CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,645Atmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsClimate variability and modelsMarine and coastal ecosystems

Global Carbon Budget 2018

Open access
Le Quéré, Corinne, Andrew, Robbie M., Friedlingstein, Pierre, Sitch, Stephen, Hauck, Judith, Pongratz, Julia, Pickers, Penelope A., Korsbakken, Jan Ivar +68 more·2018·Earth System Science Data
DOI 10.5194/essd-10-2141-2018

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) 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 CO 2 emissions ( E FF ) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land use and 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 ) and terrestrial CO 2 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 ±1 σ . For the last decade available (2008–2017), E FF was 9.4±0.5 GtC yr −1 , E LUC 1.5±0.7 GtC yr −1 , G ATM 4.7±0.02 GtC yr −1 , S OCEAN 2.4±0.5 GtC yr −1 , and S LAND 3.2±0.8 GtC yr −1 , with a budget imbalance B IM of 0.5 GtC yr −1 indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2017 alone, the growth in E FF was about 1.6 % and emissions increased to 9.9±0.5 GtC yr −1 . Also for 2017, E LUC was 1.4±0.7 GtC yr −1 , G ATM was 4.6±0.2 GtC yr −1 , S OCEAN was 2.5±0.5 GtC yr −1 , and S LAND was 3.8±0.8 GtC yr −1 , with a B IM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO 2 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 E FF 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent underestimation of the CO 2 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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5194/essd-10-2141-2018

Cites

157 of 157 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Key sustainable land management practices contribute strongly to halting and reversing degradation and have notable co-benefits for climate change mitigation and/or adaptation.

    “Overview of key sustainable land management practices that contribute strongly to halting and reversing degradation and with notable co-benefits for climate change mitigation and/or adaptation.Sources: see References 3, 4, 62, 67, 96, 147”

    From Restoring Degraded Lands (2021) · cites this paper as [62]

    Section 2.3 (p. 10) says some land-management activities create CO₂ sinks, and the Discussion (p. 32) notes the importance of land-use emissions for climate mitigation strategies. The paper does not establish that key sustainable land-management practices strongly halt or reverse degradation, or that they provide adaptation co-benefits. (LLM, conf=0.81)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In many regions, leaf-area index and land ecosystem carbon uptake have increased over recent decades, partly due to the CO2 fertilization effect.

    “In many regions, for example, leaf-area index and land ecosystem carbon uptake have increased over recent decades, partly due to the CO 2 fertilization effect (60,62).”

    From Restoring Degraded Lands (2021) · cites this paper as [62]

    Section 3.1.2 (pp. 20–21) reports that the global terrestrial CO₂ sink increased from the 1960s to 2008–2017, and Section 2.6.1 (p. 16) identifies fertilization by rising atmospheric CO₂ as a possible contributor. The paper does not report an increase in leaf-area index across many regions; its discussion of leaf-area index concerns model evaluation (Sections 2.6.2 and 3.1.3, pp. 17, 22). (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The flux of carbon from fossil fuels and industry to the atmosphere (34 Gt CO2 yr-1) is dwarfed by the gross flux to land via photosynthesis in plants (440 Gt CO2 yr-1).

    “The flux of carbon from fossil fuels and industry to the atmosphere (34 Gt CO 2 yr -1 ) 15 is dwarfed by the gross flux to land via photosynthesis in plants (440 Gt CO 2 yr -1 ) 16 .”

    From The technological and economic prospects for CO2 utilization and removal (2019) · cites this paper as [15]

    The citation is attached to the 440 Gt CO2 yr−1 gross photosynthetic flux. The Figure 2 caption (section 2.8.3, p. 19) says that natural-cycle fluxes appear in the figure, but our copy contains only an image placeholder, not its values. Searches for photosynthesis, gross primary production, 120 GtC yr−1, and 440 Gt CO2 yr−1 found no passage stating the claimed flux. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The C stored in coastal ecosystems as blue C can be preserved over millennia, and C sequestration efficiency in marine ecosystems is much higher than that of terrestrial ecosystems.

