scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Thijs T. van Leeuwen

Bio: Thijs T. van Leeuwen is an academic researcher from Netherlands Institute for Space Research. The author has contributed to research in topics: Greenhouse gas & Deforestation. The author has an hindex of 5, co-authored 6 publications receiving 856 citations. Previous affiliations of Thijs T. van Leeuwen include VU University Amsterdam & Utrecht University.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Global Fire Emissions Database (GFED) as mentioned in this paper has been used to quantify global fire emissions patterns during 1997-2016, with the largest impact on emissions in temperate North America, Central America, Europe, and temperate Asia.
Abstract: . Climate, land use, and other anthropogenic and natural drivers have the potential to influence fire dynamics in many regions. To develop a mechanistic understanding of the changing role of these drivers and their impact on atmospheric composition, long-term fire records are needed that fuse information from different satellite and in situ data streams. Here we describe the fourth version of the Global Fire Emissions Database (GFED) and quantify global fire emissions patterns during 1997–2016. The modeling system, based on the Carnegie–Ames–Stanford Approach (CASA) biogeochemical model, has several modifications from the previous version and uses higher quality input datasets. Significant upgrades include (1) new burned area estimates with contributions from small fires, (2) a revised fuel consumption parameterization optimized using field observations, (3) modifications that improve the representation of fuel consumption in frequently burning landscapes, and (4) fire severity estimates that better represent continental differences in burning processes across boreal regions of North America and Eurasia. The new version has a higher spatial resolution (0.25°) and uses a different set of emission factors that separately resolves trace gas and aerosol emissions from temperate and boreal forest ecosystems. Global mean carbon emissions using the burned area dataset with small fires (GFED4s) were 2.2 × 1015 grams of carbon per year (Pg C yr−1) during 1997–2016, with a maximum in 1997 (3.0 Pg C yr−1) and minimum in 2013 (1.8 Pg C yr−1). These estimates were 11 % higher than our previous estimates (GFED3) during 1997–2011, when the two datasets overlapped. This net increase was the result of a substantial increase in burned area (37 %), mostly due to the inclusion of small fires, and a modest decrease in mean fuel consumption (−19 %) to better match estimates from field studies, primarily in savannas and grasslands. For trace gas and aerosol emissions, differences between GFED4s and GFED3 were often larger due to the use of revised emission factors. If small fire burned area was excluded (GFED4 without the s for small fires), average emissions were 1.5 Pg C yr−1. The addition of small fires had the largest impact on emissions in temperate North America, Central America, Europe, and temperate Asia. This small fire layer carries substantial uncertainties; improving these estimates will require use of new burned area products derived from high-resolution satellite imagery. Our revised dataset provides an internally consistent set of burned area and emissions that may contribute to a better understanding of multi-decadal changes in fire dynamics and their impact on the Earth system. GFED data are available from http://www.globalfiredata.org .

1,135 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: In this article, the results from the CarbonTracker South America data assimilation system suggest that carbon uptake by vegetation was indeed reduced in 2010, but that the magnitude of the decrease strongly depends on the estimated 2010 and 2011 biomass burning emissions.
Abstract: Two major droughts in the past decade had large impacts on carbon exchange in the Amazon. Recent analysis of vertical profile measurements of atmospheric CO2 and CO by Gatti et al. [2014] suggests that the 2010 drought turned the normally close to neutral annual Amazon carbon balance into a substantial source of nearly 0.5 PgC/yr, revealing a strong drought response. In this study, we revisit this hypothesis and interpret not only the same CO2/CO vertical profile measurements, but also additional constraints on carbon exchange such as satellite observations of CO, burned area, and fire hotspots. The results from our CarbonTracker South America data assimilation system suggest that carbon uptake by vegetation was indeed reduced in 2010, but that the magnitude of the decrease strongly depends on the estimated 2010 and 2011 biomass burning emissions. Using fire products based on burned area (GFED4), satellite observed CO columns (IASI), fire radiative power (GFASv1) or fire hotspots (FINNv1), lead to estimates of the 2010-2011 increase in biomass burning emissions between 0.16 and 0.43 PgC/yr. We derived a decrease of biospheric uptake ranging from 0.08 to 0.26 PgC/yr, with the range determined from a set of alternative inversions using different biomass burning estimates. Our numerical analysis of the 2010 Amazon drought results in a total reduction of carbon uptake of 0.24 to 0.50 PgC/yr and turns the balance from carbon sink to source. Our findings support the suggestion that the hydrological cycle will be an important driver of future changes in Amazonian carbon exchange.

