular, reducing the time lag of these estimates and producing short-term projections are gaining importance as the remaining time until mitigation deadlines becomes shorter. The Global Carbon Project has been producing a current-year projection of global CO(2) emissions since 2012, introducing a sub-projection for the European Union in 2018. The success of this EU projection has been variable, and in this article I explore how the projections in 2019 were made along with some of the reasons why the projections have high uncertainty and bias. About 84% of the total error in the projection of EU emissions in 2019 was because of a poor projection for coal consumption, which was a result of poor estimates of sub-annual observations, a misunderstanding of conflicting information, and poor assumptions applied to the remainder of the year. The correction of the errors identified here will go some way to improving future short-term projections of the European Union's CO(2) emissions, paving the way for a low-maintenance, operational system.

Colophon; Contents ; Summary ; Summary of the key messages ; Response to key questions ; What are the data requirements and possibilities? ; How to use and interpret such estimates and calculations? ; With what degree of certainty and reliability? ; With what validity for illuminating critical environmental goals, targets and boundaries? ; What are the differences between environmental footprint for carbon dioxide emissions and land, water, energy and material use?

Policy makers have called for a 'fair and ambitious' global climate agreement. Scientific constraints, such as the allowable carbon emissions to avoid exceeding a 2 °C global warming limit with 66% probability, can help define ambitious approaches to climate targets. However, fairly sharing the mitigation challenge to meet a global target involves human values rather than just scientific facts. We develop a framework based on cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide to compare the consistency of countries' current emission pledges to the ambition of keeping global temperatures below 2 °C, and, further, compare two alternative methods of sharing the remaining emission allowance. We focus on the recent pledges and other official statements of the EU, USA, and China. The EU and US pledges are close to a 2 °C level of ambition only if the remaining emission allowance is distributed based on current emission shares, which is unlikely to be viewed as 'fair and ambitious' by others who presently emit less. China's stated emissions target also differs from measures of global fairness, owing to emissions that continue to grow into the 2020s. We find that, combined, the EU, US, and Chinese pledges leave little room for other countries to emit CO[subscript 2] if a 2 °C limit is the objective, essentially requiring all other countries to move towards per capita emissions 7 to 14 times lower than the EU, USA, or China by 2030. We argue that a fair and ambitious agreement for a 2 °C limit that would be globally inclusive and effective in the long term will require stronger mitigation than the goals currently proposed. Given such necessary and unprecedented mitigation and the current lack of availability of some key technologies, we suggest a new diplomatic effort directed at ensuring that the necessary technologies become available in the near future.

Government policies during the COVID-19 pandemic have drastically altered patterns of energy demand around the world. Many international borders were closed and populations were confined to their homes, which reduced transport and changed consumption patterns. Here we compile government policies and activity data to estimate the decrease in CO 2 emissions during forced confinements. Daily global CO 2 emissions decreased by –17% (–11 to –25% for ±1σ) by early April 2020 compared with the mean 2019 levels, just under half from changes in surface transport. At their peak, emissions in individual countries decreased by –26% on average. The impact on 2020 annual emissions depends on the duration of the confinement, with a low estimate of –4% (–2 to –7%) if prepandemic conditions return by mid-June, and a high estimate of –7% (–3 to –13%) if some restrictions remain worldwide until the end of 2020. Government actions and economic incentives postcrisis will likely influence the global CO 2 emissions path for decades.

Government policies during the COVID-19 pandemic have drastically altered patterns of energy demand around the world. Many international borders were closed and populations were confined to their homes, which reduced transport and changed consumption patterns. Here we compile government policies and activity data to estimate the decrease in CO2 emissions during forced confinements. Daily global CO2 emissions decreased by –17% (–11 to –25% for ±1σ) by early April 2020 compared with the mean 2019 levels, just under half from changes in surface transport. At their peak, emissions in individual countries decreased by –26% on average. The impact on 2020 annual emissions depends on the duration of the confinement, with a low estimate of –4% (–2 to –7%) if prepandemic conditions return by mid-June, and a high estimate of –7% (–3 to –13%) if some restrictions remain worldwide until the end of 2020. Government actions and economic incentives postcrisis will likely influence the global CO2 emissions path for decades.

Emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and removals from land, including both anthropogenic and natural fluxes, require reliable quantification, including estimates of uncertainties, to support credible mitigation action under the Paris Agreement. This study provides a state-of-the-art scientific overview of bottom-up anthropogenic emissions data from agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) in the European Union (EU28 1 ). The data integrate recent AFOLU emission inventories with ecosystem data and land carbon models and summarize GHG emissions and removals over the period 1990–2016. This compilation of bottom-up estimates of the AFOLU GHG emissions of European national greenhouse gas inventories (NGHGIs), with those of land carbon models and observation-based estimates of large-scale GHG fluxes, aims at improving the overall estimates of the GHG balance in Europe with respect to land GHG emissions and removals. Whenever available, we present uncertainties, its propagation and role in the comparison of different estimates. While NGHGI data for the EU28 provide consistent quantification of uncertainty following the established IPCC Guidelines, uncertainty in the estimates produced with other methods needs to account for both within model uncertainty and the spread from different model results. The largest inconsistencies between EU28 estimates are mainly due to different sources of data related to human activity, referred to here as activity data (AD) and methodologies (tiers) used for calculating emissions and removals from AFOLU sectors. The referenced datasets related to figures are visualized at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3662371 (Petrescu et al., 2020).

Emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and removals from land, including both anthropogenic and natural fluxes, require reliable quantification, including estimates of uncertainties, to support credible mitigation action under the Paris Agreement. This study provides a state-of-the-art scientific overview of bottom-up anthropogenic emissions data from agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) in the European Union (EU281). The data integrate recent AFOLU emission inventories with ecosystem data and land carbon models and summarize GHG emissions and removals over the period 1990–2016. This compilation of bottom-up estimates of the AFOLU GHG emissions of European national greenhouse gas inventories (NGHGIs), with those of land carbon models and observation-based estimates of large-scale GHG fluxes, aims at improving the overall estimates of the GHG balance in Europe with respect to land GHG emissions and removals. Whenever available, we present uncertainties, its propagation and role in the comparison of different estimates. While NGHGI data for the EU28 provide consistent quantification of uncertainty following the established IPCC Guidelines, uncertainty in the estimates produced with other methods needs to account for both within model uncertainty and the spread from different model results. The largest inconsistencies between EU28 estimates are mainly due to different sources of data related to human activity, referred to here as activity data (AD) and methodologies (tiers) used for calculating emissions and removals from AFOLU sectors. The referenced datasets related to figures are visualized at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3662371 (Petrescu et al., 2020).

Emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) and removals from land, including both anthropogenic and natural fluxes, require reliable quantification, along with estimates of their inherent uncertainties, in order to support credible mitigation action under the Paris Agreement. This study provides a state-of-the-art scientific overview of bottom-up anthropogenic emissions data from agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) in Europe. The data integrates recent AFOLU emission inventories with ecosystem data and land carbon models, covering the European Union (EU28) and summarizes GHG emissions and removals over the period 1990–2016, of relevance for UNFCCC. This compilation of bottom-up estimates of the AFOLU GHG emissions of European national greenhouse gas inventories (NGHGI) with those of land carbon models and observation-based estimates of large-scale GHG fluxes, aims at improving the overall estimates of the GHG balance in Europe with respect to land GHG emissions and removals. Particular effort is devoted to the estimation of uncertainty, its propagation and role in the comparison of different estimates. While NGHGI data for EU28 provides consistent quantification of uncertainty following the established IPCC guidelines, uncertainty in the estimates produced with other methods will need to account for both within model uncertainty and the spread from different model results. At EU28 level, the largest inconsistencies between estimates are mainly due to different sources of data related to human activity which result in emissions or removals taking place during a given period of time (IPCC 2006) referred here as activity data (AD) and methodologies (Tiers) used for calculating emissions/removals from AFOLU sectors. The referenced datasets related to figures are visualised at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3460311 , Petrescu et al., 2019.

