Global Carbon Budget 2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions andtheir redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biospherein a changing climate – the “global carbon budget” – is important tobetter understand the global carbon cycle, support the development ofclimate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe andsynthesize data sets and methodology to quantify the five major componentsof the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2emissions (EFOS) are based on energy statistics and cement productiondata, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainlydeforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data andbookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directlyand its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes inconcentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrialCO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process modelsconstrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance(BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and theestimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is ameasure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carboncycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the lastdecade available (2010–2019), EFOS was 9.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 excluding the cement carbonation sink (9.4 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when the cement carbonation sink is included), andELUC was 1.6 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1. For the same decade, GATM was 5.1 ± 0.02 GtC yr−1 (2.4 ± 0.01 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN 2.5 ± 0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.4 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1, with a budgetimbalance BIM of −0.1 GtC yr−1 indicating a near balance betweenestimated sources and sinks over the last decade. For the year 2019 alone, thegrowth in EFOS was only about 0.1 % with fossil emissions increasingto 9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 excluding the cement carbonation sink (9.7 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 1.8 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, for total anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 11.5 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1 (42.2 ± 3.3 GtCO2). Also for 2019, GATM was5.4 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.5 ± 0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEANwas 2.6 ± 0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.1 ± 1.2 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2concentration reached 409.85 ± 0.1 ppm averaged over 2019. Preliminarydata for 2020, accounting for the COVID-19-induced changes in emissions,suggest a decrease in EFOS relative to 2019 of about −7 % (medianestimate) based on individual estimates from four studies of −6 %, −7 %,−7 % (−3 % to −11 %), and −13 %. Overall, the mean and trend in thecomponents of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over theperiod 1959–2019, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for therepresentation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. Comparison ofestimates from diverse approaches and observations shows (1) no consensusin 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 ofthe land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparentdiscrepancy between the different methods for the ocean sink outside thetropics, particularly in the Southern Ocean. This living data updatedocuments changes in the methods and data sets used in this new globalcarbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cyclecompared with previous publications of this data set (Friedlingstein et al.,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-2020 (Friedlingstein et al., 2020).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.109 | 0.073 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".