Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “carbon budget”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

How does uncertainty of soil organic carbon stock affect the calculation of carbon budgets and soil carbon credits for croplands in the U.S. Midwest?

Cropland carbon budget depicts the amount of carbon flowing in and out of agroecosystems and the changes in carbon stocks of soil and living biomass during the same period. Soil carbon credit is the additional change in soil carbon stock under certain farming practices compared with the business-as-usual practices. Accurately calculating cropland carbon budget and soil carbon credit is critical to assessing climate change mitigation potential in agroecosystems. The calculation of cropland carbon budget and soil carbon credit is sensitive to local soil and climatic conditions, especially initial soil organic carbon (SOC) stock, which is determined by both SOC concentration (SOC%) and bulk density (Bulk_Density). SOC stock data are either from soil sampling or gridded public survey data. In agroecosystem models, SOC stock data are a key model input for quantifying cropland carbon budget and soil carbon credit. However, various types and degrees of uncertainties exist in SOC stock datasets, which propagate to the quantification of SOC stock change. In particular, a large discrepancy is found in two widely used SOC stock datasets — Rapid Carbon Assessment dataset (RaCA) and Gridded Soil Survey Geographic Database (gSSURGO) — in the U.S. Midwest, with a relative difference (quantified using Normalized Root Mean Square Error, NRMSE) of 48.0% for 0–30 cm SOC stock between the two datasets. It remains largely unclear how uncertainty in SOC stocks affects the calculation of cropland carbon budget and soil carbon credit. To address this question, we used a well-validated process-based agroecosystem model, ecosys, to assess the impacts of SOC stock uncertainty on carbon budget and soil carbon credit calculation in the U.S. Midwestern corn-soybean rotation systems. Our results reveal the following findings: (1) A sizable discrepancy exists in simulated cropland carbon budget between using gSSURGO and using RaCA for their SOC% and Bulk_Density as model inputs, with a Pearson correlation coefficient (r) of only 0.4 for simulated change of SOC stock (ΔSOC) using these two different soil datasets. (2) Simulated cropland carbon budget components were more sensitive to initial SOC% than to Bulk_Density. For example, the upper and lower quartiles of multi-year averaged ΔSOC were –29.8 and 4.8 gC/m 2 /year for the selected counties respectively, with an uncertainty of 13.7 and 0.7 gC/m 2 /year induced by uncertainties in initial SOC% and Bulk_Density, respectively. (3) Both simulated ΔSOC and its uncertainty were negatively correlated with initial SOC%, whereas ΔSOC was negatively correlated with air temperature, and ΔSOC uncertainty was positively correlated with air temperature. (4) The uncertainty of calculated soil carbon credits was much smaller compared with the uncertainty of calculated absolute carbon budgets assuming the same SOC stock uncertainty level in the inputs. Specifically, in our assessment comparing planting cover crops vs no cover crop, the uncertainty of calculated soil carbon credits induced by initial SOC% uncertainty was less than 4% (relative to the quantified value of the soil carbon credits) for 90% of the cases. Our analysis highlights that high accuracy measurement of SOC% as inputs is needed for the calculation of cropland carbon budgets; however, soil carbon credit quantification is much less sensitive to the initial SOC% inputs, and the current publicly available soil datasets (e.g., gSSURGO) are largely suitable for the calculation of soil

