Suchergebnisse

16 páginas, 14 figuras, 3 tablas.-- Siv K. Lauvset . et al.-- This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.-- Proyecto Carbochange ; We present a mapped climatology (GLODAPv2.2016b) of ocean biogeochemical variables based on the new GLODAP version 2 data product (Olsen et al., 2016; Key et al., 2015), which covers all ocean basins over the years 1972 to 2013. The quality-controlled and internally consistent GLODAPv2 was used to create global 1° × 1° mapped climatologies of salinity, temperature, oxygen, nitrate, phosphate, silicate, total dissolved inorganic carbon (TCO2), total alkalinity (TAlk), pH, and CaCO3 saturation states using the Data-Interpolating Variational Analysis (DIVA) mapping method. Improving on maps based on an earlier but similar dataset, GLODAPv1.1, this climatology also covers the Arctic Ocean. Climatologies were created for 33 standard depth surfaces. The conceivably confounding temporal trends in TCO2 and pH due to anthropogenic influence were removed prior to mapping by normalizing these data to the year 2002 using first-order calculations of anthropogenic carbon accumulation rates. We additionally provide maps of accumulated anthropogenic carbon in the year 2002 and of preindustrial TCO2. For all parameters, all data from the full 1972–2013 period were used, including data that did not receive full secondary quality control. The GLODAPv2.2016b global 1° × 1° mapped climatologies, including error fields and ancillary information, are available at the GLODAPv2 web page at the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC; doi:10.3334/CDIAC/OTG.NDP093_GLODAPv2) ; The work of S. K. Lauvset was funded by the Norwegian Research Council through the projects DECApH (214513/F20). The EU-IP CARBOCHANGE (FP7 264878) project provided funding for A. Olsen, S. van Heuven, T. Tanhua, R. Steinfeldt, and M. Hoppema and is the project framework that instigated GLODAPv2. A. Olsen additionally acknowledges generous support from the FRAM – High North Research Centre for Climate and the Environment, the Centre for Climate Dynamics at the Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, the EU AtlantOS (grant agreement no. 633211) project, and the Norwegian Research Council project SNACS (229752). Emil Jeansson appreciates support from the Norwegian Research Council project VENTILATE (229791). R. Key was supported by KeyCrafts grant 2012-001, CICS grants NA08OAR4320752 and NA14OAR4320106, NASA grant NNX12AQ22G, NSF grants OCE-0825163 (with a supplement via WHOI P.O. C119245) and PLR-1425989, and Battelle contract #4000133565 to CDIAC. A. Kozyr acknowledges funding from the US Department of Energy. M. Ishii acknowledges the project MEXT 24121003. A. Velo and F. F. Pérez were supported by the BOCATS (CTM20134410484P) project cofounded by the Spanish government and the Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER). The International Ocean Carbon Coordination Project (IOCCP) partially supported this activity through the U.S. National Science Foundation grant (OCE- 1243377) to the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research. The research leading to the last developments of DIVA has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no. 283607, SeaDataNet 2, and from the project EMODNET (MARE/2012/10 – Lot 4 Chemistry – SI2.656742) from the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries ; Peer reviewed

14 pages, 4 tables, 4 figures.-- This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) ; Effective data management plays a key role in oceanographic research as cruise-based data, collected from different laboratories and expeditions, are commonly compiled to investigate regional to global oceanographic processes. Here we describe new and updated best practice data standards for discrete chemical oceanographic observations, specifically those dealing with column header abbreviations, quality control flags, missing value indicators, and standardized calculation of certain properties. These data standards have been developed with the goals of improving the current practices of the scientific community and promoting their international usage. These guidelines are intended to standardize data files for data sharing and submission into permanent archives. They will facilitate future quality control and synthesis efforts and lead to better data interpretation. In turn, this will promote research in ocean biogeochemistry, such as studies of carbon cycling and ocean acidification, on regional to global scales. These best practice standards are not mandatory. Agencies, institutes, universities, or research vessels can continue using different data standards if it is important for them to maintain historical consistency. However, it is hoped that they will be adopted as widely as possible to facilitate consistency and to achieve the goals stated above. ; Funding for L-QJ and AK was from NOAA Ocean Acidification Program (OAP, Project ID: 21047) and NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) through NOAA grant NA19NES4320002 [Cooperative Institute for Satellite Earth System Studies (CISESS)] at the University of Maryland/ESSIC. BT was in part supported by the Australia's Integrated Marine Observing System (IMOS), enabled through the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS). AD was supported in part by the United States National Science Foundation. AV and FP were supported by BOCATS2 Project (PID2019-104279GB-C21/AEI/10.13039/501100011033) funded by the Spanish Research Agency and contributing to WATER:iOS CSIC interdisciplinary thematic platform. MH was partly funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program under grant agreement N°821001 (SO-CHIC) ; Peer reviewed

