Evaluating two soil carbon models within the global land surface model JSBACH using surface and spaceborne observations of atmospheric CO₂

The trajectories of soil carbon (C) in the changing climate are of utmost importance, as soil carbon is a substantial carbon storage with a large potential to impact the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) burden. Atmospheric CO2 observations integrate all processes affecting C exchange between the surface and the atmosphere. Therefore they provide a benchmark for carbon cycle models. We evaluated two distinct soil carbon models (CBALANCE and YASSO) that were implemented to a global land surface model (JSBACH) against atmospheric CO2 observations. We transported the biospheric carbon fluxes obtained by JSBACH using the atmospheric transport model TM5 to obtain atmospheric CO2. We then compared these results with surface observations from Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) stations as well as with column XCO2 retrievals from the GOSAT satellite. The seasonal cycles of atmospheric CO2 estimated by the two different soil models differed. The estimates from the CBALANCE soil model were more in line with the surface observations at low latitudes (0 N–45 N) with only 1 % bias in the seasonal cycle amplitude (SCA), whereas YASSO was underestimating the SCA in this region by 32 %. YASSO gave more realistic seasonal cycle amplitudes of CO2 at northern boreal sites (north of 45 N) with underestimation of 15 % compared to 30 % overestimation by CBALANCE. Generally, the estimates from CBALANCE were more successful in capturing the seasonal patterns and seasonal cycle amplitudes of atmospheric CO2 even though it overestimated soil carbon stocks by 225 % (compared to underestimation of 36 % by YASSO) and its predictions of the global distribution of soil carbon stocks was unrealistic. The reasons for these differences in the results are related to the different environmental drivers and their functional dependencies of these two soil carbon models. In the tropical region the YASSO model showed earlier increase in season of the heterotophic respiration since it is driven by precipitation instead of soil moisture as CBALANCE. In the temperate and boreal region the role of temperature is more dominant. There the heterotophic respiration from the YASSO model had larger annual variability, driven by air temperature, compared to the CBALANCE which is driven by soil temperature. The results underline the importance of using sub-yearly data in the development of soil carbon models when they are used in shorter than annual time scales

Comparison of continuous in situ CO2 observations at Jungfraujoch using two different measurement techniques

Since 2004, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is being measured at the High Altitude Research Station Jungfraujoch by the division of Climate and Environmental Physics at the University of Bern (KUP) using a nondispersive infrared gas analyzer (NDIR) in combination with a paramagnetic O2 analyzer. In January 2010, CO2 measurements based on cavity ring-down spectroscopy (CRDS) as part of the Swiss National Air Pollution Monitoring Network were added by the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (Empa). To ensure a smooth transition – a prerequisite when merging two data sets, e.g., for trend determinations – the two measurement systems run in parallel for several years. Such a long-term intercomparison also allows the identification of potential offsets between the two data sets and the collection of information about the compatibility of the two systems on different time scales. A good agreement of the seasonality, short-term variations and, to a lesser extent mainly due to the short common period, trend calculations is observed. However, the comparison reveals some issues related to the stability of the calibration gases of the KUP system and their assigned CO2 mole fraction. It is possible to adapt an improved calibration strategy based on standard gas determinations, which leads to better agreement between the two data sets. By excluding periods with technical problems and bad calibration gas cylinders, the average hourly difference (CRDS – NDIR) of the two systems is −0.03 ppm ± 0.25 ppm. Although the difference of the two data sets is in line with the compatibility goal of ±0.1 ppm of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the standard deviation is still too high. A significant part of this uncertainty originates from the necessity to switch the KUP system frequently (every 12 min) for 6 min from ambient air to a working gas in order to correct short-term variations of the O2 measurement system. Allowing additional time for signal stabilization after switching the sample, an effective data coverage of only one-sixth for the KUP system is achieved while the Empa system has a nearly complete data coverage. Additionally, different internal volumes and flow rates may affect observed differences