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2016

Global Carbon Budget 2016

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 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 and consistency within and among components, alongside methodology and data limitations. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry (EFF) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, respectively, 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 (GATM) 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 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. We compare the mean land and ocean fluxes and their variability to estimates from three atmospheric inverse methods for three broad latitude bands. All uncertainties are reported as +/- 1(sigma), reflecting the current capacity to characterize the annual estimates of each component of the global carbon budget. For the last decade available (2006-2015), EFF was 9.3+/-0.5 GtC/yr, ELUC 1.0+/-0.5 GtC/yr,GATM 4.5+/-0.1 GtC/yr, SOCEAN 2.6+/-0.5 GtC/yr, and SLAND 3.1+/-0.9 GtC/yr. For year 2015 alone, the growth in EFF was approximately zero and emissions remained at 9.9+/-0.5 GtC/yr, showing a slowdown in growth of these emissions compared to the average growth of 1.8/yr that took place during 2006-2015.Also, for 2015, ELUC was 1.3+/-0.5 GtC/yr, GATM was 6.3+/-0.2 GtC/yr, SOCEAN was 3.0+/-0.5 GtC/yr, and SLAND was 1.9+/-0.9 GtC/yr. GATM was higher in 2015 compared to the past decade (2006-2015), reflecting a smaller SLAND for that year. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 399.4+/-0.1 ppm averaged over 2015. For 2016, preliminary data indicate the continuation of low growth in EFF with +0.2% (range of -1.0 to +1.8% ) based on national emissions projections for China and USA, and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. In spite of the low growth of EFF in 2016, the growth rate in atmospheric CO2 concentration is expected to be relatively high because of the persistence of the smaller residual terrestrial sink (SLAND) in response to El Nino conditions of 2015-2016. From this projection of EFF and assumed constant ELUC for 2016, cumulative emissions of CO2 will reach 565+/-55 GtC (2075+/-205 GtCO2) for 1870-2016, about 75% from EFF and 25% from ELUC. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new carbon budget compared with previous publications of this data set.

Quéré, Corinne Le↗
NASA NTRS2019

Global Carbon Budget 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 (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).

global carbon budget 2019↗
DOE OSTI2026

Global Carbon Budget 2025

Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) 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 synthesise datasets and methodologies to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO 2 emissions (E FOS ) are based on energy and cement production data. Emissions from land-use change (E LUC ) are estimated by bookkeeping models based on land-use data. The global atmospheric CO 2 growth rate (G ATM ) is computed from changes in concentration measured at surface stations. The global net uptake of CO 2 by the ocean (S OCEAN ) is estimated with global ocean biogeochemistry models and observation-based fCO 2 -products. The global net uptake of CO 2 by the land (S LAND ) is estimated with dynamic global vegetation models. Additional lines of evidence are provided by atmospheric inversions, atmospheric oxygen measurements, ocean interior observation-based estimates, and Earth System Models. This year, we introduced corrections on the E LUC , S OCEAN and S LAND estimates. The sum of all sources and sinks results in the carbon budget imbalance (B IM ), a measure of imperfect data and incomplete understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ± 1σ. For the year 2024, E FOS increased by 1.1 % relative to 2023, with fossil emissions at 10.3 ± 0.5 GtC yr −1 (including the cement carbonation sink, 0.2 GtC yr −1 ), E LUC was 1.3 ± 0.7 GtC yr −1 , for total anthropogenic CO 2 emissions of 11.6 ± 0.9 GtC yr −1 (42.4 ± 3.2 GtCO2 yr −1 ). Also, for 2024, G ATM was 7.9 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1 (3.73 ± 0.1 ppm yr −1 ), 2.2 GtC above the 2023 growth rate. SOCEAN was 3.4 ± 0.4 GtC yr −1 and S LAND was 1.9 ± 1.1 GtC yr −1 , leaving a large negative B IM (−1.7 GtC yr −1 ), suggesting that the total sink or G ATM is strongly overestimated in 2024. The global atmospheric CO 2 concentration averaged over 2024 reached 422.8 ± 0.1 ppm. Preliminary data for 2025 suggest an increase in E FOS relative to 2024 of +1.0 % (0.2 % to 1.7 %) globally, and atmospheric CO 2 concentration increasing by 2.1 ppm reaching 425.6 ppm, 53 % above the pre-industrial level (around 278 ppm in 1750). Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2024, with a near-zero overall budget imbalance, although discrepancies of up to around 1 GtC yr −1 persist for the representation of annual to decadal variability in CO 2 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 CO 2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) a discrepancy between the different methods on the mean ocean sink. This living data update documents changes in methods and datasets applied to this most-recent global carbon budget as well as evolving community understanding of the global carbon cycle. The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2025 (Friedlingstein et al., 2025c).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Opportunities and challenges in using remaining carbon budgets to guide climate policy