Reliable quantification of the sources and sinks of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), including that of their trends and uncertainties, is essential to monitoring the progress in mitigating anthropogenic emissions under the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. This study provides a consolidated synthesis of estimates for all anthropogenic and natural sources and sinks of CO2 for the European Union and UK (EU27 + UK), derived from a combination of state-of-the-art bottom-up (BU) and top-down (TD) data sources and models. Given the wide scope of the work and the variety of datasets involved, this study focuses on identifying essential questions which need to be answered to properly understand the differences between various datasets, in particular with regards to the less-well-characterized fluxes from managed ecosystems. The work integrates recent emission inventory data, process-based ecosystem model results, data-driven sector model results and inverse modeling estimates over the period 1990-2018. BU and TD products are compared with European national greenhouse gas inventories (NGHGIs) reported under the UNFCCC in 2019, aiming to assess and understand the differences between approaches. For the uncertainties in NGHGIs, we used the standard deviation obtained by varying parameters of inventory calculations, reported by the member states following the IPCC Guidelines. Variation in estimates produced with other methods, like atmospheric inversion models (TD) or spatially disaggregated inventory datasets (BU), arises from diverse sources including within-model uncertainty related to parameterization as well as structural differences between models. In comparing NGHGIs with other approaches, a key source of uncertainty is that related to different system boundaries and emission categories (CO2 fossil) and the use of different land use definitions for reporting emissions from land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) activities (CO2 land). At the EU27 + UK level, the NGHGI (2019) fossil CO2 emissions (including cement production) account for 2624 Tg CO2 in 2014 while all the other seven bottom-up sources are consistent with the NGHGIs and report a mean of 2588 (± 463 Tg CO2). The inversion reports 2700 Tg CO2 (± 480 Tg CO2), which is well in line with the national inventories. Over 2011-2015, the CO2 land sources and sinks from NGHGI estimates report-90 Tg C yr-1 ± 30 Tg C yr-1 while all other BU approaches report a mean sink of-98 Tg C yr-1 (± 362 Tg of C from dynamic global vegetation models only). For the TD model ensemble results, we observe a much larger spread for regional inversions (i.e., mean of 253 Tg C yr-1 ± 400 Tg C yr-1). This concludes that (a) current independent approaches are consistent with NGHGIs and (b) their uncertainty is too large to allow a verification because of model differences and probably also because of the definition of "CO2 flux"obtained from different approaches. The referenced datasets related to figures are visualized.

Reliable quantification of the sources and sinks of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), including that of their trends and uncertainties, is essential to monitoring the progress in mitigating anthropogenic emissions under the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. This study provides a consolidated synthesis of estimates for all anthropogenic and natural sources and sinks of CO 2 for the European Union and UK (EU27 + UK), derived from a combination of state-of-the-art bottom-up (BU) and top-down (TD) data sources and models. Given the wide scope of the work and the variety of datasets involved, this study focuses on identifying essential questions which need to be answered to properly understand the differences between various datasets, in particular with regards to the less-well-characterized fluxes from managed ecosystems. The work integrates recent emission inventory data, process-based ecosystem model results, data-driven sector model results and inverse modeling estimates over the period 1990–2018. BU and TD products are compared with European national greenhouse gas inventories (NGHGIs) reported under the UNFCCC in 2019, aiming to assess and understand the differences between approaches. For the uncertainties in NGHGIs, we used the standard deviation obtained by varying parameters of inventory calculations, reported by the member states following the IPCC Guidelines. Variation in estimates produced with other methods, like atmospheric inversion models (TD) or spatially disaggregated inventory datasets (BU), arises from diverse sources including within-model uncertainty related to parameterization as well as structural differences between models. In comparing NGHGIs with other approaches, a key source of uncertainty is that related to different system boundaries and emission categories (CO 2 fossil) and the use of different land use definitions for reporting emissions from land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) activities (CO 2 land). At the EU27 + UK level, the NGHGI (2019) fossil CO 2 emissions (including cement production) account for 2624 Tg CO 2 in 2014 while all the other seven bottom-up sources are consistent with the NGHGIs and report a mean of 2588 ( ± 463 Tg CO 2 ). The inversion reports 2700 Tg CO 2 ( ± 480 Tg CO 2 ), which is well in line with the national inventories. Over 2011–2015, the CO 2 land sources and sinks from NGHGI estimates report −90 Tg C yr −1 ± 30 Tg C yr −1 while all other BU approaches report a mean sink of −98 Tg C yr −1 ( ± 362 Tg of C from dynamic global vegetation models only). For the TD model ensemble results, we observe a much larger spread for regional inversions (i.e., mean of 253 Tg C yr −1 ± 400 Tg C yr −1 ). This concludes that (a) current independent approaches are consistent with NGHGIs and (b) their uncertainty is too large to allow a verification because of model differences and probably also because of the definition of "CO 2 flux" obtained from different approaches. The referenced datasets related to figures are visualized at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4626578 (Petrescu et al., 2020a).