Top-down assessment of the Asian carbon budget since the mid 1990s

Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is the principal driver of anthropogenic climate change. Asia is an important region for the global carbon budget, with 4 of the world’s 10 largest national emitters of CO2. Using an ensemble of seven atmospheric inverse systems, we estimated land biosphere fluxes (natural, land-use change and fires) based on atmospheric observations of CO2 concentration. The Asian land biosphere was a net sink of −0.46 (−0.70–0.24) PgC per year (median and range) for 1996–2012 and was mostly located in East Asia, while in South and Southeast Asia the land biosphere was close to carbon neutral. In East Asia, the annual CO2 sink increased between 1996–2001 and 2008–2012 by 0.56 (0.30–0.81) PgC, accounting for ∼35% of the increase in the global land biosphere sink. Uncertainty in the fossil fuel emissions contributes significantly (32%) to the uncertainty in land biosphere sink change

Аналіз маркетингових підходів до збільшення продажів

Сучасний соціально-економічний стан у країні, невпинне зростання цін, посилення конкуренції в усіх сферах народного господарства, нестабільність політичних відносин тощо стали вагомими причинами зниження попиту багатьох товарів на ринку. Продати що-небудь у ситуації, що склалася, стає під силу далеко не кожному, будь то велика компанія, чи невеличке приватне підприємство. Проте інстинкт виживання диктує свої умови, при яких будь-який успішний продавець має свої секрети успішних продажів. Безумовно, що такий набір секретів не є догмою чи кліше для будь-якої ситуації. Кожен із цих секретів стикається особливостями та проблемами, що змушує оперативно шукати шляхи позитивного вирішення навіть в екстремальних ситуаціях

Top-down assessment of the Asian carbon budget since the mid 1990s

Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is the principal driver of anthropogenic climate change. Asia is an important region for the global carbon budget, with 4 of the world’s 10 largest national emitters of CO2. Using an ensemble of seven atmospheric inverse systems, we estimated land biosphere fluxes (natural, land-use change and fires) based on atmospheric observations of CO2 concentration. The Asian land biosphere was a net sink of -0.46 (-0.70-0.24) PgC per year (median and range) for 1996-2012 and was mostly located in East Asia, while in South and Southeast Asia the land biosphere was close to carbon neutral. In East Asia, the annual CO2 sink increased between 1996-2001 and 2008-2012 by 0.56 (0.30-0.81) PgC, accounting for ~35% of the increase in the global land biosphere sink. Uncertainty in the fossil fuel emissions contributes significantly (32%) to the uncertainty in land biosphere sink change

Near-real-time CO2_2 fluxes from CarbonTracker Europe for high-resolution atmospheric modeling

