Search results

The assessment of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and air pollutants emitted to and removed from the atmosphere ranks high on international political and scientific agendas. Growing international concern and cooperation regarding the climate change problem have increased the need to consider the uncertainty in inventories of GHG emissions. The approaches to address uncertainty discussed in this special issue reflect attempts to improve national inventories, not only for their own sake but also from a wider, system analytic perspective. They seek to strengthen the usefulness of national emission inventories under a compliance and/or global monitoring and reporting framework. The papers in this special issue demonstrate the benefits of including inventory uncertainty in policy analyses. The issues raised by the authors and featured in their papers, along with the role that uncertainty analysis plays in many of their arguments, highlight the challenges and the importance of dealing with uncertainty. While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) clearly stresses the value of conducting uncertainty analyses and offers guidance on executing them, the arguments made here in favor of performing these studies go well beyond any suggestions made by the IPCC to date. Improving and conducting uncertainty analyses are needed to develop a clear understanding and informed policy. Uncertainty matters and is key to many issues related to inventorying and reducing emissions. Considering uncertainty helps to avoid situations that can create a false sense of certainty or lead to invalid views of subsystems. Dealing proactively with uncertainty allows for the generation of useful knowledge that the international community should have to hand while strengthening the 2015 Paris Agreement, which had been agreed at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). However, considering uncertainty does not come free. Proper treatment of uncertainty is demanding because it forces us to take the step from "simple to complex" and to grasp a holistic system view. Only, thereafter, can we consider potential simplifications. That is, comprehensive treatment of uncertainty does not necessarily offer quick or easy solutions for policymakers. This special issue brings together 13 papers that resulted from the 2015 (4th) International Workshop on Uncertainty in Atmospheric Emissions, in Cracow, Poland. While they deal with many different aspects of the uncertainty in emission estimates, they are guided by the same principal question: "What GHGs shall be verified at what spatio-temporal scale to support conducive legislation at local and national scales, while ensuring effective governance at the global scale?" This question is at the heart of mitigation and adaptation. It requires an understanding of the entire system of GHG sources and sinks, their spatial characteristics and the temporal scales at which they react and interact, the uncertainty (accuracy and/or precision) with which fluxes can be measured, and last but not least, the consequences that follow from all of the aforementioned aspects, for policy actors to frame compliance and/or global monitoring and reporting agreements. This bigger system context serves as a reference for the papers in the special issue, irrespective of their spatio-temporal focus, and is used as a guide for the reader.

The assessment of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and air pollutants emitted to and removed from the atmosphere ranks high on international political and scientific agendas. Growing international concern and cooperation regarding the climate change problem have increased the need to consider the uncertainty in inventories of GHG emissions. The approaches to address uncertainty discussed in this special issue reflect attempts to improve national inventories, not only for their own sake but also from a wider, system analytic perspective. They seek to strengthen the usefulness of national emission inventories under a compliance and/or global monitoring and reporting framework. The papers in this special issue demonstrate the benefits of including inventory uncertainty in policy analyses. The issues raised by the authors and featured in their papers, along with the role that uncertainty analysis plays in many of their arguments, highlight the challenges and the importance of dealing with uncertainty. While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) clearly stresses the value of conducting uncertainty analyses and offers guidance on executing them, the arguments made here in favor of performing these studies go well beyond any suggestions made by the IPCC to date. Improving and conducting uncertainty analyses are needed to develop a clear understanding and informed policy. Uncertainty matters and is key to many issues related to inventorying and reducing emissions. Considering uncertainty helps to avoid situations that can create a false sense of certainty or lead to invalid views of subsystems. Dealing proactively with uncertainty allows for the generation of useful knowledge that the international community should have to hand while strengthening the 2015 Paris Agreement, which had been agreed at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). However, considering uncertainty does not come free. Proper treatment of uncertainty is demanding because it forces us to take the step from "simple to complex" and to grasp a holistic system view. Only, thereafter, can we consider potential simplifications. That is, comprehensive treatment of uncertainty does not necessarily offer quick or easy solutions for policymakers. This special issue brings together 13 papers that resulted from the 2015 (4th) International Workshop on Uncertainty in Atmospheric Emissions, in Cracow, Poland. While they deal with many different aspects of the uncertainty in emission estimates, they are guided by the same principal question: "What GHGs shall be verified at what spatio-temporal scale to support conducive legislation at local and national scales, while ensuring effective governance at the global scale?" This question is at the heart of mitigation and adaptation. It requires an understanding of the entire system of GHG sources and sinks, their spatial characteristics and the temporal scales at which they react and interact, the uncertainty (accuracy and/or precision) with which fluxes can be measured, and last but not least, the consequences that follow from all of the aforementioned aspects, for policy actors to frame compliance and/or global monitoring and reporting agreements. This bigger system context serves as a reference for the papers in the special issue, irrespective of their spatio-temporal focus, and is used as a guide for the reader.

