
- UNIVERSITE PARIS DESCARTES France
- Institut de Recherche pour le Développement France
- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Netherlands
- University of Colorado Boulder United States
- Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres Germany
- University of Groningen Netherlands
- Wageningen University & Research Netherlands
- Université Paris Diderot France
- University of Leeds United Kingdom
- Woods Hole Research Center United States
- University of Bern Switzerland
- University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign United States
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration United States
- Japan Meteorological Agency Japan
- Stanford University United States
- Sun Yat-sen University China (People's Republic of)
- Max Planck Society Germany
- University of Toulouse France
- Nanjing University China (People's Republic of)
- Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Australia
- ETH Zurich Switzerland
- Tsinghua University China (People's Republic of)
- University of East Anglia United Kingdom
- Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory United States
- French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea France
- Commissariat à l’énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives France
- École Normale Supérieure France
- German Aerospace Center Germany
- Princeton University United States
- University of Bergen Norway
- Auburn University System United States
- University of Paris-Saclay France
- National Center for Atmospheric Research United States
- Flanders Marine Institute Belgium
- Norwich Research Park United Kingdom
- University Corporation for Atmospheric Research United States
- University of Tasmania Australia
- National Institute for Space Research Brazil
- Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences Bermuda
- NORCE Norwegian Research Centre Norway
- University of Exeter United Kingdom
- Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research Germany
- Oak Ridge National Laboratory United States
- National Institute for Environmental Studies Japan
- École des Ponts ParisTech France
- Auburn University United States
- Appalachian State University United States
- Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology Japan
- University of Mary United States
- University of Southampton United Kingdom
- Met Office United Kingdom
- Center for International Climate and Environmental Research Norway
- Plymouth Marine Laboratory United Kingdom
- Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Germany
- GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel Germany
- International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Austria
Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in a changing climate – 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 and synthesize data sets 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) 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 (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), and ELUC 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 budget imbalance BIM of −0.1 GtC yr−1 indicating a near balance between estimated sources and sinks over the last decade. For the year 2019 alone, the growth in EFOS was only about 0.1 % with fossil emissions increasing to 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 was 5.4 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.5 ± 0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 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 CO2 concentration reached 409.85 ± 0.1 ppm averaged over 2019. Preliminary data for 2020, accounting for the COVID-19-induced changes in emissions, suggest a decrease in EFOS relative to 2019 of about −7 % (median estimate) based on individual estimates from four studies of −6 %, −7 %, −7 % (−3 % to −11 %), and −13 %. Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2019, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. Comparison of estimates from diverse approaches and observations shows (1) no consensus in 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 of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent discrepancy between the different methods for the ocean sink outside the tropics, particularly in the Southern Ocean. 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 (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).