We present the CarbonTracker Europe High-Resolution (CTE-HR) system that estimates carbon dioxide (CO2) exchange over Europe at high resolution (0.1 × 0.2∘) and in near real time (about 2 months' latency). It includes a dynamic anthropogenic emission model, which uses easily available statistics on economic activity, energy use, and weather to generate anthropogenic emissions with dynamic time profiles at high spatial and temporal resolution (0.1×0.2∘, hourly). Hourly net ecosystem productivity (NEP) calculated by the Simple Biosphere model Version 4 (SiB4) is driven by meteorology from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) Reanalysis 5th Generation (ERA5) dataset. This NEP is downscaled to 0.1×0.2∘ using the high-resolution Coordination of Information on the Environment (CORINE) land-cover map and combined with the Global Fire Assimilation System (GFAS) fire emissions to create terrestrial carbon fluxes. Ocean CO2 fluxes are included in our product, based on Jena CarboScope ocean CO2 fluxes, which are downscaled using wind speed and temperature. Jointly, these flux estimates enable modeling of atmospheric CO2 mole fractions over Europe. We assess the skill of the CTE-HR CO2 fluxes (a) to reproduce observed anomalies in biospheric fluxes and atmospheric CO2 mole fractions during the 2018 European drought, (b) to capture the reduction of anthropogenic emissions due to COVID-19 lockdowns, (c) to match mole fraction observations at Integrated Carbon Observation System (ICOS) sites across Europe after atmospheric transport with the Transport Model, version 5 (TM5) and the Stochastic Time-Inverted Lagrangian Transport (STILT), driven by ECMWF-IFS, and (d) to capture the magnitude and variability of measured CO2 fluxes in the city center of Amsterdam (the Netherlands). We show that CTE-HR fluxes reproduce large-scale flux anomalies reported in previous studies for both biospheric fluxes (drought of 2018) and anthropogenic emissions (COVID-19 pandemic in 2020). After applying transport of emitted CO2, the CTE-HR fluxes have lower median root mean square errors (RMSEs) relative to mole fraction observations than fluxes from a non-informed flux estimate, in which biosphere fluxes are scaled to match the global growth rate of CO2 (poor person's inversion). RMSEs are close to those of the reanalysis with the CTE data assimilation system. This is encouraging given that CTE-HR fluxes did not profit from the weekly assimilation of CO2 observations as in CTE. We furthermore compare CO2 concentration observations at the Dutch Lutjewad coastal tower with high-resolution STILT transport to show that the high-resolution fluxes manifest variability due to different emission sectors in summer and winter. Interestingly, in periods where synoptic-scale transport variability dominates CO2 concentration variations, the CTE-HR fluxes perform similarly to low-resolution fluxes (5–10× coarsened). The remaining 10 % of the simulated CO2 mole fraction differs by >2 ppm between the low-resolution and high-resolution flux representation and is clearly associated with coherent structures (“plumes”) originating from emission hotspots such as power plants. We therefore note that the added resolution of our product will matter most for very specific locations and times when used for atmospheric CO2 modeling. Finally, in a densely populated region like the Amsterdam city center, our modeled fluxes underestimate the magnitude of measured eddy covariance fluxes but capture their substantial diurnal variations in summertime and wintertime well. We conclude that our product is a promising tool for modeling the European carbon budget at a high resolution in near real time. The fluxes are freely available from the ICOS Carbon Portal (CC-BY-4.0) to be used for near-real-time monitoring and modeling, for example, as an a priori flux product in a CO2 data assimilation system. The data are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/20Z1-AYJ2 (van der Woude, 2022a)

Sources of Uncertainty in Regional and Global Terrestrial CO2 Exchange Estimates

The Global Carbon Budget 2018 (GCB2018) estimated by the atmospheric CO2 growth rate, fossil fuel emissions, and modeled (bottom-up) land and ocean fluxes cannot be fully closed, leading to a “budget imbalance,” highlighting uncertainties in GCB components. However, no systematic analysis has been performed on which regions or processes contribute to this term. To obtain deeper insight on the sources of uncertainty in global and regional carbon budgets, we analyzed differences in Net Biome Productivity (NBP) for all possible combinations of bottom-up and top-down data sets in GCB2018: (i) 16 dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs), and (ii) 5 atmospheric inversions that match the atmospheric CO2 growth rate. We find that the global mismatch between the two ensembles matches well the GCB2018 budget imbalance, with Brazil, Southeast Asia, and Oceania as the largest contributors. Differences between DGVMs dominate global mismatches, while at regional scale differences between inversions contribute the most to uncertainty. At both global and regional scales, disagreement on NBP interannual variability between the two approaches explains a large fraction of differences. We attribute this mismatch to distinct responses to El Niño–Southern Oscillation variability between DGVMs and inversions and to uncertainties in land use change emissions, especially in South America and Southeast Asia. We identify key needs to reduce uncertainty in carbon budgets: reducing uncertainty in atmospheric inversions (e.g., through more observations in the tropics) and in land use change fluxes, including more land use processes and evaluating land use transitions (e.g., using high-resolution remote-sensing), and, finally, improving tropical hydroecological processes and fire representation within DGVMs.</p