    “The C stored in these coastal ecosystems as blue C can be preserved over millennia, together with the continuous accretion of soil and sediment organic C driven by sea-level rise, the C sequestration efficiency in marine ecosystems is much higher than that of terrestrial ecosystems.205,206”

    From Technologies and perspectives for achieving carbon neutrality (2021) · cites this paper as [206]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Ciais, P., Sabine, C., Govindasamy, B., Bopp, L., Brovkin, V., Canadell, J., Chhabra, A., DeFries, R., Galloway, J., Heimann, M., Jones, C., Le Quéré, C., Myneni, R., Piao, S., and Thornton, P.: Chapter 6: Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles, in: Climate Change 2013 The Physical Science Basis, edited by: Stocker, T., Qin, D., and Platner, G.-K., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013.
  2. Denman, K. L., Brasseur, G., Chidthaisong, A., Ciais, P., Cox, P. M., Dickinson, R. E., Hauglustaine, D., Heinze, C., Holland, E., Jacob, D., Lohmann, U., Ramachandran, S., Leite da Silva Dias, P., Wofsy, S. C., and Zhang, X.: Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry, in: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Solomon, S., Qin D., Manning M., Marquis M., Averyt K., Tignor M. M. B., Miller, H. L., and Chen Z. L., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA, 499-587, 2007.
  3. Liu, Z., Zheng, B., Zhang, Q., and Guan, D.: New dynamics of energy use and CO 2 emissions in China, Nature, available at: https: //arxiv.org/abs/1811.09475 (last access: 28 November 2018), in review, 2018.
  4. NBS: National Bureau of Statistics, 2015, China Energy Statistical Yearbook 2014, China Statistics Press, Beijing, ISBN 978-75037-7499-7, 2015.
  5. NBS: National Bureau of Statistics, 2017, China Energy Statistical Yearbook 2017, China Statistics Press, Beijing, ISBN 978-75037-8064-6, 2017.
  6. Prentice, I. C., Farquhar, G. D., Fasham, M. J. R., Goulden, M. L., Heimann, M., Jaramillo, V. J., Kheshgi, H. S., Le Quéré, C., Scholes, R. J., and Wallace, D. W. R.: The Carbon Cycle and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, in: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Houghton, J. T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D. J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P. J., Dai, X., Maskell, K., and Johnson, C. A., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA., 183-237, 2001.
  7. Rhein, M., Rintoul, S. R., Aoki, S., Campos, E., Chambers, D., Feely, R. A., Gulev, S., Johnson, G. C., Josey, S. A., Kostianoy, A., Mauritzen, C., Roemmich, D., Talley, L. D., and Wang, F.: Chapter 3: Observations: Ocean, in: Climate Change 2013 The Physical Science Basis, Cambridge University Press, 2013.
  8. Rypdal, K., Paciomik, N., Eggleston, S., Goodwin, J., Irving, W., Penman, J., and Woodfield, M.: Chapter 1 Introduction to the 2006 Guidelines, in: 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, edited by: Eggleston, S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., and Tanabe, K., Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan, 2006.
  9. Schimel, D., Alves, D., Enting, I., Heimann, M., Joos, F., Raynaud, D., Wigley, T., Prater, M., Derwent, R., Ehhalt, D., Fraser, P., Sanhueza, E., Zhou, X., Jonas, P., Charlson, R., Rodhe, H., Sadasivan, S., Shine, K. P., Fouquart, Y., Ramaswamy, V., Solomon, S., Srinivasan, J., Albritton, D., Derwent, R., Isaksen, I., Lal, M., and Wuebbles, D.: Radiative Forcing of Climate Change, in: Climate Change 1995 The Science of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Houghton, J. T., Meira Rilho, L. G., Callander, B. A., Harris, N., Kattenberg, A., and Maskell, K., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1995.
  10. Stocker, T., Qin, D., and Platner, G.-K.: Climate Change 2013 The Physical Science Basis, Cambridge University Press, 2013.
  11. Watson, R. T., Rodhe, H., Oeschger, H., and Siegenthaler, U.: Greenhouse Gases and Aerosols, in: Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), edited by: Houghton, J. T., Jenkins, G. J., and Ephraums, J. J., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 140, 1990.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Le Quéré, C., Andrew, R. M., Friedlingstein, P., Sitch, S., Hauck, J., Pongratz, J., Pickers, P. A., Korsbakken, J. I., Peters, G. P., Canadell, J. G., Arneth, A., Arora, V. K., Barbero, L., Bastos, A., Bopp, L., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Ciais, P., Doney, S. C., Gkritzalis, T., Goll, D. S., Harris, I., Haverd, V., Hoffman, F. M., Hoppema, M., Houghton, R. A., Hurtt, G., Ilyina, T., Jain, A. K., Johannessen, T., Jones, C. D., Kato, E., Keeling, R. F., Goldewijk, K. K., Landschützer, P., Lefèvre, N., Lienert, S., Liu, Z., Lombardozzi, D., Metzl, N., Munro, D. R., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Nakaoka, S.-I., Neill, C., Olsen, A., Ono, T., Patra, P., Peregon, A., Peters, W., Peylin, P., Pfeil, B., Pierrot, D., Poulter, B., Rehder, G., Resplandy, L., Robertson, E., Rocher, M., Rödenbeck, C., Schuster, U., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Skjelvan, I., Steinhoff, T., Sutton, A., Tans, P. P., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., Tubiello, F. N., van der Laan-Luijkx, I. T., van der Werf, G. R., Viovy, N., Walker, A. P., Wiltshire, A. J., Wright, R., Zaehle, S., & Zheng, B.