The remaining carbon budget represents the total amount of CO 2 that can still be emitted in the future while limiting global warming to a given temperature target. Remaining carbon budget estimates range widely, however, and this uncertainty can be used to either trivialize the most ambitious mitigation targets by characterizing them as impossible, or to argue that there is ample time to allow for a gradual transition to a low-carbon economy. Neither of these extremes is consistent with our best understanding of the policy implications of remaining carbon budgets. Understanding the scientific and socio-economic uncertainties affecting the size of the remaining carbon budgets, as well as the methodological choices and assumptions that underlie their calculation, is essential before applying them as a policy tool. Here we provide recommendations on how to calculate remaining carbon budgets in a traceable and transparent way, and discuss their uncertainties and implications for both international and national climate policies.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2022

Global Carbon Budget 2022

Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) 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 CO 2 emissions (E FOS ) 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 CO 2 concentration is measured directly, and its growth rate (G ATM ) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO 2 sink (S OCEAN ) is estimated with global ocean biogeochemistry models and observation-based data products. The terrestrial CO 2 sink (S LAND ) is estimated with dynamic global vegetation models. 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 year 2021, E FOS 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 E LUC was 1.1 ± 0.7 GtC yr −1 , for a total anthropogenic CO 2 emission (including the cement carbonation sink) of 10.9 ± 0.8 GtC yr −1 (40.0 ± 2.9 GtCO 2 ). Also, for 2021, G ATM was 5.2 ± 0.2 GtC yr −1 (2.5 ± 0.1 ppm yr −1 ), S OCEAN was 2.9 ± 0.4 GtC yr −1 , and S LAND was 3.5 ± 0.9 GtC yr −1 , with a B IM of −0.6 GtC yr −1 (i.e. the total estimated sources were too low or sinks were too high). The global atmospheric CO 2 concentration averaged over 2021 reached 414.71 ± 0.1 ppm. Preliminary data for 2022 suggest an increase in E FOS relative to 2021 of +1.0 % (0.1 % to 1.9 %) globally and atmospheric CO 2 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 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).

Pierre Friedlingstein↗
DOE OSTI2025

Global Carbon Budget 2024

Abstract. 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 datasets 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) 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 global net uptake of CO2 by the ocean (SOCEAN, called the ocean sink) is estimated with global ocean biogeochemistry models and observation-based fCO2 products (fCO2 is the fugacity of CO2). The global net uptake of CO2 by the land (SLAND, called the land sink) is estimated with dynamic global vegetation models. Additional lines of evidence on land and ocean sinks are provided by atmospheric inversions, atmospheric oxygen measurements, and Earth system models. The sum of all sources and sinks results in the carbon budget imbalance (BIM), a measure of imperfect data and incomplete understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the year 2023, EFOS increased by 1.3 % relative to 2022, with fossil emissions at 10.1 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 (10.3 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when the cement carbonation sink is not included), and ELUC was 1.0 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, for a total anthropogenic CO2 emission (including the cement carbonation sink) of 11.1 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1 (40.6 ± 3.2 GtCO2 yr−1). Also, for 2023, GATM was 5.9 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.79 ± 0.1 ppm yr−1; ppm denotes parts per million), SOCEAN was 2.9 ± 0.4 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 2.3 ± 1.0 GtC yr−1, with a near-zero BIM (−0.02 GtC yr−1). The global atmospheric CO2 concentration averaged over 2023 reached 419.31 ± 0.1 ppm. Preliminary data for 2024 suggest an increase in EFOS relative to 2023 of +0.8 % (−0.2 % to 1.7 %) globally and an atmospheric CO2 concentration increase by 2.87 ppm, reaching 422.45 ppm, 52 % above the pre-industrial level (around 278 ppm in 1750). Overall, the mean of and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2023, with a near-zero overall budget imbalance, although discrepancies of up to around 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 the following: (1) a persistent large uncertainty in the estimate of land-use change emissions, (2) low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) a discrepancy between the different methods on the mean ocean sink. This living-data update documents changes in methods and datasets applied to this most recent global carbon budget as well as evolving community understanding of the global carbon cycle. The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2024 (Friedlingstein et al., 2024).