Reliable quantification of the sources and sinks of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), including that of their trends and uncertainties, is essential to monitoring the progress in mitigating anthropogenic emissions under the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. This study provides a consolidated synthesis of estimates for all anthropogenic and natural sources and sinks of CO 2 for the European Union and UK (EU27 + UK), derived from a combination of state-of-the-art bottom-up (BU) and top-down (TD) data sources and models. Given the wide scope of the work and the variety of datasets involved, this study focuses on identifying essential questions which need to be answered to properly understand the differences between various datasets, in particular with regards to the less-well characterized fluxes from managed ecosystems. The work integrates recent emission inventory data, process-based ecosystem model results, data-driven sector model results, and inverse modelling estimates, over the period 1990–2018. BU and TD products are compared with European national GHG inventories (NGHGI) reported under the UNFCCC in 2019, aiming to assess and understand the differences between approaches. For the uncertainties in NGHGI, we used the standard deviation obtained by varying parameters of inventory calculations, reported by the Member States following the IPCC guidelines. Variation in estimates produced with other methods, like atmospheric inversion models (TD) or spatially disaggregated inventory datasets (BU), arise from diverse sources including within-model uncertainty related to parameterization as well as structural differences between models. In comparing NGHGI with other approaches, a key source of uncertainty is that related to different system boundaries and emission categories (CO 2 fossil) and the use of different land use definitions for reporting emissions from Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) activities (CO 2 land). At the EU27 + UK level, the NGHGI (2019) fossil CO 2 emissions (including cement production) account for 2624 Tg CO 2 in 2014 while all the other seven bottom-up sources are consistent with the NGHGI and report a mean of 2588 (± 463 Tg CO 2 ). The inversion reports 2700 Tg CO 2 (± 480 Tg CO 2 ), well in line with the national inventories. Over 2011–2015, the CO 2 land sources/sinks from NGHGI estimates report −90 Tg C yr −1 ± 30 Tg C while all other BU approaches report a mean sink of −98 Tg yr −1 (± 362 Tg C from DGVMs only). For the TD model ensemble results, we observe a much larger spread for regional inversions (i.e., mean of 253 Tg C yr −1 ± 400 T g C yr −1 ). This concludes that a) current independent approaches are consistent with NGHGI b) their uncertainty is too large to allow a verification because of model differences and probably also because of the definition of CO 2 flux obtained from different approaches. The referenced datasets related to figures are visualized at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4288883 (Petrescu et al., 2020).

Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) 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 CO 2 emissions (EFF) 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 CO 2 concentration is measured directly and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO 2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrial CO 2 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 imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade available (2009-2018), EFF was 9:5±0:5 GtC yr -1 , ELUC 1:5±0:7 GtC yr -1 , GATM 4:9±0:02 GtC yr -1 (2:3±0:01 ppm yr -1 ), SOCEAN 2:5±0:6 GtC yr -1 , and SLAND 3:2±0:6 GtC yr -1 , with a budget imbalance BIM of 0.4 GtC yr -1 indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2018 alone, the growth in EFF was about 2.1% and fossil emissions increased to 10:0±0:5 GtC yr -1 , reaching 10 GtC yr -1 for the first time in history, ELUC was 1:5±0:7 GtC yr -1 , for total anthropogenic CO 2 emissions of 11:5±0:9 GtC yr -1 (42:5±3:3 GtCO 2 ). Also for 2018, GATM was 5:1±0:2 GtC yr -1 (2:4±0:1 ppm yr -1 ), SOCEAN was 2:6±0:6 GtC yr -1 , and SLAND was 3:5±0:7 GtC yr -1 , with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO 2 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 EFF of C0:6% (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 -1 persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO 2 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 CO 2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent underestimation of the CO 2 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). The data generated by this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2019 (Friedlingstein et al., 2019).

