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↗
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↗
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↗
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↗
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)↗
DOE OSTI2024

Global Carbon Budget 1800-2018 Loss of Additional Sink Capacity and Present Transient Difference

A dataset of two global carbon fluxes: the loss of additional sink capacity (LASC) and present versus transient difference (PTD). The loss of additional sink capacity is the loss of indirect anthropogenic sink capacity in land ecosystems caused by the loss of ecosystems that can increase carbon in response to changing environments, primarily forests. The present transient difference refers to the direct anthropogenic flux in land ecosystems (from land cover and land use change) and the difference in that flux when calculated assuming "present day" (actually more like 1980) ecosystem carbon stocks or when calculated assuming transient carbon stocks (i.e. caused by environmental change). In this dataset, the LASC and PTD fluxes were calculated using the TRENDY ensemble of Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs; Sitch et al., 2024) following the methods described therein and in Obermeier et al. (2021). For further details see Obermeier et al. (2021), Friedlingstein et al. (2019), Sitch et al. (2024), and Walker et al. (2025). The dataset includes ensemble means and standard deviations for annual fluxes, fluxes cumulated annually over the whole time period, and cumulated since 1959. These data were originally collected to compare different approaches (DGVMs versus bookkeeping models) for estimating land use and land cover change (LULCC) emissions (Obermeier et al. 2021). More recently, and similarly, these data were used to harmonize the estimates of the direct and indirect anthropogenic fluxes in the global carbon cycle and to recalculate the global carbon budget (Walker et al., 2025).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Carbon Outgassing in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current Is Supported by Ekman Transport From the Sea Ice Zone in an Observation‐Based Seasonal Mixed‐Layer Budget

Despite its importance for the global cycling of carbon, there are still large gaps in our understanding of the processes driving annual and seasonal carbon fluxes in the high-latitude Southern Ocean. This is due in part to a historical paucity of observations in this remote, turbulent, and seasonally ice-covered region. Here, we use autonomous biogeochemical float data spanning 6 full seasonal cycles and with circumpolar coverage of the Southern Ocean, complemented by atmospheric reanalysis, to construct a monthly climatology of the mixed layer budget of dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC). We investigate the processes that determine the annual mean and seasonal cycle of DIC fluxes in two different zones of the Southern Ocean—the Sea Ice Zone (SIZ) and Antarctic Southern Zone (ASZ). We find that, annually, mixing with carbon-rich waters at the base of the mixed layer supplies DIC which is, in the ASZ, either used for net biological production or outgassed to the atmosphere. In contrast, in the SIZ, where carbon outgassing and the biological pump are weaker, the surplus of DIC is instead advected northward to the ASZ. In other words, carbon outgassing in the southern Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC), which has been attributed to remineralized carbon from deep water upwelled in the ACC, is also due to the wind-driven transport of DIC from the SIZ. These results stem from the first observation-based carbon budget of the circumpolar Southern Ocean and thus provide a useful benchmark to evaluate climate models, which have significant biases in this region.

Sauvé, Jade↗
DOE OSTI2021

Quantifying carbon budget, crop yields and their responses to environmental variability using the ecosys model for U.S. Midwestern agroecosystems

As one of the major agricultural production areas in the world, the United States (U.S.) Midwest plays a vital role in the global food supply and agricultural ecosystem services. Although significant efforts have been made in modeling the carbon cycle dynamics over this area, large uncertainty still exists in the previous simulations in terms of reproducing individual components of the carbon cycle and their responses to environmental variability. Here we evaluated the performance of an advanced agroecosystem model, ecosys, in simulating carbon budgets over the U.S. Midwest, considering both the magnitude of carbon flux/yield and its response to environmental (climate and soil) variability. We conducted model simulations and evaluations at 7 cropland eddy-covariance sites as well as over 293 counties of Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa in the U.S. Midwest. The site-level simulations showed that ecosys captured both the magnitude and seasonal patterns of carbon fluxes (i.e., net ecosystem carbon exchange (NEE), ecosystem gross primary production (GPP), and ecosystem respiration (Reco)), leaf area index (LAI), and dynamic plant carbon allocation processes, with R2 equal to 0.92, 0.87, 0.87, and 0.78 for GPP, NEE, Reco, and LAI, respectively across all the sites compared with the observations. For regional scale simulations, ecosys reproduced the spatial distribution and interannual variability of corn and soybean yields with the constraints of observed yields and a new remotely sensed GPP product, with R2 of multi-year averaged simulated and observed yield equal 0.83 and 0.80 for corn and soybean, respectively. The simulated responses of carbon cycle dynamics to environmental variability were consistent with that from the empirical observations at both site and regional scales. Furthermore, our results demonstrated the applicability of ecosys in simulating the carbon cycle and soil carbon dynamics of the U.S. Midwestern agroecosystems under different climate and soil conditions.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Best practices in software development for robust and reproducible geoscientific models based on insights from the Global Carbon Budget's dynamic vegetation models