54 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examined different ways to use land surface temperature (LST) to detect changes in tropical forest cover and found that using data sampled during the end of the dry season (∼1-2 months after minimum monthly precipitation) had the greatest predictive skill.
Abstract: [1] Rapid and accurate assessment of global forest cover change is needed to focus conservation efforts and to better understand how deforestation is contributing to the buildup of atmospheric CO2. Here we examined different ways to use land surface temperature (LST) to detect changes in tropical forest cover. In our analysis we used monthly 0.05° × 0.05° Terra Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) observations of LST and Program for the Estimation of Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon (PRODES) estimates of forest cover change. We also compared MODIS LST observations with an independent estimate of forest cover loss derived from MODIS and Landsat observations. Our study domain of approximately 10° × 10° included the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso. For optimal use of LST data to detect changes in tropical forest cover in our study area, we found that using data sampled during the end of the dry season (∼1–2 months after minimum monthly precipitation) had the greatest predictive skill. During this part of the year, precipitation was low, surface humidity was at a minimum, and the difference between day and night LST was the largest. We used this information to develop a simple temporal sampling algorithm appropriate for use in pantropical deforestation classifiers. Combined with the normalized difference vegetation index, a logistic regression model using day-night LST did moderately well at predicting forest cover change. Annual changes in day-night LST decreased during 2006–2009 relative to 2001–2005 in many regions within the Amazon, providing independent confirmation of lower deforestation levels during the latter part of this decade as reported by PRODES.

53 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A regional atmospheric CO2 inversion is developed that provides the first analysis of geographic and temporal variability in Amazon biosphere-atmosphere carbon exchange and that is minimally influenced by biosphere model-based first guesses of seasonal and annual mean fluxes.
Abstract: Understanding tropical rainforest carbon exchange and its response to heat and drought is critical for quantifying the effects of climate change on tropical ecosystems, including global climate-carbon feedbacks. Of particular importance for the global carbon budget is net biome exchange of CO2 with the atmosphere (NBE), which represents nonfire carbon fluxes into and out of biomass and soils. Subannual and sub-Basin Amazon NBE estimates have relied heavily on process-based biosphere models, despite lack of model agreement with plot-scale observations. We present a new analysis of airborne measurements that reveals monthly, regional-scale (~1-8 × 10(6) km(2) ) NBE variations. We develop a regional atmospheric CO2 inversion that provides the first analysis of geographic and temporal variability in Amazon biosphere-atmosphere carbon exchange and that is minimally influenced by biosphere model-based first guesses of seasonal and annual mean fluxes. We find little evidence for a clear seasonal cycle in Amazon NBE but do find NBE sensitivity to aberrations from long-term mean climate. In particular, we observe increased NBE (more carbon emitted to the atmosphere) associated with heat and drought in 2010, and correlations between wet season NBE and precipitation (negative correlation) and temperature (positive correlation). In the eastern Amazon, pulses of increased NBE persisted through 2011, suggesting legacy effects of 2010 heat and drought. We also identify regional differences in postdrought NBE that appear related to long-term water availability. We examine satellite proxies and find evidence for higher gross primary productivity (GPP) during a pulse of increased carbon uptake in 2011, and lower GPP during a period of increased NBE in the 2010 dry season drought, but links between GPP and NBE changes are not conclusive. These results provide novel evidence of NBE sensitivity to short-term temperature and moisture extremes in the Amazon, where monthly and sub-Basin estimates have not been previously available.

50 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors used satellite-derived burned area with fire radiative power (FRP) data to derive fuel consumption estimates for land cover types with low tree cover in South America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Australia.
