4.7 Article

Estimation of Oceanic and Land Carbon Sinks Based on the Most Recent Oxygen Budget

Journal

EARTHS FUTURE
Volume 9, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2021EF002124

Keywords

carbon sinks; climate change; oxygen budget

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation of China [41521004, 1991231]
  2. Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDA2006010301]
  3. China 111 project [B13045]
  4. Supercomputing Center of Lanzhou University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study presented alternative estimates of global ocean and land carbon sinks over recent decades and future projections under climate change, highlighting significant discrepancies in carbon sinks under different scenarios. The variations in oceanic and land carbon sinks demonstrate the vital role of human-induced influence on the carbon cycle.
Robust assessments of global carbon uptake are important for understanding Earth's carbon cycle and its response to human impacts. Here, based on the most recent oxygen budget, we presented an alternative estimate of ocean and land carbon sinks over the past few decades and future projections under climate change. For the period from 1990 to 2015, the ocean and land carbon sinks were similar to 2.16 +/- 0.73 and 1.37 +/- 0.91 GtC/yr, respectively, which are in good agreement with the results from the Global Carbon Project (GCP). Our estimated temporal evolution of oceanic carbon uptake, however, presents a stronger decadal variation than the quasi-monotonous increase estimated by the GCP. Future projections of carbon sinks show significant discrepancies under different scenarios. At the end of this century, the ocean and land sinks will be 2.96 and 0.75 GtC/yr, respectively, under RCP4.5 (representative concentration pathways), while these values will be much larger under RCP8.5 at similar to 5.70 and 3.69 GtC/yr, highlighting the vital role of the human-induced influence on the carbon cycle.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available