Institution
North West Agriculture and Forestry University
Education•
About: North West Agriculture and Forestry University is a education organization based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Biology & Chemistry. The organization has 222 authors who have published 523 publications receiving 4045 citations. The organization is also known as: Northwest A&F University & Xīběi Nónglín Kējì Dàxué.
Topics: Biology, Chemistry, Environmental science, Computer science, Medicine
Papers
More filters
••
University of Exeter1, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry2, Tyndall Centre3, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory4, Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research5, University of Maryland, College Park6, CICERO Center for International Climate Research7, Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research8, University of Reading9, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences10, Goddard Space Flight Center11, Flanders Marine Institute12, Food and Agriculture Organization13, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research14, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration15, University of East Anglia16, Japan Meteorological Agency17, ETH Zurich18, National Institute for Environmental Studies19, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology20, Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement21, Tula Foundation22, Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research23, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology24, Wageningen University and Research Centre25, Tsinghua University26, University of Western Sydney27, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences28, University of Florida29, Center for Neuroscience and Regenerative Medicine30, Woods Hole Research Center31, Michigan State University32, Tianjin University33, Auburn University34, Jilin Medical University35, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology36, Imperial College London37, Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques38, University of Groningen39, Tohoku University40, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich41, Bank for International Settlements42, Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace43, Environment Canada44, North West Agriculture and Forestry University45, Northwest A&F University46, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory47, Stanford University48, Utrecht University49
TL;DR: Friedlingstein et al. as mentioned in this paper presented and synthesized datasets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties, including fossil CO2 emissions, land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models.
Abstract: Abstract. Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in a changing climate is critical to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe and synthesize datasets 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) is estimated with global ocean biogeochemistry models and observation-based data products. The terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) is estimated with dynamic global vegetation models. 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 first time, an approach is shown to reconcile the difference in our ELUC estimate with the one from national greenhouse gas inventories, supporting the assessment of collective countries' climate progress. For the year 2020, EFOS declined by 5.4 % relative to 2019, with fossil emissions at 9.5 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 (9.3 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when the cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 0.9 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, for a total anthropogenic CO2 emission of 10.2 ± 0.8 GtC yr−1 (37.4 ± 2.9 GtCO2). Also, for 2020, GATM was 5.0 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.4 ± 0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 3.0 ± 0.4 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 2.9 ± 1 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of −0.8 GtC yr−1. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration averaged over 2020 reached 412.45 ± 0.1 ppm. Preliminary data for 2021 suggest a rebound in EFOS relative to 2020 of +4.8 % (4.2 % to 5.4 %) globally. Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2020, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of annual to semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. Comparison of estimates from multiple approaches and observations shows (1) a persistent large uncertainty in the estimate of land-use changes emissions, (2) a low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) a discrepancy between the different methods on the strength of the ocean sink over the last decade. This living data update documents changes in the methods and datasets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this dataset (Friedlingstein et al., 2020, 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-2021 (Friedlingstein et al., 2021).
343 citations
••
University of Exeter1, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry2, Tyndall Centre3, Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research4, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory5, University of Maryland, College Park6, CICERO Center for International Climate Research7, University of Reading8, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences9, Goddard Space Flight Center10, Flanders Marine Institute11, Food and Agriculture Organization12, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research13, Geophysical Institute14, University of Victoria15, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration16, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology17, Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement18, Japan Meteorological Agency19, Indiana University20, ETH Zurich21, National Institute for Environmental Studies22, University of East Anglia23, European Commission24, Tula Foundation25, Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research26, Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research27, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology28, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich29, Auburn University30, Wageningen University and Research Centre31, University of Western Sydney32, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences33, Tsinghua University34, University of Florida35, Center for Neuroscience and Regenerative Medicine36, Woods Hole Research Center37, University of Alaska Fairbanks38, Princeton University39, Michigan State University40, University of Washington41, Appalachian State University42, Sun Yat-sen University43, Imperial College London44, University of Groningen45, University of Tennessee46, Washington University in St. Louis47, Jilin Medical University48, Tohoku University49, Rutgers University50, Centre for Research on Ecology and Forestry Applications51, Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace52, North West Agriculture and Forestry University53, Northwest A&F University54, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory55, Xi'an Jiaotong University56, Stanford University57, National Center for Atmospheric Research58, University of Edinburgh59, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology60, Utrecht University61, Oak Ridge National Laboratory62
TL;DR: Friedlingstein et al. as mentioned in this paper presented and synthesized data sets and methodologies to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties, including fossil CO2 emissions, land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models.
