Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-103
https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-103
05 Jul 2024
 | 05 Jul 2024
Status: this preprint is currently under review for the journal ESSD.

Global Greenhouse Gas Reconciliation 2022

Zhu Deng, Philippe Ciais, Liting Hu, Adrien Martinez, Marielle Saunois, Rona L. Thompson, Kushal Tibrewal, Wouter Peters, Brendan Byrne, Giacomo Grassi, Paul I. Palmer, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Zhu Liu, Junjie Liu, Xuekun Fang, Tengjiao Wang, Hanqin Tian, Katsumasa Tanaka, Ana Bastos, Stephen Sitch, Benjamin Poulter, Clément Albergel, Aki Tsuruta, Shamil Maksyutov, Rajesh Janardanan, Yosuke Niwa, Bo Zheng, Joël Thanwerdas, Dmitry Belikov, Arjo Segers, and Frédéric Chevallier

Abstract. In this study, we provide an update of the methodology and data used by Deng et al. (2022) to compare the national greenhouse gas inventories (NGHGIs) and atmospheric inversion model ensembles contributed by international research teams coordinated by the Global Carbon Project. The comparison framework uses transparent processing of the net ecosystem exchange fluxes of carbon dioxide (CO2) from inversions to provide estimates of terrestrial carbon stock changes over managed land that can be used to evaluate NGHGIs. For methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), we separate anthropogenic emissions from natural sources based directly on the inversion results, to make them compatible with NGHGIs. Our global harmonized NGHGIs database was updated with inventory data until February 2023 by compiling data from periodical UNFCCC inventories by Annex I countries and sporadic and less detailed emissions reports by non-Annex I countries given by National Communications and Biennial Update Reports. For the inversion data, we used an ensemble of 22 global inversions produced for the most recent assessments of the global budgets of CO2, CH4 and N2O coordinated by the Global Carbon Project with ancillary data. The CO2 inversion ensemble in this study goes through 2021, building on our previous report from 1990 to 2019, and includes three new satellite inversions compared to the previous study, and an improved managed land mask. As a result, although significant differences exist between the CO2 inversion estimates, both satellite and in-situ inversions over managed lands indicate that Russia and Canada had a larger land carbon sink in recent years than reported in their NGHGIs, while the NGHGIs reported a significant upward trend of carbon sink in Russia but a downward trend in Canada. For CH4 and N2O, the results of the new inversion ensembles are extended to 2020. Rapid increases in anthropogenic CH4 emissions were observed in developing countries, with varying levels of agreement between NGHGIs and inversion results, while developed countries showed a slow declining or stable trend in emissions. Much denser sampling and higher atmospheric CO2 and CH4 concentrations by different satellites, are expected in the coming years. The methodology proposed here to compare inversion results with NGHGIs can be applied regularly for monitoring the effectiveness of mitigation policy and progress by countries to meet the objective of their pledges. The dataset constructed for this study is publicly available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10841716 (Deng et al., 2024).

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.
Zhu Deng, Philippe Ciais, Liting Hu, Adrien Martinez, Marielle Saunois, Rona L. Thompson, Kushal Tibrewal, Wouter Peters, Brendan Byrne, Giacomo Grassi, Paul I. Palmer, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Zhu Liu, Junjie Liu, Xuekun Fang, Tengjiao Wang, Hanqin Tian, Katsumasa Tanaka, Ana Bastos, Stephen Sitch, Benjamin Poulter, Clément Albergel, Aki Tsuruta, Shamil Maksyutov, Rajesh Janardanan, Yosuke Niwa, Bo Zheng, Joël Thanwerdas, Dmitry Belikov, Arjo Segers, and Frédéric Chevallier

Status: open (until 11 Aug 2024)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Zhu Deng, Philippe Ciais, Liting Hu, Adrien Martinez, Marielle Saunois, Rona L. Thompson, Kushal Tibrewal, Wouter Peters, Brendan Byrne, Giacomo Grassi, Paul I. Palmer, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Zhu Liu, Junjie Liu, Xuekun Fang, Tengjiao Wang, Hanqin Tian, Katsumasa Tanaka, Ana Bastos, Stephen Sitch, Benjamin Poulter, Clément Albergel, Aki Tsuruta, Shamil Maksyutov, Rajesh Janardanan, Yosuke Niwa, Bo Zheng, Joël Thanwerdas, Dmitry Belikov, Arjo Segers, and Frédéric Chevallier

Data sets

Global greenhouse gas reconciliation 2022 Zhu Deng, Philippe Ciais, Liting Hu, Tengjiao Wang, Adrien Martinez, Marielle Saunois, Rona L. Thompson, and Frédéric Chevallier https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10841716

Zhu Deng, Philippe Ciais, Liting Hu, Adrien Martinez, Marielle Saunois, Rona L. Thompson, Kushal Tibrewal, Wouter Peters, Brendan Byrne, Giacomo Grassi, Paul I. Palmer, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Zhu Liu, Junjie Liu, Xuekun Fang, Tengjiao Wang, Hanqin Tian, Katsumasa Tanaka, Ana Bastos, Stephen Sitch, Benjamin Poulter, Clément Albergel, Aki Tsuruta, Shamil Maksyutov, Rajesh Janardanan, Yosuke Niwa, Bo Zheng, Joël Thanwerdas, Dmitry Belikov, Arjo Segers, and Frédéric Chevallier
Metrics will be available soon.
Latest update: 05 Jul 2024
Download
Short summary
This study reconciles national greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories with updated atmospheric inversion results to evaluate discrepancies for three main GHG fluxes at the national level. Compared to the previous study, new satellite-based CO2 inversions were included. Additionally, an updated mask of managed lands was used, improving agreement for Brazil and Canada. The proposed methodology can be regularly applied as a check to assess the gap between top-down inversions and bottom-up inventories.
Altmetrics