Response of the Amazon carbon balance to the 2010 drought derived with CarbonTracker South America

Two major droughts in the past decade had large impacts on carbon exchange in the Amazon. Recent analysis of vertical profile measurements of atmospheric CO2 and CO by Gatti et al. [2014] suggests that the 2010 drought turned the normally close-to-neutral annual Amazon carbon balance into a substantial source of nearly 0.5 PgC/yr, revealing a strong drought response. In this study, we revisit this hypothesis and interpret not only the same CO2/CO vertical profile measurements, but also additional constraints on carbon exchange such as satellite observations of CO, burned area, and fire hotspots. The results from our CarbonTracker South America data assimilation system suggest that carbon uptake by vegetation was indeed reduced in 2010, but that the magnitude of the decrease strongly depends on the estimated 2010 and 2011 biomass burning emissions. We have used fire products based on burned area (GFED4), satellite-observed CO columns (IASI), fire radiative power (GFASv1) and fire hotspots (FINNv1), and found an increase in biomass burning emissions in 2010 compared to 2011 of 0.16 to 0.24 PgC/yr. We derived a decrease of biospheric uptake ranging from 0.08 to 0.26 PgC/yr, with the range determined from a set of alternative inversions using different biomass burning estimates. Our numerical analysis of the 2010 Amazon drought results in a total reduction of carbon uptake of 0.24 to 0.50 PgC/yr and turns the balance from carbon sink to source. Our findings support the suggestion that the hydrological cycle will be an important driver of future changes in Amazonian carbon exchange

Global Carbon Budget 2018

Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere – the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFF) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land use and land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade available (2008–2017), EFF was 9.4±0.5 GtC yr−1, ELUC 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM 4.7±0.02 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN 2.4±0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.2±0.8 GtC yr−1, with a budget imbalance BIM of 0.5 GtC yr−1 indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2017 alone, the growth in EFF was about 1.6 % and emissions increased to 9.9±0.5 GtC yr−1. Also for 2017, ELUC was 1.4±0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM was 4.6±0.2 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN was 2.5±0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.8±0.8 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 405.0±0.1 ppm averaged over 2017. For 2018, preliminary data for the first 6–9 months indicate a renewed growth in EFF of +2.7 % (range of 1.8 % to 3.7 %) based on national emission projections for China, the US, the EU, and India and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. The analysis presented here shows that the mean and trend in the five components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period of 1959–2017, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. A detailed comparison among individual estimates and the introduction of a broad range of observations show (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land-use change emissions, (2) a persistent low agreement among the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent underestimation of the CO2 variability by ocean models, originating outside the tropics. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quéré et al., 2018, 2016, 2015a, b, 2014, 2013). All results presented here can be downloaded from https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2018

Global Carbon Budget 2018

Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere – the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFF) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land use and land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade available (2008–2017), EFF was 9.4±0.5 GtC yr−1, ELUC 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM 4.7±0.02 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN 2.4±0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.2±0.8 GtC yr−1, with a budget imbalance BIM of 0.5 GtC yr−1 indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2017 alone, the growth in EFF was about 1.6 % and emissions increased to 9.9±0.5 GtC yr−1. Also for 2017, ELUC was 1.4±0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM was 4.6±0.2 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN was 2.5±0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.8±0.8 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 405.0±0.1 ppm averaged over 2017. For 2018, preliminary data for the first 6–9 months indicate a renewed growth in EFF of +2.7 % (range of 1.8 % to 3.7 %) based on national emission projections for China, the US, the EU, and India and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. The analysis presented here shows that the mean and trend in the five components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period of 1959–2017, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. A detailed comparison among individual estimates and the introduction of a broad range of observations show (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land-use change emissions, (2) a persistent low agreement among the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent underestimation of the CO2 variability by ocean models, originating outside the tropics. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quéré et al., 2018, 2016, 2015a, b, 2014, 2013). All results presented here can be downloaded from https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2018