Abstract: Landscape fires occur on a large scale in (sub)tropical savannas and grasslands, affecting ecosystem dynamics, regional air quality and concentrations of atmospheric trace gasses. Fuel consumption per unit of area burned is an important but poorly constrained parameter in fire emission modelling. We combined satellite-derived burned area with fire radiative power (FRP) data to derive fuel consumption estimates for land cover types with low tree cover in South America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Australia. We developed a new approach to estimate fuel consumption, based on FRP data from the polar-orbiting Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and the geostationary Spinning Enhanced Visible and Infrared Imager (SEVIRI) in combination with MODIS burned-area estimates. The fuel consumption estimates based on the geostationary and polar-orbiting instruments showed good agreement in terms of spatial patterns. We used field measurements of fuel consumption to constrain our results, but the large variation in fuel consumption in both space and time complicated this comparison and absolute fuel consumption estimates remained more uncertain. Spatial patterns in fuel consumption could be partly explained by vegetation productivity and fire return periods. In South America, most fires occurred in savannas with relatively long fire return periods, resulting in comparatively high fuel consumption as opposed to the more frequently burning savannas in Sub-Saharan Africa. Strikingly, we found the infrequently burning interior of Australia to have higher fuel consumption than the more productive but frequently burning savannas in northern Australia. Vegetation type also played an important role in explaining the distribution of fuel consumption, by affecting both fuel build-up rates and fire return periods. Hummock grasslands, which were responsible for a large share of Australian biomass burning, showed larger fuel build-up rates than equally productive grasslands in Africa, although this effect might have been partially driven by the presence of grazers in Africa or differences in landscape management. Finally, land management in the form of deforestation and agriculture also considerably affected fuel consumption regionally. We conclude that combining FRP and burned-area estimates, calibrated against field measurements, is a promising approach in deriving quantitative estimates of fuel consumption. Satellite-derived fuel consumption estimates may both challenge our current understanding of spatiotemporal fuel consumption dynamics and serve as reference datasets to improve biogeochemical modelling approaches. Future field studies especially designed to validate satellite-based products, or airborne remote sensing, may further improve confidence in the absolute fuel consumption estimates which are quickly becoming the weakest link in fire emission estimates.

37 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Pierre Friedlingstein1, Pierre Friedlingstein2, Michael O'Sullivan1, Matthew W. Jones3, Robbie M. Andrew, Judith Hauck, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters4, Wouter Peters5, Julia Pongratz6, Julia Pongratz7, Stephen Sitch2, Corinne Le Quéré3, Josep G. Canadell8, Philippe Ciais9, Robert B. Jackson10, Simone R. Alin11, Luiz E. O. C. Aragão2, Luiz E. O. C. Aragão12, 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 Hartung7, Kerstin Hartung24, 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. Munro11, David R. Munro36, Julia E. M. S. Nabel6, S. Nakaoka17, Yosuke Niwa17, 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. Watson2, David R. Willis23, Andy Wiltshire40, Wenping Yuan46, Xu Yue47, Sönke Zaehle6 
École Normale Supérieure1, University of Exeter2, 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, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology16, National Institute for Environmental Studies17, 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 Bastos5, 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 Ilyina4, Atul K. Jain17, Truls Johannessen18, Chris D. Jones19, Etsushi Kato, Ralph F. Keeling20, Kees Klein Goldewijk21, Kees Klein Goldewijk22, Peter Landschützer4, Nathalie Lefèvre23, Sebastian Lienert24, Zhu Liu25, Zhu Liu1, Danica Lombardozzi26, Nicolas Metzl23, David R. Munro27, Julia E. M. S. Nabel4, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka28, Craig Neill29, Craig Neill30, Are Olsen18, T. Ono, Prabir K. Patra31, Anna Peregon11, Wouter Peters32, Wouter Peters33, Philippe Peylin11, Benjamin Pfeil18, Benjamin Pfeil34, Denis Pierrot9, Denis Pierrot8, Benjamin Poulter35, Gregor Rehder36, Laure Resplandy37, Eddy Robertson19, Matthias Rocher11, Christian Rödenbeck4, Ute Schuster2, Jörg Schwinger34, Roland Séférian11, Ingunn Skjelvan34, Tobias Steinhoff38, Adrienne J. Sutton39, Pieter P. Tans39, Hanqin Tian40, Bronte Tilbrook30, Bronte Tilbrook29, Francesco N. Tubiello41, Ingrid T. van der Laan-Luijkx33, Guido R. van der Werf42, Nicolas Viovy11, Anthony P. Walker15, Andy Wiltshire19, Rebecca Wright1, Sönke Zaehle4, Bo Zheng11 
University of East Anglia1, University of Exeter2, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research3, Max Planck Society4, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich5, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation6, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology7, Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies8, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory9, 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, University of Groningen32, Wageningen University and Research Centre33, 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

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Global Fire Emissions Database (GFED) as mentioned in this paper has been used to quantify global fire emissions patterns during 1997-2016, with the largest impact on emissions in temperate North America, Central America, Europe, and temperate Asia.
