Investigating bias in the application of curve fitting programs to atmospheric time series

The decomposition of an atmospheric time series into its constituent parts is an essential tool for identifying and isolating variations of interest from a data set, and is widely used to obtain information about sources, sinks and trends in climatically important gases. Such procedures involve fitting appropriate mathematical functions to the data. However, it has been demonstrated that the application of such curve fitting procedures can introduce bias, and thus influence the scientific interpretation of the data sets. We investigate the potential for bias associated with the application of three curve fitting programs, known as HPspline, CCGCRV and STL, using multi-year records of CO2, CH4 and O3 data from three atmospheric monitoring field stations. These three curve fitting programs are widely used within the greenhouse gas measurement community to analyse atmospheric time series, but have not previously been compared extensively. The programs were rigorously tested for their ability to accurately represent the salient features of atmospheric time series, their ability to cope with outliers and gaps in the data, and for sensitivity to the values used for the input parameters needed for each program. We find that the programs can produce significantly different curve fits, and these curve fits can be dependent on the input parameters selected. There are notable differences between the results produced by the three programs for many of the decomposed components of the time series, such as the representation of seasonal cycle characteristics and the long-term (multi-year) growth rate. The programs also vary significantly in their response to gaps and outliers in the time series. Overall, we found that none of the three programs were superior, and that each program had its strengths and weaknesses. Thus, we provide a list of recommendations on the appropriate use of these three curve fitting programs for certain types of data sets, and for certain types of analyses and applications. In addition, we recommend that sensitivity tests are performed in any study using curve fitting programs, to ensure that results are not unduly influenced by the input smoothing parameters chosen. Our findings also have implications for previous studies that have relied on a single curve fitting program to interpret atmospheric time series measurements. This is demonstrated by using two other curve fitting programs to replicate work in Piao et al. (2008) on zero-crossing analyses of atmospheric CO2 seasonal cycles to investigate terrestrial biosphere changes. We highlight the importance of using more than one program, to ensure results are consistent, reproducible, and free from bias

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