Computational models play an increasingly vital role in scientific research by enabling the numerical simulation of complex processes. Such models are also fundamental in geosciences. For instance, they offer critical insights into the impacts of global change on the Earth system today and in the future. Beyond their value as research tools, models are also software products and should therefore adhere to certain established software engineering standards. However, scientists are rarely trained as software developers, which can lead to potential deficiencies in software quality like unreadable, inefficient, or erroneous code. The complexity of models, coupled with their integration into broader workflows, also often makes it challenging to reproduce results, evaluate processes, and build upon them. In this paper, we review the state and current practices of the development processes of the state-of-the-art land surface models used by the Global Carbon Budget. We combine the experience of modelers from the respective research groups with the expertise of software engineers from tech companies to outline key principles and tools for improving software quality in research. We explore four main areas: (1) model testing and validation, (2) scientific, technical, and user documentation, (3) version control, continuous integration, and code review, and (4) the portability and reproducibility of workflows. Our review reveals that while modeling communities are incorporating many best practices, significant room for improvement remains in areas such as automated testing, automated documentation, and reproducibility. Therefore, we here identify and promote essential software engineering practices, including numerous examples of practices from within the community that can serve as guidelines for other models and could help streamline processes across the entire community. We conclude with an open-source example implementation of these principles, demonstrating portable and reproducible data flows, a continuous integration setup, and web-based visualizations. This example may serve as a practical resource for model developers, users, and all scientists engaged in scientific programming.

Gregor, Konstantin [Technical Univ. of Munich (Ger↗
DOE OSTI2025

The Carbon Budget of Land Conversion: Sugarcane Expansion and Implications for a Sustainable Bioenergy Landscape in Southeastern United States

The expansion of sugarcane onto land currently occupied by improved (IMP) and semi-native (SN) pastures will reshape the U.S. bioenergy landscape. We combined biometric, ground-based and eddy covariance methods to investigate the impact of sugarcane expansion across subtropical Florida on the carbon (C) budget over a 3-year rotation. With 2.3- and 5.1-fold increase in productivity over IMP and SN pastures, sugarcane displayed a C use efficiency (CUE; i.e., fraction of gross C uptake allocated to plant growth) of 0.59, well above that of pastures (0.31–0.23). Sugarcane also had greater C allocation to aboveground productivity and hence, harvestable biomass relative to IMP and SN. Cane heterotrophic respiration over the 3-year rotation (903 ± 335 gC m −2 year −1 ) was 1% and 14% higher than IMP and SN pastures, respectively. These soil C losses responded largely to disturbance over the first year after conversion (1510 ± 227 gC m −2 year −1 ) but declined in subsequent years to an average 599 ± 90 gC m −2 year −1 —well below those of IMP (933 ± 140 gC m −2 year −1 ) and SN (759 ± 114 gC m −2 year −1 ) pastures—despite a significant 40%–61% increase in soil C inputs. Soil C inputs, however, shifted from root-dominated in pastures to litter-dominated in sugarcane, with only 5% C allocation to roots. Reduced decomposition rates in sugarcane were likely driven by changes in the recalcitrance and distribution rather than the size of the newly incorporated soil C pool. As a result, we observed a rapid shift in the net ecosystem C balance (NECB) of sugarcane from a large source immediately following conversion to approaching the net C losses of IMP pastures only 2 years after conversion. The environmental cost of converting pasture to sugarcane underscores the importance of implementing management practices to harness the soil C storage potential of sugarcane in advancing a sustainable bioeconomy in Southeastern United States.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