Suchergebnisse

Scenario-based approaches provide decision makers with accessible storylines of potential future changes. The parameterisation of such storylines as input variables for integrated assessment models allows using models as a test bed for assessing the effects of alternative land use policy options in different scenarios. However, the potential of this kind of policy-screening analysis can be further improved by assessing the institutional compatibility of the policy options under review. The aim of this paper is to explore the added value of combining institutions-oriented policy analyses with scenario-modelling approaches for improved assessments of EU land use policy options. We describe an expert-based, stepwise process to combine four scenario storylines and two integrated assessment model approaches (CLIMSAVE & IMAGE-GLOBIO) with a procedure for institutional compatibility assessment. Among the subsidies we assessed were those for technology-driven intensification of agricultural production, which would contribute to decreasing demand for cropland across a range of scenarios. In regionalised policy designs, they also contribute to ecological effectiveness, and higher costs of governing. Subsidies to promote biomass production can have negative effects on ecosystems including land conversion, conversion of grassland into cropland as well as conversion of natural forests into managed forests. These effects can to some extent be mitigated by careful policy design which considers the institutional context and features cross-sectoral coordination. An integrated Ecosystem Services Framework policy could accommodate regionalised policy designs and cross-sectoral coordination, however, it can operate only under specific circumstances and needs particular efforts. Rural development approaches are another alternative which feature expansion of cropland by means of a large-scale, bottom-up transformation based on voluntary changes in behaviour, flexibility, participation, and local and regional collaboration. Apart ...

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 +/- 1 sigma. For the last decade available (2009-2018), E-FF was 9.5 +/- 0.5 GtC yr 1, E-LUC 1.5 +/- 0.7 GtC yr 1, G(ATM) 4.9 +/- 0.02 GtC yr(-1) (2.3 +/- 0.01 ppm yr(-1)), S-OCEAN 2.5 +/- 0.6 GtC yr(-1), and S-LAND 3.2 +/- 0.6 GtC yr(-1), with a budget imbalance B-IM of 0.4 GtC yr(-1) 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 1, reaching 10 GtC yr(-1) for the first time in history, E-LUC 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 GtCO(2)). Also for 2018, G(ATM) was 5.1 +/- 0.2 GtC yr(-1) (2.4 +/- 0.1 ppm yr(-1)), S-OCEAN was 2.6 +/- 0.6 GtC yr(-1), and S-LAND was 3.5 +/- 0.7 GtC yr(-1), 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(-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 Quere et al., 2018a, b, 2016, 2015a, b, 2014, 2013).

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 and 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 (2008–2017), EFF was 9.4±0.5 GtC yr−1, ELUC 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM 4.7±0.02 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN 2.4±0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.2±0.8 GtC yr−1, with a budget imbalance BIM of 0.5 GtC yr−1 indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2017 alone, the growth in EFF was about 1.6 % and emissions increased to 9.9±0.5 GtC yr−1. Also for 2017, ELUC was 1.4±0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM was 4.6±0.2 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN was 2.5±0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.8±0.8 GtC yr−1, with a BIM 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 EFF 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 Quéré et al., 2018, 2016, 2015a, b, 2014, 2013). All results presented here can be downloaded from https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2018.

This is the final version of the article. Available from the publisher via the DOI in this record. ; The Surface Ocean CO2 Atlas (SOCAT) is a synthesis of quality-controlled fCO2 (fugacity of carbon dioxide) values for the global surface oceans and coastal seas with regular updates. Version 3 of SOCAT has 14.7 million fCO2 values from 3646 data sets covering the years 1957 to 2014. This latest version has an additional 4.6 million fCO2 values relative to version 2 and extends the record from 2011 to 2014. Version 3 also significantly increases the data availability for 2005 to 2013. SOCAT has an average of approximately 1.2 million surface water fCO2 values per year for the years 2006 to 2012. Quality and documentation of the data has improved. A new feature is the data set quality control (QC) flag of E for data from alternative sensors and platforms. The accuracy of surface water fCO2 has been defined for all data set QC flags. Automated range checking has been carried out for all data sets during their upload into SOCAT. The upgrade of the interactive Data Set Viewer (previously known as the Cruise Data Viewer) allows better interrogation of the SOCAT data collection and rapid creation of high-quality figures for scientific presentations. Automated data upload has been launched for version 4 and will enable more frequent SOCAT releases in the future. Highprofile scientific applications of SOCAT include quantification of the ocean sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide and its long-term variation, detection of ocean acidification, as well as evaluation of coupled-climate and ocean-only biogeochemical models. Users of SOCAT data products are urged to acknowledge the contribution of data providers, as stated in the SOCAT Fair Data Use Statement. This ESSD (Earth System Science Data) "living data" publication documents the methods and data sets used for the assembly of this new version of the SOCAT data collection and compares these with those used for earlier versions of the data collection (Pfeil et al., 2013; Sabine et al., 2013; Bakker et al., 2014). Individual data set files, included in the synthesis product, can be downloaded here: doi:10.1594/PANGAEA.849770. The gridded products are available here: doi:10.3334/CDIAC/OTG.SOCAT-V3-GRID. ; Research vessel Tiglax in Columbia Bay, Alaska, is shown on the website for SOCAT version 3. The Columbia Glacier can be seen at the head of the bay, as well as calved ice from the glacier. The photo was taken by Wiley Evans. Pete Brown (National Oceanography Centre Southampton, UK) designed the SOCAT logo. IOCCP (via a US National Science Foundation grant (OCE-124 3377) to the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research), IOC-UNESCO (International Oceanographic Commission of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), SOLAS and IMBER provided travel and meeting support. Funding was received from the University of East Anglia (UK), the Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research (Norway), the Geophysical Institute at the University of Bergen (Norway) and the University of Washington (US). The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) made important financial contributions via the Climate Observation Division of the Climate Program Office, the NOAA Ocean Acidification Program, the NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL), the NOAA Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory (AOML) and the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory. Funding was also received from Oak Ridge National Laboratory (US), PANGAEA® Data Publisher for Earth and Environmental Science (Germany), the Alfred Wegener Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (Germany), the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (Australia), the National Institute for Environmental Studies (Japan) and Uni Research (Norway). Research projects making SOCAT possible included the European Union projects CarboChange (FP7 264879), GEOCARBON (FP7 283080) and AtlantOS (633211), the UK Ocean Acidification Research Programme (NE/H017046/1; funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and the Departments for Energy and Climate Change and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)) and the UK Shelf Sea Biogeochemistry Blue Carbon project (NE/K00168X/1; funded by NERC and Defra). Numerous government and funding agencies financially supported SOCAT, notably the Australian International Marine Observing System, the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) (US), the European Space Agency, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF projects 01LK1224J, 01LK1101C, 01LK1101E, ICOS-D), the Japanese Ministry of the Environment, the Royal Society of New Zealand via the New Zealand–Germany Science and Technology Programme, the Norwegian Research Council (SNACS, 229752), the Swedish Research Council (project 2004-4034) and the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (Formas, project 2004- 797). This is PMEL contribution number 4441. Finally, we thank the two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful, constructive and insightful reviews