Friedlingstein, Pierre (ORCID:0000000333094739)↗
DOE OSTI2022

Global Carbon Budget 2022

Abstract. 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).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Global Carbon Budget 2021

Abstract. 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 datasets and methodology 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 first time, an approach is shown to reconcile the difference in our ELUC estimate with the one from national greenhouse gas inventories, supporting the assessment of collective countries' climate progress. For the year 2020, EFOS declined by 5.4 % relative to 2019, with fossil emissions at 9.5 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 (9.3 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when the cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 0.9 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, for a total anthropogenic CO2 emission of 10.2 ± 0.8 GtC yr−1 (37.4 ± 2.9 GtCO2). Also, for 2020, GATM was 5.0 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.4 ± 0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 3.0 ± 0.4 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 2.9 ± 1 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of −0.8 GtC yr−1. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration averaged over 2020 reached 412.45 ± 0.1 ppm. Preliminary data for 2021 suggest a rebound in EFOS relative to 2020 of +4.8 % (4.2 % to 5.4 %) globally. Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2020, 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 changes emissions, (2) a low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, 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 datasets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this dataset (Friedlingstein et al., 2020, 2019; Le Quéré et al., 2018b, a, 2016, 2015b, a, 2014, 2013). The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2021 (Friedlingstein et al., 2021).

Friedlingstein, Pierre (ORCID:0000000333094739)↗
DOE OSTI2020

Empirical estimates of regional carbon budgets imply reduced global soil heterotrophic respiration

Resolving regional carbon budgets is critical for informing land-based mitigation policy. For nine regions covering nearly the whole globe, we collected inventory estimates of carbon-stock changes complemented by satellite estimates of biomass changes where inventory data are missing. The net land–atmospheric carbon exchange (NEE) was calculated by taking the sum of the carbon-stock change and lateral carbon fluxes from crop and wood trade, and riverine-carbon export to the ocean. Summing up NEE from all regions, we obtained a global ‘bottom-up’ NEE for net land anthropogenic CO2 uptake of –2.2 ± 0.6 PgC yr -1 consistent with the independent top-down NEE from the global atmospheric carbon budget during 2000–2009. This estimate is so far the most comprehensive global bottom-up carbon budget accounting, which set up an important milestone for global carbon-cycle studies. By decomposing NEE into component fluxes, we found that global soil heterotrophic respiration amounts to a source of CO 2 of 39 PgC yr -1 with an interquartile of 33–46 PgC yr -1 —a much smaller portion of net primary productivity than previously reported.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2020

Empirical estimates of regional carbon budgets imply reduced global soil heterotrophic respiration

Resolving regional carbon budgets is critical for informing land-based mitigation policy. For nine regions covering nearly the whole globe, we collected inventory estimates of carbon-stock changes complemented by satellite estimates of biomass changes where inventory data are missing. The net land–atmospheric carbon exchange (NEE) was calculated by taking the sum of the carbon-stock change and lateral carbon fluxes from crop and wood trade, and riverine-carbon export to the ocean. Summing up NEE from all regions, we obtained a global ‘bottom-up’ NEE for net land anthropogenic CO2 uptake of –2.2±0.6 PgC/yr consistent with the independent top-down NEE from the global atmospheric carbon budget during 2000–2009. This estimate is so far the most comprehensive global bottom-up carbon budget accounting, which set up an important milestone for global carbon-cycle studies. By decomposing NEE into component fluxes, we found that global soil heterotrophic respiration amounts to a source of CO2 of 39 PgC/yr with an interquartile of 33–46 PgC/yr —a much smaller portion of net primary productivity than previously reported.

carbon budget↗
DOE OSTI2023

Improved net carbon budgets in the US Midwest through direct measured impacts of enhanced weathering