Abstract: . Climate, land use, and other anthropogenic and natural drivers have the potential to influence fire dynamics in many regions. To develop a mechanistic understanding of the changing role of these drivers and their impact on atmospheric composition, long-term fire records are needed that fuse information from different satellite and in situ data streams. Here we describe the fourth version of the Global Fire Emissions Database (GFED) and quantify global fire emissions patterns during 1997–2016. The modeling system, based on the Carnegie–Ames–Stanford Approach (CASA) biogeochemical model, has several modifications from the previous version and uses higher quality input datasets. Significant upgrades include (1) new burned area estimates with contributions from small fires, (2) a revised fuel consumption parameterization optimized using field observations, (3) modifications that improve the representation of fuel consumption in frequently burning landscapes, and (4) fire severity estimates that better represent continental differences in burning processes across boreal regions of North America and Eurasia. The new version has a higher spatial resolution (0.25°) and uses a different set of emission factors that separately resolves trace gas and aerosol emissions from temperate and boreal forest ecosystems. Global mean carbon emissions using the burned area dataset with small fires (GFED4s) were 2.2 × 1015 grams of carbon per year (Pg C yr−1) during 1997–2016, with a maximum in 1997 (3.0 Pg C yr−1) and minimum in 2013 (1.8 Pg C yr−1). These estimates were 11 % higher than our previous estimates (GFED3) during 1997–2011, when the two datasets overlapped. This net increase was the result of a substantial increase in burned area (37 %), mostly due to the inclusion of small fires, and a modest decrease in mean fuel consumption (−19 %) to better match estimates from field studies, primarily in savannas and grasslands. For trace gas and aerosol emissions, differences between GFED4s and GFED3 were often larger due to the use of revised emission factors. If small fire burned area was excluded (GFED4 without the s for small fires), average emissions were 1.5 Pg C yr−1. The addition of small fires had the largest impact on emissions in temperate North America, Central America, Europe, and temperate Asia. This small fire layer carries substantial uncertainties; improving these estimates will require use of new burned area products derived from high-resolution satellite imagery. Our revised dataset provides an internally consistent set of burned area and emissions that may contribute to a better understanding of multi-decadal changes in fire dynamics and their impact on the Earth system. GFED data are available from http://www.globalfiredata.org .