Affiliations
  • CICERO Center for International Climate Research (NO)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • Alfred-Wegener-Institut Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar- und Meeresforschung (DE)
  • Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (DE)
  • University of East Anglia (GB)
  • CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere (AU)
  • Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (DE)
  • Environment and Climate Change Canada (CA)
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US)
  • Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • University of Virginia (US)
  • Flanders Marine Institute (BE)
  • Oak Ridge National Laboratory (US)
  • Woodwell Climate Research Center (US)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research (NO)
  • Met Office (GB)
  • Institute of Applied Energy (JP)
  • Scripps Institution of Oceanography (US)
  • Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (NL)
  • University of Bern (CH)
  • NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research (US)
  • Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (US)
  • National Institute for Environmental Studies (JP)
  • Japan Fisheries Research and Education Agency (JP)
  • Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JP)
  • University of Groningen (NL)
  • Goddard Space Flight Center (US)
  • Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research Warnemünde (DE)
  • Princeton University (US)
  • GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel (DE)
  • Auburn University (US)
  • Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (IT)
  • Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry (DE)
ORCID
Venue
Earth System Science Data
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Published
2018-12-05
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
2141-2194
ISSN
  • 1866-3508 (ISSN-L)
  • 1866-3516
DOI
10.5194/essd-10-2141-2018
OpenAlex
W2915336810
Cited by
1,645
References
157
Citations by year
2026: 86 · 2025: 122 · 2024: 126 · 2023: 152 · 2022: 226 · 2021: 346 · 2020: 368 · 2019: 211 · 2018: 8
FWCI
136.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Earth system science data (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UTAS Research Repository (acceptedVersion)
  • Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar-und Meeresforschung (Alfred-Wegener-Institut) (acceptedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel (GEOMAR) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
  • Institutional Archive of Ifremer (French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar-und Meeresforschung (Alfred-Wegener-Institut) (submittedVersion)
  • Open access LMU (Ludwid Maxmilian's Universitat Munchen) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • NOAA Institutional Repository (submittedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Biogeosciences (European Geosciences Union) (submittedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • OPUS (Augsburg University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (DEAC05- 00OR22725, 00OR22725, 2015-67003-23485)
  • U.S. Department of Energy (DESC0012972, AC05-00OR22725, 2015-67003-23485, DE--AC05--00OR22725, DE-AC05?, DE-SC000 0016323, 00OR22725)
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (80NSSC18K0897, AC05-00OR22725, DE-AC05-00OR22725, 2015-67003-23485)
  • U.S. Department of Commerce
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture (2015-67003-23485, 2015‐67003‐23489)
  • Bundesministerium für Verkehr und Digitale Infrastruktur
  • Institut de Recherche pour le Développement
  • Great Barrier Reef Foundation
  • Australian Government
  • Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum (bm0891)
  • Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK Government (GA01101)
  • Met Office (GA01101)
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (PO1751/1‐1, PO1751, DE-AC05-00OR22725)
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (67003, 229771, 172476)
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
  • Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (G0H3317N)
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (DE-AC05-00OR22725)
  • Ministry of Environment
  • Ministry of Education, India
  • Universitetet i Bergen
  • Norges Forskningsråd (Sigma2, 209701, 229771, 245927)
  • Grand Équipement National De Calcul Intensif
  • Vlaamse regering
  • Japan Fisheries Research and Education Agency
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  • National Institute of Food and Agriculture (2015‐67003‐23489, 2015-67003-23485)
  • Office of Science (DEAC05- 00OR22725, AC05-00OR22725)
  • Natural Environment Research Council (GA 01101, NE/P021417/1, NE/F005806/1, NE/K002473/1)
  • Climate Program Office
  • Ocean Acidification Program
  • Oak Ridge National Laboratory (AC05-00OR22725, DE-AC05-00OR22725)
  • H2020 European Research Council
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Oceanography › Marine and coastal ecosystems
Keywords
global carbon budget, anthropogenic CO2 emissions, fossil fuel emissions, deforestation, atmospheric CO2 concentration, ocean carbon sink, carbon cycle, carbon sink, emission uncertainty

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review