Open access journal ; This is the final version of the article. Available from Copernicus Publications via the DOI in this record. ; Accurate assessments of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the climate policy process, and project future climate change. Present-day analysis requires the combination of a range of data, algorithms, statistics and model estimates and their interpretation by a broad scientific community. Here we describe datasets and a methodology developed by the global carbon cycle science community to quantify all major components of the global carbon budget, including their uncertainties. We discuss changes compared to previous estimates, consistency within and among components, and methodology and data limitations. CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production (EFF) are based on energy statistics, while emissions from Land-Use Change (ELUC), including deforestation, are based on combined evidence from land cover change data, fire activity in regions undergoing deforestation, and models. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its rate of growth (GATM) is computed from the concentration. The mean ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) is based on observations from the 1990s, while the annual anomalies and trends are estimated with ocean models. Finally, the global residual terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) is estimated by the difference of the other terms. For the last decade available (2002-2011), EFF was 8.3 ± 0.4 PgC yr-1, ELUC 1.0 ± 0.5 PgC yr-1, GATM 4.3 ± 0.1PgC yr-1, SOCEAN 2.5 ± 0.5 PgC yr-1, and SLAND 2.6 ± 0.8 PgC yr-1. For year 2011 alone, EFF was 9.5 ± 0.5 PgC yr -1, 3.0 percent above 2010, reflecting a continued trend in these emissions; ELUC was 0.9 ± 0.5 PgC yr-1, approximately constant throughout the decade; GATM was 3.6 ± 0.2 PgC yr-1, SOCEAN was 2.7 ± 0.5 PgC yr-1, and SLAND was 4.1 ± 0.9 PgC yr-1. GATM was low in 2011 compared to the 2002-2011 average because of a high uptake by the land probably in response to natural climate variability associated to La Niña conditions in the Pacific Ocean. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 391.31 ± 0.13 ppm at the end of year 2011. We estimate that EFF will have increased by 2.6% (1.9-3.5%) in 2012 based on projections of gross world product and recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy. All uncertainties are reported as ±1 sigma (68% confidence assuming Gaussian error distributions that the real value lies within the given interval), reflecting the current capacity to characterise the annual estimates of each component of the global carbon budget. This paper is intended to provide a baseline to keep track of annual carbon budgets in the future. © 2013 Author(s). ; We thank all people and institutions who provided data used in this carbon budget, in particular, G. Hurt, L. Chini, and I. Harris. The observations and modelling analysis were possible thanks to funding from multiple agencies around the world. The UK Natural Environment Research Council provided funding to CLQ and the GCP though their International Opportunities Fund specifically to support this publication (project NE/103002X/1). CLQ, PC, SZ, and JS thank the EU FP7 for funding through projects GEOCarbon (283080), COMBINE (226520) and CARBOCHANGE (264879). GPP and RMA acknowledge support from the Norwegian Research Council (221355/E10). SCD acknowledges support from the US National Science Foundation (NSF AGS-1048827). JH was supported by a Leverhulme Research Fellowship and the Cabot Institute, University of Bristol. RJA and TAB were sponsored by US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research (BER) programs and performed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) under US Department of Energy contract DE-AC05-00OR22725. CH was supported by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology "Science Budget". EK was supported by the Global Environment Research Fund (S-10) of the Ministry of Environment of Japan. GrvdW was supported by the European Research Council. BDS was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation. AA acknowledges the Mistra-SWECIA programme and the strategic research areas MERGE, BECC and LUCCI. AKJ is funded by the NASA LCLUC Program (No. NNX08AK75G) and the Office of Science (BER), US Department of Energy (DOE-DE-SC0006706).