Abstract Terrestrial enhanced weathering (EW) through the application of Mg‐ or Ca‐rich rock dust to soil is a negative emission technology with the potential to address impacts of climate change. The effectiveness of EW was tested over 4 years by spreading ground basalt (50 t ha −1 year −1 ) on maize/soybean and miscanthus cropping systems in the Midwest US. The major elements of the carbon budget were quantified through measurements of eddy covariance, soil carbon flux, and biomass. The movement of Mg and Ca to deep soil, released by weathering, balanced by a corresponding alkalinity flux, was used to measure the drawdown of CO 2 , where the release of cations from basalt was measured as the ratio of rare earth elements to base cations in the applied rock dust and in the surface soil. Basalt application stimulated peak biomass and net primary production in both cropping systems and caused a small but significant stimulation of soil respiration. Net ecosystem carbon balance (NECB) was strongly negative for maize/soybean (−199 to −453 g C m −2 year −1 ) indicating this system was losing carbon to the atmosphere. Average EW (102 g C m −2 year −1 ) offset carbon loss in the maize/soybean by 23%–42%. NECB of miscanthus was positive (63–129 g C m −2 year −1 ), indicating carbon gain in the system, and EW greatly increased inorganic carbon storage by an additional 234 g C m −2 year −1 . Our analysis indicates a co‐deployment of a perennial biofuel crop (miscanthus) with EW leads to major wins—increased harvested yields of 29%–42% with additional carbon dioxide removal (CDR) of 8.6 t CO 2 ha −1 year −1 . EW applied to maize/soybean drives a CDR of 3.7 t CO 2 ha −1 year −1 , which partially offsets well‐established carbon losses from soil from this crop rotation. EW applied in the US Midwest creates measurable improvements to the carbon budgets perennial bioenergy crops and conventional row crops.

enhanced weathering↗
NASA NTRS2007

Eastern U.S. Continental Shelf Carbon Budget: Integrating Models,Data Assimilation, and Analysis

The U.S. East Coast Continental Shelf (USECoS) project was initiated in 2004 with the overall goal of developing carbon budgets for Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic regions of the eastern U.S. coast. We addressed this goal through a series of specific research questions that were designed to understand carbon inputs and fates in the two regions, dominant food web pathways for carbon cycling, and similarities/differences in carbon cycling in the two continental shelf systems. The USECoS project represents a major effort to simultaneously synthesize and integrate diverse data sets, field measurements, models, and modeling approaches. We expect that the type of approach taken here will result in more insight than would be possible if each component of the program moved forward independently. The primary significance of this project is in providing a strong quantitative basis for the development of future observational and modeling studies of carbon budgets of continental shelf systems. A strong aspect of the USECoS project is the integration of modeling and extensive physical, chemical, and biological data sets, which provides an opportunity for modeling and data analyses to inform one another from the outset. This research is particularly germane to NASA's carbon cycle research focus and coastal research initiative and the U.S. Climate Change Research Program, all of which support the goals of the North American Carbon Program. We highlight primary approaches that have been used, and some of the challenges and results that have come from interactions among our team of investigators. The global scale and interdisciplinary nature of the science questions that we now face in Earth Science are such that integrated teams of investigators are needed to address them.

Hofmann, Eileen↗
DOE OSTI2025

Vertical canopy gradients of respiration drive plant carbon budgets and leaf area index

Despite its importance for determining global carbon fluxes, leaf respiration remains poorly constrained in land surface models (LSMs). We tested the sensitivity of the Energy Exascale Earth System Model Land Model – Functionally Assembled Terrestrial Ecosystem Simulator (ELM-FATES) to variation in the canopy gradients of leaf maintenance respiration (R dark ). We ran global and point simulations varying the canopy gradient of R dark to explore the impacts on forest structure, composition, and carbon cycling. In global simulations, steeper canopy gradients of R dark lead to increased understory survival and leaf biomass. Leaf area index (LAI) increased up to 77% in tropical regions compared with the default parameterization, improving alignment with remotely sensed benchmarks. Global vegetation carbon varied from 308 Pg C to 449 Pg C across the ensemble. In tropical forest simulations, steeper gradients of R dark had a large impact on successional dynamics. Results show the importance of canopy gradients in leaf traits and fluxes for determining plant carbon budgets and emergent ecosystem properties such as competitive dynamics, LAI, and vegetation carbon. The high-model sensitivity to canopy gradients in R dark highlights the need for more observations of how leaf traits and fluxes vary along light micro-environments to inform critical dynamics in LSMs.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Harmonizing direct and indirect anthropogenic land carbon fluxes indicates a substantial missing sink in the global carbon budget since the early 20th century