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 (EFF) 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) 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 imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade available (2009–2018), EFF was 9.5±0.5 GtC yr−1, ELUC 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM 4.9±0.02 GtC yr−1 (2.3±0.01 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN 2.5±0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.2±0.6 GtC yr−1, with a budget imbalance BIM of 0.4 GtC yr−1 indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2018 alone, the growth in EFF was about 2.1 % and fossil emissions increased to 10.0±0.5 GtC yr−1, reaching 10 GtC yr−1 for the first time in history, ELUC was 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, for total anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 11.5±0.9 GtC yr−1 (42.5±3.3 GtCO2). Also for 2018, GATM was 5.1±0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.4±0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 2.6±0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, with a BIM 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 EFF 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−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 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). The data generated by this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2019 (Friedlingstein et al., 2019).

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 (EFF) 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) 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 imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade available (2009–2018), EFF was 9.5±0.5 GtC yr−1, ELUC 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM 4.9±0.02 GtC yr−1 (2.3±0.01 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN 2.5±0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.2±0.6 GtC yr−1, with a budget imbalance BIM of 0.4 GtC yr−1 indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2018 alone, the growth in EFF was about 2.1 % and fossil emissions increased to 10.0±0.5 GtC yr−1, reaching 10 GtC yr−1 for the first time in history, ELUC was 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, for total anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 11.5±0.9 GtC yr−1 (42.5±3.3 GtCO2). Also for 2018, GATM was 5.1±0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.4±0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 2.6±0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, with a BIM 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 EFF 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−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 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). The data generated by this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2019 (Friedlingstein et al., 2019). ; ISSN:1866-3516 ; ISSN:1866-3508

Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions and their redistributionamong the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere – the "global carbon budget" – is important to betterunderstand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climatechange. Here we describe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO₂ emissions (EFF) are based on energy statistics and cement productiondata, while emissions from land use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land usechange 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) and terrestrial CO₂ sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting car-bon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changesin 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), EFF was 9.5±0.5 GtC yr⁻¹, ELUC 1.5±0.7 GtC yr⁻¹, GATM4.9±0.02 GtC yr⁻¹ (2.3±0.01 ppm yr⁻¹), SOCEAN 2.5±0.6 GtC yr⁻¹, and SLAND 3.2±0.6 GtC yr⁻¹, with a budget imbalance BIM of 0.4 GtC yr⁻¹ indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2018 alone, the growth in EFFwas about 2.1 %and fossil emissions increased to 10.0±0.5 GtC yr⁻¹, reaching 10 GtC yr⁻¹ for the first time in history, ELUC was 1.5±0.7 GtC yr⁻¹, for total anthropogenic CO emissions of 11.5±0.9 GtC yr⁻¹ (42.5±3.3 Gt CO₂). Alsofor 2018,GATM was 5.1±0.2 GtC yr⁻¹(2.4±0.1 ppm yr⁻¹), SOCEAN was 2.6±0.6 GtC yr⁻¹, and SLAND was 3.5±0.7 GtC yr⁻¹, with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 407.38±0.1 ppmaveraged over 2018. For 2019, preliminary data for the first 6–10 months indicate a reduced growth in EFF of +0.6 % (range of −0.2 % to 1.5 %) based on national emissions projections for China, the USA, the EU, andIndia 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 budgetare consistently estimated over the period 1959–2018, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr⁻¹ persist for the rep-resentation of semi-decadal variability in CO₂ fluxes. A detailed comparison among individual estimates and theintroduction of a broad range of observations shows (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land use changeemissions over the last decade, (2) a persistent low agreement between the different methods on the magnitudeof the land CO₂ flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent underestimation of the CO₂ variability byocean models outside the tropics. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets usedin this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared withprevious publications of this data set (Le Quéré et al., 2018a, b, 2016, 2015a, b, 2014, 2013).