scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Deborah N. Huntzinger

Bio: Deborah N. Huntzinger is an academic researcher from Northern Arizona University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Carbon cycle & Carbon sequestration. The author has an hindex of 34, co-authored 78 publications receiving 5157 citations. Previous affiliations of Deborah N. Huntzinger include Michigan Technological University & University of Michigan.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors evaluated the environmental impact of four cement manufacturing processes: (1) the production of traditional Portland cement, (2) blended cement (natural pozzolans), (3) cement where 100% of waste cement kiln dust is recycled into the kiln process, and (4) Portland cement produced when CKD is used to sequester a portion of the process related CO2 emissions.
Abstract: Concern over the impact of anthropogenic carbon emissions on the global climate has increased in recent years due to growth in global warming awareness. Approximately 5% of global CO2 emissions originate from the manufacturing of cement, the third largest source of carbon emission in the United States. In addition to the generation of CO2 the cement manufacturing process produces millions of tons of the waste product cement kiln dust (CKD) each year contributing to respiratory and pollution health risks. In this paper LCA is used to evaluate the environmental impact of four cement manufacturing processes: (1) the production of traditional Portland cement, (2) blended cement (natural pozzolans), (3) cement where 100% of waste cement kiln dust is recycled into the kiln process, and (4) Portland cement produced when cement kiln dust (CKD) is used to sequester a portion of the process related CO2 emissions. To reduce uncertainty this manuscript presents a cradle-to-gate life-cycle assessment of several cement products. Analysis using SimaPro 6.0 software shows that blended cements provide the greatest environmental savings followed by utilization of CKD for sequestration. The recycling of CKD was found to have little environmental savings over the traditional process.

994 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
09 Aug 2017-Nature
TL;DR: This analysis of three independent datasets of gross primary productivity shows that, across diverse ecosystems, drought recovery times are strongly associated with climate and carbon cycle dynamics, with biodiversity and CO2 fertilization as secondary factors.
Abstract: Drought, a recurring phenomenon with major impacts on both human and natural systems, is the most widespread climatic extreme that negatively affects the land carbon sink. Although twentieth-century trends in drought regimes are ambiguous, across many regions more frequent and severe droughts are expected in the twenty-first century. Recovery time-how long an ecosystem requires to revert to its pre-drought functional state-is a critical metric of drought impact. Yet the factors influencing drought recovery and its spatiotemporal patterns at the global scale are largely unknown. Here we analyse three independent datasets of gross primary productivity and show that, across diverse ecosystems, drought recovery times are strongly associated with climate and carbon cycle dynamics, with biodiversity and CO2 fertilization as secondary factors. Our analysis also provides two key insights into the spatiotemporal patterns of drought recovery time: first, that recovery is longest in the tropics and high northern latitudes (both vulnerable areas of Earth's climate system) and second, that drought impacts (assessed using the area of ecosystems actively recovering and time to recovery) have increased over the twentieth century. If droughts become more frequent, as expected, the time between droughts may become shorter than drought recovery time, leading to permanently damaged ecosystems and widespread degradation of the land carbon sink.

492 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
10 Mar 2016-Nature
TL;DR: The cumulative warming capacity of concurrent biogenic methane and nitrous oxide emissions is a factor of about two larger than the cooling effect resulting from the global land carbon dioxide uptake from 2001 to 2010, which results in a net positive cumulative impact of the three greenhouse gases on the planetary energy budget.
Abstract: The net balance of terrestrial biogenic greenhouse gases produced as a result of human activities and the climatic impact of this balance are uncertain; here the net cumulative impact of the three greenhouse gases, methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide, on the planetary energy budget from 2001 to 2010 is a warming of the planet. The biogenic fluxes of individual greenhouse gases have extensively studied, but the net terrestrial biogenic greenhouse gas balance as a result of human activities and its climatic impact remains uncertain. Hanqin Tian et al. have quantified the net cumulative impact of three greenhouse gases — methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide — on the planetary energy budget. From 2001 to 2010, they find a net positive (warming) cumulative impact and conclude that a reduction in agricultural methane and nitrous oxide emissions — in particular in Southern Asia — may help mitigate climate change. The terrestrial biosphere can release or absorb the greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), and therefore has an important role in regulating atmospheric composition and climate1. Anthropogenic activities such as land-use change, agriculture and waste management have altered terrestrial biogenic greenhouse gas fluxes, and the resulting increases in methane and nitrous oxide emissions in particular can contribute to climate change2,3. The terrestrial biogenic fluxes of individual greenhouse gases have been studied extensively4,5,6, but the net biogenic greenhouse gas balance resulting from anthropogenic activities and its effect on the climate system remains uncertain. Here we use bottom-up (inventory, statistical extrapolation of local flux measurements, and process-based modelling) and top-down (atmospheric inversions) approaches to quantify the global net biogenic greenhouse gas balance between 1981 and 2010 resulting from anthropogenic activities and its effect on the climate system. We find that the cumulative warming capacity of concurrent biogenic methane and nitrous oxide emissions is a factor of about two larger than the cooling effect resulting from the global land carbon dioxide uptake from 2001 to 2010. This results in a net positive cumulative impact of the three greenhouse gases on the planetary energy budget, with a best estimate (in petagrams of CO2 equivalent per year) of 3.9 ± 3.8 (top down) and 5.4 ± 4.8 (bottom up) based on the GWP100 metric (global warming potential on a 100-year time horizon). Our findings suggest that a reduction in agricultural methane and nitrous oxide emissions, particularly in Southern Asia, may help mitigate climate change.