1,135 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Marielle Saunois1, Ann R. Stavert2, Ben Poulter3, Philippe Bousquet1, Josep G. Canadell2, Robert B. Jackson4, Peter A. Raymond5, Edward J. Dlugokencky6, Sander Houweling7, Sander Houweling8, Prabir K. Patra9, Prabir K. Patra10, Philippe Ciais1, Vivek K. Arora, David Bastviken11, Peter Bergamaschi, Donald R. Blake12, Gordon Brailsford13, Lori Bruhwiler6, Kimberly M. Carlson14, Mark Carrol3, Simona Castaldi15, Naveen Chandra9, Cyril Crevoisier16, Patrick M. Crill17, Kristofer R. Covey18, Charles L. Curry19, Giuseppe Etiope20, Giuseppe Etiope21, Christian Frankenberg22, Nicola Gedney23, Michaela I. Hegglin24, Lena Höglund-Isaksson25, Gustaf Hugelius17, Misa Ishizawa26, Akihiko Ito26, Greet Janssens-Maenhout, Katherine M. Jensen27, Fortunat Joos28, Thomas Kleinen29, Paul B. Krummel2, Ray L. Langenfelds2, Goulven Gildas Laruelle, Licheng Liu30, Toshinobu Machida26, Shamil Maksyutov26, Kyle C. McDonald27, Joe McNorton31, Paul A. Miller32, Joe R. Melton, Isamu Morino26, Jurek Müller28, Fabiola Murguia-Flores33, Vaishali Naik34, Yosuke Niwa26, Sergio Noce, Simon O'Doherty33, Robert J. Parker35, Changhui Peng36, Shushi Peng37, Glen P. Peters, Catherine Prigent, Ronald G. Prinn38, Michel Ramonet1, Pierre Regnier, William J. Riley39, Judith A. Rosentreter40, Arjo Segers, Isobel J. Simpson12, Hao Shi41, Steven J. Smith42, L. Paul Steele2, Brett F. Thornton17, Hanqin Tian41, Yasunori Tohjima26, Francesco N. Tubiello43, Aki Tsuruta44, Nicolas Viovy1, Apostolos Voulgarakis45, Apostolos Voulgarakis46, Thomas Weber47, Michiel van Weele48, Guido R. van der Werf7, Ray F. Weiss49, Doug Worthy, Debra Wunch50, Yi Yin22, Yi Yin1, Yukio Yoshida26, Weiya Zhang32, Zhen Zhang51, Yuanhong Zhao1, Bo Zheng1, Qing Zhu39, Qiuan Zhu52, Qianlai Zhuang30 
Université Paris-Saclay1, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation2, Goddard Space Flight Center3, Stanford University4, Yale University5, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration6, VU University Amsterdam7, Netherlands Institute for Space Research8, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology9, Chiba University10, Linköping University11, University of California, Irvine12, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research13, New York University14, Seconda Università degli Studi di Napoli15, École Polytechnique16, Stockholm University17, Skidmore College18, University of Victoria19, Babeș-Bolyai University20, National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology21, California Institute of Technology22, Met Office23, University of Reading24, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis25, National Institute for Environmental Studies26, City University of New York27, University of Bern28, Max Planck Society29, Purdue University30, European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts31, Lund University32, University of Bristol33, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory34, University of Leicester35, Université du Québec à Montréal36, Peking University37, Massachusetts Institute of Technology38, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory39, Southern Cross University40, Auburn University41, Joint Global Change Research Institute42, Food and Agriculture Organization43, Finnish Meteorological Institute44, Imperial College London45, Technical University of Crete46, University of Rochester47, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute48, Scripps Institution of Oceanography49, University of Toronto50, University of Maryland, College Park51, Hohai University52
TL;DR: The second version of the living review paper dedicated to the decadal methane budget, integrating results of top-down studies (atmospheric observations within an atmospheric inverse-modeling framework) and bottom-up estimates (including process-based models for estimating land surface emissions and atmospheric chemistry, inventories of anthropogenic emissions, and data-driven extrapolations) as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Understanding and quantifying the global methane (CH4) budget is important for assessing realistic pathways to mitigate climate change. Atmospheric emissions and concentrations of CH4 continue to increase, making CH4 the second most important