the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Global Carbon Budget 2024
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 synthesise datasets 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) 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 fCO2-products. The terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) is estimated with dynamic global vegetation models. Additional lines of evidence on land and ocean sinks are provided by atmospheric inversions, atmospheric oxygen measurements and Earth System Models. The sum of all sources and sinks results in the carbon budget imbalance (BIM), a measure of imperfect data and incomplete understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ.
For the year 2023, EFOS increased by 1.3 % relative to 2022, with fossil emissions at 10.1 ± 0.5 GtC yr-1 (10.3 ± 0.5 GtC yr-1 when the cement carbonation sink is not included), ELUC was 1.0 ± 0.7 GtC yr-1, for a total anthropogenic CO2 emission (including the cement carbonation sink) of 11.1 ± 0.9 GtC yr-1 (40.6 ± 3.2 GtCO2 yr-1). Also, for 2023, GATM was 5.9 ± 0.2 GtC yr-1 (2.79 ± 0.1 ppm yr-1), SOCEAN was 2.9 ± 0.4 GtC yr-1 and SLAND was 2.3 ± 1.0 GtC yr-1, with a near zero BIM (-0.02 GtC yr-1). The global atmospheric CO2 concentration averaged over 2023 reached 419.3 ± 0.1 ppm. Preliminary data for 2024, suggest an increase in EFOS relative to 2023 of +0.8 % (-0.3 % to 1.9 %) globally, and atmospheric CO2 concentration increased by 2.8 ppm reaching 422.5 ppm, 52 % above pre-industrial level (around 278 ppm in 1750). Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2023, with a near-zero overall budget imbalance, although discrepancies of up to around 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 mean ocean sink.
This living data update documents changes in methods and datasets applied to this most-recent global carbon budget as well as evolving community understanding of the global carbon cycle. The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2024 (Friedlingstein et al., 2024).
- Preprint
(10217 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(28363 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2024-519', H. Damon Matthews, 22 Dec 2024
I have focussed my review here on the sections of the paper for which I have decent expertise (notably land carbon fluxes and the remaining carbon budget). My (minor) comments are:
Line 210: What does “forestry” refer to here? I don’t see how forestry (the vast majority of which is deforestation) leads to carbon removal, so mentioning it here seems like it will cause confusion.
Lines 452-455: In the definition of CDR, it would be worth again mentioning that this definition follows the scientific convention of not including passive carbon sinks. Otherwise, this rather confuses the definition of net zero and its ability to lead to stable global temperatures.
Line 460: I don’t think that transfer of carbon to harvested wood products should count as CDR. This is at best a delayed emission from deforestation. I am glad to see that this flux is not included in the budget (lines 466-468) though the preceding text suggests that they are. For this opening text, I would suggest being more clear at the outset what fluxes are considered to the CDR in the budget (and in the 1.2 GtC/yr number given in the summary). This comment applies also to lines 922-925 which uncritically refers to HWP as a form of CDR. If HWP is to be included in the potential CDR pathways discussed here, I think it is really important to present some evidence that all of the carbon flows involved actually lead to net removal, and under what conditions this is the case.
Line 1723: Should this be ±220 or a range of 220?
Line 1725-1726: Of course, the authorship of the IPCC chapter and the Forster et al paper is basically the same, so the “backing of the IPCC” seems to evoke some mythical other identity that is a bit of an artifact. I would suggest removing this sentence.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-519-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2024-519', andrew lenton, 06 Jan 2025
It is an impressive annual update and an increasingly significant body of work. I have some minor comments below to improve readability. On a minor note, the style of the figures is quite different and could be harmonised, but this doesn't detract from the results, discussion and conclusion.
Specific comments:
Line 431 remove “(“ and add comma
Line 627 what are hidden neurons - bootstrapping?
Line 654 summer is not always boreal, also this sentence has something wrong grammatically
Line 659 - missing neurons?
Line 666 and subsequent, shouldn’t xCO2 be written XCO2?? not mole fraction of CO2
Line 1047 this statement seems self-evident something is always greater than nothing
Line 1100 Orphan “(“
Line 1106 “does” should be “do”
line 1176 strange formatting
Line 1212 add “may” underestimate
Line 1247 This sentence doesn’t quite make sense. “As for the ocean…”
Line 1348 should be “is derived from”
Tables: 2 in CO2 should be a subscript
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-519-RC2
Data sets
Datasets for the Global Carbon Budget 2024 P. Friedlingstein et al. https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2024
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
12,996 | 1,740 | 140 | 14,876 | 224 | 36 | 31 |
- HTML: 12,996
- PDF: 1,740
- XML: 140
- Total: 14,876
- Supplement: 224
- BibTeX: 36
- EndNote: 31
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1