398 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The degree of mineral carbonation achievable in cement kiln dust (CKD) underambienttemperatures and pressures was examined through a series of batch and column experiments, and sequestration appears to follow unreacted core model theory where reaction kinetics are controlled by a first-order rate constant at early times.
Abstract: Carbon sequestration through the formation of carbonates is a potential means to reduce CO2 emissions. Alkaline industrial solid wastes typically have high mass fractions of reactive oxides that may not require preprocessing, making them an attractive source material for mineral carbonation The degree of mineral carbonation achievable in cement kiln dust (CKD) under ambient temperatures and pressures was examined through a series of batch and column experiments. The overall extent and potential mechanisms and rate behavior of the carbonation process were assessed through a complementary set of analytical and empirical methods, including mass change, thermal analysis, and X-ray diffraction. The carbonation reactions were carried out primarily through the reaction of CO2 with Ca(OH)2, and CaCO3 was observed as the predominant carbonation product. A sequestration extent of over 60% was observed within 8 h of reaction without any modifications to the waste. Sequestration appears to follow unreacted core model...

300 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper poses a benchmarking framework for evaluation of land model performances and highlights major challenges at this infant stage of benchmark analysis.
Abstract: Land models, which have been developed by the modeling community in the past few decades to predict fu- ture states of ecosystems and climate, have to be critically evaluated for their performance skills of simulating ecosys- tem responses and feedback to climate change. Benchmark- ing is an emerging procedure to measure performance of models against a set of defined standards. This paper pro- poses a benchmarking framework for evaluation of land model performances and, meanwhile, highlights major chal- lenges at this infant stage of benchmark analysis. The frame- work includes (1) targeted aspects of model performance

283 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
13 Feb 2019-Nature
TL;DR: It is argued that contextual cues should be used as part of deep learning to gain further process understanding of Earth system science problems, improving the predictive ability of seasonal forecasting and modelling of long-range spatial connections across multiple timescales.
Abstract: Machine learning approaches are increasingly used to extract patterns and insights from the ever-increasing stream of geospatial data, but current approaches may not be optimal when system behaviour is dominated by spatial or temporal context. Here, rather than amending classical machine learning, we argue that these contextual cues should be used as part of deep learning (an approach that is able to extract spatio-temporal features automatically) to gain further process understanding of Earth system science problems, improving the predictive ability of seasonal forecasting and modelling of long-range spatial connections across multiple timescales, for example. The next step will be a hybrid modelling approach, coupling physical process models with the versatility of data-driven machine learning.