human-influenced greenhouse gas in terms of climate forcing, after carbon dioxide (CO2). The relative importance of CH4 compared to CO2 depends on its shorter atmospheric lifetime, stronger warming potential, and variations in atmospheric growth rate over the past decade, the causes of which are still debated. Two major challenges in reducing uncertainties in the atmospheric growth rate arise from the variety of geographically overlapping CH4 sources and from the destruction of CH4 by short-lived hydroxyl radicals (OH). To address these challenges, we have established a consortium of multidisciplinary scientists under the umbrella of the Global Carbon Project to synthesize and stimulate new research aimed at improving and regularly updating the global methane budget. Following Saunois et al. (2016), we present here the second version of the living review paper dedicated to the decadal methane budget, integrating results of top-down studies (atmospheric observations within an atmospheric inverse-modelling framework) and bottom-up estimates (including process-based models for estimating land surface emissions and atmospheric chemistry, inventories of anthropogenic emissions, and data-driven extrapolations). For the 2008–2017 decade, global methane emissions are estimated by atmospheric inversions (a top-down approach) to be 576 Tg CH4 yr−1 (range 550–594, corresponding to the minimum and maximum estimates of the model ensemble). Of this total, 359 Tg CH4 yr−1 or ∼ 60 % is attributed to anthropogenic sources, that is emissions caused by direct human activity (i.e. anthropogenic emissions; range 336–376 Tg CH4 yr−1 or 50 %–65 %). The mean annual total emission for the new decade (2008–2017) is 29 Tg CH4 yr−1 larger than our estimate for the previous decade (2000–2009), and 24 Tg CH4 yr−1 larger than the one reported in the previous budget for 2003–2012 (Saunois et al., 2016). Since 2012, global CH4 emissions have been tracking the warmest scenarios assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Bottom-up methods suggest almost 30 % larger global emissions (737 Tg CH4 yr−1, range 594–881) than top-down inversion methods. Indeed, bottom-up estimates for natural sources such as natural wetlands, other inland water systems, and geological sources are higher than top-down estimates. The atmospheric constraints on the top-down budget suggest that at least some of these bottom-up emissions are overestimated. The latitudinal distribution of atmospheric observation-based emissions indicates a predominance of tropical emissions (∼ 65 % of the global budget, < 30∘ N) compared to mid-latitudes (∼ 30 %, 30–60∘ N) and high northern latitudes (∼ 4 %, 60–90∘ N). The most important source of uncertainty in the methane budget is attributable to natural emissions, especially those from wetlands and other inland waters. Some of our global source estimates are smaller than those in previously published budgets (Saunois et al., 2016; Kirschke et al., 2013). In particular wetland emissions are about 35 Tg CH4 yr−1 lower due to improved partition wetlands and other inland waters. Emissions from geological sources and wild animals are also found to be smaller by 7 Tg CH4 yr−1 by 8 Tg CH4 yr−1, respectively. However, the overall discrepancy between bottom-up and top-down estimates has been reduced by only 5 % compared to Saunois et al. (2016), due to a higher estimate of emissions from inland waters, highlighting the need for more detailed research on emissions factors. Priorities for improving the methane budget include (i) a global, high-resolution map of water-saturated soils and inundated areas emitting methane based on a robust classification of different types of emitting habitats; (ii) further development of process-based models for inland-water emissions; (iii) intensification of methane observations at local scales (e.g., FLUXNET-CH4 measurements) and urban-scale monitoring to constrain bottom-up land surface models, and at regional scales (surface networks and satellites) to constrain atmospheric inversions; (iv) improvements of transport models and the representation of photochemical sinks in top-down inversions; and (v) development of a 3D variational inversion system using isotopic and/or co-emitted species such as ethane to improve source partitioning.