Abstract: Abstract. Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in a changing climate is critical 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 methodologies 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) is estimated with global ocean biogeochemistry models and observation-based data products. The terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) is estimated with dynamic global vegetation models. 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 year 2021, EFOS increased by 5.1 % relative to 2020, with fossil emissions at 10.1 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 (9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when the cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 1.1 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, for a total anthropogenic CO2 emission (including the cement carbonation sink) of 10.9 ± 0.8 GtC yr−1 (40.0 ± 2.9 GtCO2). Also, for 2021, GATM was 5.2 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.5 ± 0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 2.9 ± 0.4 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.5 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of −0.6 GtC yr−1 (i.e. the total estimated sources were too low or sinks were too high). The global atmospheric CO2 concentration averaged over 2021 reached 414.71 ± 0.1 ppm. Preliminary data for 2022 suggest an increase in EFOS relative to 2021 of +1.0 % (0.1 % to 1.9 %) globally and atmospheric CO2 concentration reaching 417.2 ppm, more than 50 % above pre-industrial levels (around 278 ppm). Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2021, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of annual to semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. Comparison of estimates from multiple approaches and observations shows (1) a persistent large uncertainty in the estimate of land-use change emissions, (2) a low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extratropics, and (3) a discrepancy between the different methods on the strength of the ocean sink over the last decade. 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. The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2022 (Friedlingstein et al., 2022b).
98 citations
••
TL;DR: The potential for advanced forms and innovations to transform complicated, natural-rich biowastes into a variety of bioproducts and bioenergy with an advanced circular economy has been demonstrated in this paper.
90 citations
••
TL;DR: The potential for advanced forms and innovations to transform complicated, natural-rich biowastes into a variety of bioproducts and bioenergy with an advanced circular economy has been demonstrated in this paper .
87 citations
••
Virginia Tech College of Natural Resources and Environment1, North West Agriculture and Forestry University2, Northwest A&F University3, National Environmental Engineering Research Institute4, Zunyi Medical College5, Korea University6, National Institute for Interdisciplinary Science and Technology7, Indian Institute of Toxicology Research8, University of Western Australia9
TL;DR: In this article, the role of various microbes and their enzymatic mechanisms involved in biodegradation of micro-nano plastics in wastewater (WW) stream, municipal sludge, municipal solid waste (MSW), and composting starting with biological and toxicological impacts of MNPs.
67 citations
Authors
Showing all 222 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
David Adamson | 11 | 14 | 269 |
Gregory A. Waller | 10 | 14 | 464 |
George Sterman | 8 | 8 | 170 |
Sascha O. Becker | 7 | 11 | 113 |
Francis Vitt | 6 | 7 | 59 |
سعيد بنتاجر | 5 | 15 | 84 |
Joan Perelló Garcia | 5 | 6 | 180 |
László Pálfi | 5 | 5 | 42 |
Liana J. Petruzzi | 5 | 5 | 35 |
Terslina Patchappan | 5 | 5 | 80 |
Philipp Tolloi | 4 | 5 | 33 |
Nicola Maher | 4 | 8 | 31 |
Chiara Reatti | 4 | 8 | 45 |
Kayumova D. | 3 | 3 | 55 |
Vanessa Ratten | 3 | 3 | 57 |