2,014 citations

Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 2014
TL;DR: For base year 2010, anthropogenic activities created ~210 (190 to 230) TgN of reactive nitrogen Nr from N2 as discussed by the authors, which is at least 2 times larger than the rate of natural terrestrial creation of ~58 Tg N (50 to 100 Tg nr yr−1) (Table 6.9, Section 1a).
Abstract: For base year 2010, anthropogenic activities created ~210 (190 to 230) TgN of reactive nitrogen Nr from N2. This human-caused creation of reactive nitrogen in 2010 is at least 2 times larger than the rate of natural terrestrial creation of ~58 TgN (50 to 100 TgN yr−1) (Table 6.9, Section 1a). Note that the estimate of natural terrestrial biological fixation (58 TgN yr−1) is lower than former estimates (100 TgN yr−1, Galloway et al., 2004), but the ranges overlap, 50 to 100 TgN yr−1 vs. 90 to 120 TgN yr−1, respectively). Of this created reactive nitrogen, NOx and NH3 emissions from anthropogenic sources are about fourfold greater than natural emissions (Table 6.9, Section 1b). A greater portion of the NH3 emissions is deposited to the continents rather than to the oceans, relative to the deposition of NOy, due to the longer atmospheric residence time of the latter. These deposition estimates are lower limits, as they do not include organic nitrogen species. New model and measurement information (Kanakidou et al., 2012) suggests that incomplete inclusion of emissions and atmospheric chemistry of reduced and oxidized organic nitrogen components in current models may lead to systematic underestimates of total global reactive nitrogen deposition by up to 35% (Table 6.9, Section 1c). Discharge of reactive nitrogen to the coastal oceans is ~45 TgN yr−1 (Table 6.9, Section 1d). Denitrification converts Nr back to atmospheric N2. The current estimate for the production of atmospheric N2 is 110 TgN yr−1 (Bouwman et al., 2013).

1,967 citations

01 Dec 2010
TL;DR: In this article, the authors suggest a reduction in the global NPP of 0.55 petagrams of carbon, which would not only weaken the terrestrial carbon sink, but would also intensify future competition between food demand and biofuel production.
Abstract: Terrestrial net primary production (NPP) quantifies the amount of atmospheric carbon fixed by plants and accumulated as biomass. Previous studies have shown that climate constraints were relaxing with increasing temperature and solar radiation, allowing an upward trend in NPP from 1982 through 1999. The past decade (2000 to 2009) has been the warmest since instrumental measurements began, which could imply continued increases in NPP; however, our estimates suggest a reduction in the global NPP of 0.55 petagrams of carbon. Large-scale droughts have reduced regional NPP, and a drying trend in the Southern Hemisphere has decreased NPP in that area, counteracting the increased NPP over the Northern Hemisphere. A continued decline in NPP would not only weaken the terrestrial carbon sink, but it would also intensify future competition between food demand and proposed biofuel production.

1,780 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Pierre Friedlingstein1, Pierre Friedlingstein2, Michael O'Sullivan2, Matthew W. Jones3, Robbie M. Andrew, Judith Hauck, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters4, Wouter Peters5, Julia Pongratz6, Julia Pongratz7, Stephen Sitch1, Corinne Le Quéré3, Josep G. Canadell8, Philippe Ciais9, Robert B. Jackson10, Simone R. Alin11, Luiz E. O. C. Aragão12, Luiz E. O. C. Aragão1, Almut Arneth, Vivek K. Arora, Nicholas R. Bates13, Nicholas R. Bates14, Meike Becker, Alice Benoit-Cattin, Henry C. Bittig, Laurent Bopp15, Selma Bultan7, Naveen Chandra16, Naveen Chandra17, Frédéric Chevallier9, Louise Chini18, Wiley Evans, Liesbeth Florentie5, Piers M. Forster19, Thomas Gasser20, Marion Gehlen9, Dennis Gilfillan, Thanos Gkritzalis21, Luke Gregor22, Nicolas Gruber22, Ian Harris23, Kerstin Hartung24, Kerstin Hartung7, Vanessa Haverd8, Richard A. Houghton25, Tatiana Ilyina6, Atul K. Jain26, Emilie Joetzjer27, Koji Kadono28, Etsushi Kato, Vassilis Kitidis29, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Peter Landschützer6, Nathalie Lefèvre30, Andrew Lenton31, Sebastian Lienert32, Zhu Liu33, Danica Lombardozzi34, Gregg Marland35, Nicolas Metzl30, David R. Munro36, David R. Munro11, Julia E. M. S. Nabel6, S. Nakaoka16, Yosuke Niwa16, Kevin D. O'Brien37, Kevin D. O'Brien11, Tsuneo Ono, Paul I. Palmer, Denis Pierrot38, Benjamin Poulter, Laure Resplandy39, Eddy Robertson40, Christian Rödenbeck6, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian27, Ingunn Skjelvan, Adam J. P. Smith3, Adrienne J. Sutton11, Toste Tanhua41, Pieter P. Tans11, Hanqin Tian42, Bronte Tilbrook43, Bronte Tilbrook31, Guido R. van der Werf44, N. Vuichard9, Anthony P. Walker45, Rik Wanninkhof38, Andrew J. Watson1, David R. Willis23, Andy Wiltshire40, Wenping Yuan46, Xu Yue47, Sönke Zaehle6 
University of Exeter1, École Normale Supérieure2, Norwich Research Park3, University of Groningen4, Wageningen University and Research Centre5, Max Planck Society6, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich7, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation8, Université Paris-Saclay9, Stanford University10, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration11, National Institute for Space Research12, Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences13, University of Southampton14, PSL Research University15, National Institute for Environmental Studies16, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology17, University of Maryland, College Park18, University of Leeds19, International Institute of Minnesota20, Flanders Marine Institute21, ETH Zurich22, University of East Anglia23, German Aerospace Center24, Woods Hole Research Center25, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign26, University of Toulouse27, Japan Meteorological Agency28, Plymouth Marine Laboratory29, University of Paris30, Hobart Corporation31, Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research32, Tsinghua University33, National Center for Atmospheric Research34, Appalachian State University35, University of Colorado Boulder36, University of Washington37, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory38, Princeton University39, Met Office40, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences41, Auburn University42, University of Tasmania43, VU University Amsterdam44, Oak Ridge National Laboratory45, Sun Yat-sen University46, Nanjing University47
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors describe and synthesize data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties, including emissions from land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models.
Abstract: 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 Quere 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).