Effective data management plays a key role in oceanographic research as cruise-based data, collected from different laboratories and expeditions, are commonly compiled to investigate regional to global oceanographic processes. Here we describe new and updated best practice data standards for discrete chemical oceanographic observations, specifically those dealing with column header abbreviations, quality control flags, missing value indicators, and standardized calculation of certain properties. These data standards have been developed with the goals of improving the current practices of the scientific community and promoting their international usage. These guidelines are intended to standardize data files for data sharing and submission into permanent archives. They will facilitate future quality control and synthesis efforts and lead to better data interpretation. In turn, this will promote research in ocean biogeochemistry, such as studies of carbon cycling and ocean acidification, on regional to global scales. These best practice standards are not mandatory. Agencies, institutes, universities, or research vessels can continue using different data standards if it is important for them to maintain historical consistency. However, it is hoped that they will be adopted as widely as possible to facilitate consistency and to achieve the goals stated above. ; Funding for L-QJ and AK was from NOAA Ocean Acidification Program (OAP, Project ID: 21047) and NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) through NOAA grant NA19NES4320002 [Cooperative Institute for Satellite Earth System Studies (CISESS)] at the University of Maryland/ESSIC. BT was in part supported by the Australia's Integrated Marine Observing System (IMOS), enabled through the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS). AD was supported in part by the United States National Science Foundation. AV and FP were supported by BOCATS2 Project (PID2019-104279GB-C21/AEI/10.13039/501100011033) funded by the Spanish Research Agency and contributing to WATER:iOS CSIC interdisciplinary thematic platform. MH was partly funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program under grant agreement N°821001 (SO-CHIC).

In this paper, we outline the need for a coordinated international effort toward the building of an open-access Global Ocean Oxygen Database and ATlas (GO(2)DAT) complying with the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable). GO(2)DAT will combine data from the coastal and open ocean, as measured by the chemical Winkler titration method or by sensors (e.g., optodes, electrodes) from Eulerian and Lagrangian platforms (e.g., ships, moorings, profiling floats, gliders, ships of opportunities, marine mammals, cabled observatories). GO(2)DAT will further adopt a community-agreed, fully documented metadata format and a consistent quality control (QC) procedure and quality flagging (QF) system. GO(2)DAT will serve to support the development of advanced data analysis and biogeochemical models for improving our mapping, understanding and forecasting capabilities for ocean O-2 changes and deoxygenation trends. It will offer the opportunity to develop quality-controlled data synthesis products with unprecedented spatial (vertical and horizontal) and temporal (sub-seasonal to multi-decadal) resolution. These products will support model assessment, improvement and evaluation as well as the development of climate and ocean health indicators. They will further support the decision-making processes associated with the emerging blue economy, the conservation of marine resources and their associated ecosystem services and the development of management tools required by a diverse community of users (e.g., environmental agencies, aquaculture, and fishing sectors). A better knowledge base of the spatial and temporal variations of marine O-2 will improve our understanding of the ocean O-2 budget, and allow better quantification of the Earth's carbon and heat budgets. With the ever-increasing need to protect and sustainably manage ocean services, GO(2)DAT will allow scientists to fully harness the increasing volumes of O-2 data already delivered by the expanding global ocean observing system and enable smooth incorporation of much higher quantities of data from autonomous platforms in the open ocean and coastal areas into comprehensive data products in the years to come. This paper aims at engaging the community (e.g., scientists, data managers, policy makers, service users) toward the development of GO(2)DAT within the framework of the UN Global Ocean Oxygen Decade (GOOD) program recently endorsed by IOC-UNESCO. A roadmap toward GO(2)DAT is proposed highlighting the efforts needed (e.g., in terms of human resources). ; All authors would like to thank IOC-UNESCO, International Ocean Carbon Coordination Project (IOCCP), NOAA, and the German SFB754. MG is funded by the Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique (FRS-FNRS) and received fundings from the FNRS BENTHOX program grant T.1009.15, the Copernicus Marine Service (CMEMS), and the European Union's Horizon 2020 BRIDGE-BS project under grant agreement No. 101000240. MG, VG, KI, and BDew are supported by the Project CE2COAST funded by ANR (FR), BELSPO (BE), FCT (PT), IZM (LV), MI (IE), MIUR (IT), Rannis (IS), and RCN (NO) through the 2019 "Joint Transnational Call on Next Generation Climate Science in Europe for Oceans" initiated by JPI Climate and JPI Oceans. MT, KC, and VG acknowledge support from the United States National Science Foundation grant OCE-1840868 to the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR, United States). BoD also acknowledges support from ANID grants R20F0008-CEAZA and 1190276. This research (through VG, AP and BoD) received fundings from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement No. 869300 (FutureMARES). CB, AP, VG, LC, BrD, VR, VT, and CS acknowledge support of the French CES ODATIS Oxygen through INSU funding. SKL acknowledges support from the Research Council of Norway (Grant No. 269753). This manuscript is a contribution to the UN Decade Global Ocean Oxygen (GOOD) Program.

Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 concentration is measured directly and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO 2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrial CO 2 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 CO 2 emissions of 11:5±0:9 GtC yr -1 (42:5±3:3 GtCO 2 ). 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 CO 2 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 C0:6% (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 CO 2 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 CO 2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent underestimation of the CO 2 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 Quéré 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).

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 Quéré 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).

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 Quéré 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). ; ISSN:1866-3516 ; ISSN:1866-3508

Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions and their redistributionamong the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere – the "global carbon budget" – is important to betterunderstand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climatechange. 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 productiondata, while emissions from land use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land usechange 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 car-bon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changesin 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, GATM4.9±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 EFFwas 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 CO emissions of 11.5±0.9 GtC yr⁻¹ (42.5±3.3 Gt CO₂). Alsofor 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 ppmaveraged 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, andIndia 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 budgetare consistently estimated over the period 1959–2018, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr⁻¹ persist for the rep-resentation of semi-decadal variability in CO₂ fluxes. A detailed comparison among individual estimates and theintroduction of a broad range of observations shows (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land use changeemissions over the last decade, (2) a persistent low agreement between the different methods on the magnitudeof the land CO₂ flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent underestimation of the CO₂ variability byocean models outside the tropics. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets usedin this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared withprevious publications of this data set (Le Quéré et al., 2018a, b, 2016, 2015a, b, 2014, 2013).