Inconsistencies in the calculation of the two anthropogenic land flux terms of the global carbon cycle are investigated. The two terms—the direct anthropogenic flux (caused by direct human disturbance in anthromes, currently a carbon source to the atmosphere) and the indirect anthropogenic flux (caused indirectly by human activities that lead to global change and affecting all biomes, currently an atmospheric carbon sink)—are typically calculated independently, resulting in inconsistent underlying assumptions. We harmonize the estimation of the two anthropogenic land flux terms by incorporating previous estimates of these inconsistencies. We recalculate the global carbon budget (GCB) and apply change-point analysis to the cumulative budget imbalance. Cumulative over 1850–2018 (1959–2018), harmonization results in a 13% lesser (4% greater) land use source from anthromes and a 20% (23%) lesser land sink. This recalculation yields a greater non-closure of the GCB, indicating a missing carbon sink averaging 0.65 Pg C year -1 since the early 20th century. The imbalance likely results from a combination of method discontinuity and structural errors in the assessment of the direct anthropogenic land use flux, greater ocean carbon uptake, structural errors in land models, and in how these land terms are quantified for the budget. We caution against overconfidence in considering the GCB a solved problem and recommend further study of methodological discontinuities in budget terms. We strongly recommend studies that quantify the direct and indirect anthropogenic land fluxes simultaneously to ensure consistency, with a deeper understanding of human disturbance and legacy effects in anthromes.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Land-use harmonization datasets for annual global carbon budgets

Abstract. Land-use change has been the dominant source of anthropogenic carbon emissions for most of the historical period and is currently one of the largest and most uncertain components of the global carbon cycle. Advancing the scientific understanding on this topic requires that the best data be used as input to state-of-the-art models in well-organized scientific assessments. The Land-Use Harmonization 2 dataset (LUH2), previously developed and used as input for simulations of the 6th Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6), has been updated annually to provide required input to land models in the annual Global Carbon Budget (GCB) assessments. Here we discuss the methodology for producing these annual LUH2-GCB updates and extensions which incorporate annual wood harvest data updates from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations for dataset years after 2015 and the History Database of the Global Environment (HYDE) gridded cropland and grazing area data updates (based on annual FAO cropland and grazing area data updates) for dataset years after 2012, along with extrapolations to the current year due to a lag of 1 or more years in the FAO data releases. The resulting updated LUH2-GCB datasets have provided global, annual gridded land-use and land-use-change data relating to agricultural expansion, deforestation, wood harvesting, shifting cultivation, regrowth and afforestation, crop rotations, and pasture management and are used by both bookkeeping models and dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) for the GCB. For GCB 2019, a more significant update to LUH2 was produced, LUH2-GCB2019 (https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1851, Chini et al., 2020b), to take advantage of new data inputs that corrected cropland and grazing areas in the globally important region of Brazil as far back as 1950. From 1951 to 2012 the LUH2-GCB2019 dataset begins to diverge from the version of LUH2 used for the World Climate Research Programme's CMIP6, with peak differences in Brazil in the year 2000 for grazing land (difference of 100 000 km2) and in the year 2009 for cropland (difference of 77 000 km2), along with significant sub-national reorganization of agricultural land-use patterns within Brazil. The LUH2-GCB2019 dataset provides the base for future LUH2-GCB updates, including the recent LUH2-GCB2020 dataset, and presents a starting point for operationalizing the creation of these datasets to reduce time lags due to the multiple input dataset and model latencies.

Chini, Louise (ORCID:0000000290703505)↗