1,764 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Corinne Le Quéré1, Robbie M. Andrew, Pierre Friedlingstein2, Stephen Sitch2, Judith Hauck3, Julia Pongratz4, Julia Pongratz5, Penelope A. Pickers1, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Glen P. Peters, Josep G. Canadell6, Almut Arneth7, Vivek K. Arora, Leticia Barbero8, Leticia Barbero9, Ana Bastos4, Laurent Bopp10, Frédéric Chevallier11, Louise Chini12, Philippe Ciais11, Scott C. Doney13, Thanos Gkritzalis14, Daniel S. Goll11, Ian Harris1, Vanessa Haverd6, Forrest M. Hoffman15, Mario Hoppema3, Richard A. Houghton16, George C. Hurtt12, Tatiana Ilyina5, Atul K. Jain17, Truls Johannessen18, Chris D. Jones19, Etsushi Kato, Ralph F. Keeling20, Kees Klein Goldewijk21, Kees Klein Goldewijk22, Peter Landschützer5, Nathalie Lefèvre23, Sebastian Lienert24, Zhu Liu25, Zhu Liu1, Danica Lombardozzi26, Nicolas Metzl23, David R. Munro27, Julia E. M. S. Nabel5, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka28, Craig Neill29, Craig Neill30, Are Olsen18, T. Ono, Prabir K. Patra31, Anna Peregon11, Wouter Peters32, Wouter Peters33, Philippe Peylin11, Benjamin Pfeil34, Benjamin Pfeil18, Denis Pierrot8, Denis Pierrot9, Benjamin Poulter35, Gregor Rehder36, Laure Resplandy37, Eddy Robertson19, Matthias Rocher11, Christian Rödenbeck5, Ute Schuster2, Jörg Schwinger34, Roland Séférian11, Ingunn Skjelvan34, Tobias Steinhoff38, Adrienne J. Sutton39, Pieter P. Tans39, Hanqin Tian40, Bronte Tilbrook29, Bronte Tilbrook30, Francesco N. Tubiello41, Ingrid T. van der Laan-Luijkx32, Guido R. van der Werf42, Nicolas Viovy11, Anthony P. Walker15, Andy Wiltshire19, Rebecca Wright1, Sönke Zaehle5, Bo Zheng11 
University of East Anglia1, University of Exeter2, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research3, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich4, Max Planck Society5, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation6, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology7, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory8, Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies9, École Normale Supérieure10, Centre national de la recherche scientifique11, University of Maryland, College Park12, University of Virginia13, Flanders Marine Institute14, Oak Ridge National Laboratory15, Woods Hole Research Center16, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign17, Geophysical Institute, University of Bergen18, Met Office19, University of California, San Diego20, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency21, Utrecht University22, University of Paris23, Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research24, Tsinghua University25, National Center for Atmospheric Research26, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research27, National Institute for Environmental Studies28, Cooperative Research Centre29, Hobart Corporation30, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology31, Wageningen University and Research Centre32, University of Groningen33, Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research34, Goddard Space Flight Center35, Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research36, Princeton University37, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences38, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration39, Auburn University40, Food and Agriculture Organization41, VU University Amsterdam42
TL;DR: In this article, the authors describe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties, including emissions from land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models.
Abstract: . 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 Quere et al., 2018, 2016, 2015a, b, 2014, 2013). All results presented here can be downloaded from https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2018 .

1,458 citations