1,047 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Pierre Friedlingstein1, Pierre Friedlingstein2, Matthew W. Jones3, Michael O'Sullivan2, Robbie M. Andrew, Judith Hauck4, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters5, Wouter Peters6, Julia Pongratz7, Julia Pongratz8, Stephen Sitch2, Corinne Le Quéré3, Dorothee C. E. Bakker3, Josep G. Canadell9, Philippe Ciais10, Robert B. Jackson11, Peter Anthoni12, Leticia Barbero13, Leticia Barbero14, Ana Bastos8, Vladislav Bastrikov10, Meike Becker15, Meike Becker16, Laurent Bopp1, Erik T. Buitenhuis3, Naveen Chandra17, Frédéric Chevallier10, Louise Chini18, Kim I. Currie19, Richard A. Feely20, Marion Gehlen10, Dennis Gilfillan21, Thanos Gkritzalis22, Daniel S. Goll23, Nicolas Gruber24, Sören B. Gutekunst25, Ian Harris26, Vanessa Haverd9, Richard A. Houghton27, George C. Hurtt18, Tatiana Ilyina7, Atul K. Jain28, Emilie Joetzjer10, Jed O. Kaplan29, Etsushi Kato, Kees Klein Goldewijk30, Kees Klein Goldewijk31, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Peter Landschützer7, Siv K. Lauvset15, Nathalie Lefèvre32, Andrew Lenton33, Andrew Lenton34, Sebastian Lienert35, Danica Lombardozzi36, Gregg Marland21, Patrick C. McGuire37, Joe R. Melton, Nicolas Metzl32, David R. Munro38, Julia E. M. S. Nabel7, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka39, Craig Neill34, Abdirahman M Omar34, Abdirahman M Omar15, Tsuneo Ono, Anna Peregon40, Anna Peregon10, Denis Pierrot13, Denis Pierrot14, Benjamin Poulter41, Gregor Rehder42, Laure Resplandy43, Eddy Robertson44, Christian Rödenbeck7, Roland Séférian10, Jörg Schwinger15, Jörg Schwinger31, Naomi E. Smith5, Naomi E. Smith45, Pieter P. Tans20, Hanqin Tian46, Bronte Tilbrook33, Bronte Tilbrook34, Francesco N. Tubiello47, Guido R. van der Werf48, Andy Wiltshire44, Sönke Zaehle7 
École Normale Supérieure1, University of Exeter2, Norwich Research Park3, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research4, Wageningen University and Research Centre5, University of Groningen6, Max Planck Society7, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich8, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation9, Centre national de la recherche scientifique10, Stanford University11, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology12, Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies13, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory14, Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research15, Geophysical Institute, University of Bergen16, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology17, University of Maryland, College Park18, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research19, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration20, Appalachian State University21, Flanders Marine Institute22, Augsburg College23, ETH Zurich24, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences25, University of East Anglia26, Woods Hole Research Center27, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign28, University of Hong Kong29, Utrecht University30, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency31, University of Paris32, University of Tasmania33, Hobart Corporation34, University of Bern35, National Center for Atmospheric Research36, University of Reading37, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences38, National Institute for Environmental Studies39, Russian Academy of Sciences40, Goddard Space Flight Center41, Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research42, Princeton University43, Met Office44, Lund University45, Auburn University46, Food and Agriculture Organization47, VU University Amsterdam48
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, and show that 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.
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 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 (2009–2018), EFF was 9.5±0.5 GtC yr −1 , ELUC 1.5±0.7 GtC yr −1 , GATM 4.9±0.02 GtC yr −1 ( 2.3±0.01 ppm yr −1 ), SOCEAN 2.5±0.6 GtC yr −1 , and SLAND 3.2±0.6 GtC yr −1 , with a budget imbalance BIM of 0.4 GtC yr −1 indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2018 alone, the growth in EFF was about 2.1 % and fossil emissions increased to 10.0±0.5 GtC yr −1 , reaching 10 GtC yr −1 for the first time in history, ELUC was 1.5±0.7 GtC yr −1 , for total anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 11.5±0.9 GtC yr −1 ( 42.5±3.3 GtCO2 ). Also for 2018, GATM was 5.1±0.2 GtC yr −1 ( 2.4±0.1 ppm yr −1 ), SOCEAN was 2.6±0.6 GtC yr −1 , and SLAND was 3.5±0.7 GtC yr −1 , with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 407.38±0.1 ppm averaged over 2018. For 2019, preliminary data for the first 6–10 months indicate a reduced growth in EFF of +0.6 % (range of −0.2 % to 1.5 %) based on national emissions projections for China, the USA, 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. Overall, the mean and trend in the five components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2018, 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 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 underestimation of the CO2 variability by ocean models 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 of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quere et al., 2018a, b, 2016, 2015a, b, 2014, 2013). The data generated by this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2019 (Friedlingstein et al., 2019).

981 citations