Journal Article ; Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere 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 a methodology to quantify all major components of the global carbon budget, including their uncertainties, based on the combination of a range of data, algorithms, statistics and model estimates and their interpretation by a broad scientific community. We discuss changes compared to previous estimates, consistency within and among components, alongside methodology and data limitations. CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel combustion and cement production (EFF) are based on energy statistics, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on combined evidence from land-cover change data, fire activity associated with deforestation, and models. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its rate of growth (G ATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The mean ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) is based on observations from the 1990s, while the annual anomalies and trends are estimated with ocean models. The variability in SOCEAN is evaluated for the first time in this budget with data products based on surveys of ocean CO2 measurements. The global residual terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) is estimated by the difference of the other terms of the global carbon budget and compared to results of independent dynamic global vegetation models forced by observed climate, CO2 and land cover change (some including nitrogen-carbon interactions). All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ , reflecting the current capacity to characterise the annual estimates of each component of the global carbon budget. For the last decade available (2003-2012), EFF was 8.6±0.4 GtC yr-1, ELUC 0.9±0.5 GtC yr-1, GATM 4.3±0.1 GtC yr-1, SOCEAN 2.5±0.5 GtC yr -1, and SLAND 2.8±0.8 GtC yr-1. For year 2012 alone, EFF grew to 9.7±0.5 GtC yr-1, 2.2% above 2011, reflecting a continued growing trend in these emissions, G ATM was 5.1±0.2 GtC yr-1, SOCEAN was 2.9±0.5 GtC yr-1, and assuming an ELUC of 1.0±0.5 GtC yr-1 (based on the 2001-2010 average), S LAND was 2.7±0.9 GtC yr-1. GATM was high in 2012 compared to the 2003-2012 average, almost entirely reflecting the high EFF. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 392.52±0.10 ppm averaged over 2012. We estimate that EFF will increase by 2.1% (1.1- 3.1 %) to 9.9±0.5 GtC in 2013, 61% above emissions in 1990, based on projections of world gross domestic product and recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy.With this projection, cumulative emissions ofCO2 will reach about 535±55 GtC for 1870-2013, about 70% from EFF (390±20 GtC) and 30% from ELUC (145±50 GtC). This paper also documents any changes in the methods and data sets used in this new carbon budget from previous budgets (Le Quéré et al., 2013). All observations presented here can be downloaded from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (doi:10.3334/CDIAC/GCP-2013-V2.3). © 2014 Author(s) CC Attribution 3.0 License. ; International Ocean Carbon Coordination Project (IOCCP) ; Surface Ocean Lower Atmosphere Study (SOLAS) ; Integrated Marine Biogeochemistry and Ecosystem Research program (IMBER) ; NERC ; International Opportunities Fund ; US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research (BER) ; Norwegian Research Council ; EU FP7 for funding through projects GEOCarbon, COMBINE, CARBOCHANGE, EMBRACE, and LUC4C ; US National Science Foundation ; NASA LCLUC program ; Swiss National Science Foundation ; Joint UK DECC/Defra Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme ; Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (S-10) of the Ministry of Environment of Japan ; Australian Climate Change Science Program ; Leverhulme Research Fellowship

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).