Search

The UK Medical Research Council’s widely used guidance for developing and evaluating complex interventions has been replaced by a new framework, commissioned jointly by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research, which takes account of recent developments in theory and methods and the need to maximise the efficiency, use, and impact of research.Complex interventions are commonly used in the health and social care services, public health practice, and other areas of social and economic policy that have consequences for health. Such interventions are delivered and evaluated at different levels, from individual to societal levels. Examples include a new surgical procedure, the redesign of a healthcare programme, and a change in welfare policy. The UK Medical Research Council (MRC) published a framework for researchers and research funders on developing and evaluating complex interventions in 2000 and revised guidance in 2006.123 Although these documents continue to be widely used and are now accompanied by a range of more detailed guidance on specific aspects of the research process,45678 several important conceptual, methodological and theoretical developments have taken place since 2006. These developments have been included in a new framework commissioned by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) and the MRC.9 The framework aims to help researchers work with other stakeholders to identify the key questions about complex interventions, and to design and conduct research with a diversity of perspectives and appropriate choice of methods.

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).

Additional file 1: Table S1. Calibration of thermal conductivity tester. spec/ref refers to specimen/reference temperature difference. SS stands for stainless steel and VP stands for vespel calorimeters. Table S2. Basement sample thermal conductivity. Line # corresponds to profile lines as shown in Fig. 5. Values measured by Evans (2013). Table S3. Listed are the thermal conductivities of samples collected from Newcastle, Terrigal, Whittingham and Greta coal measures. Table S4. Listed are the thermal conductivities of samples collected from Swansea Head, Catherine Hill Bay, Norah Head and Terrigal coastal sedimentary outcrops. *Note: the highly weathered state of the basaltic dyke sample explains its low thermal conductivity values, which limits its use as a representative sample of the volcanics layer. Table S5. GPS coordinates of samples representative of Sydney Basin basement. Table S6. GPS coordinates of Sydney Basin coal and sediments. Samples represent bulk coal and sediment layers of the Sydney Basin.

This study evaluates the anthropogenic changes of CO2 (∆Cant) and δ13C (∆δ13Cant) in the Nordic seas, the northern limb of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, that took place between 1981 and 2002/03. The changes have been determined by comparing data obtained during the Transient Tracers in the Ocean, North Atlantic Study (TTO-NAS) with data obtained during the Nordic seas surveys of R/V Knorr in 2002 and R/V G.O. Sars in 2003 using an extended multi-linear regression approach. The estimated ∆δ13Cant and ∆Cant and their relationship to each other and to water mass distribution suggest that the Polar Water entering the Nordic seas from the north is undersaturated with respect to the present atmospheric anthropogenic CO2 levels and promotes a local uptake of Cant within the Nordic seas. In contrast, the Atlantic Water entering from the south appears equilibrated. It carries with it anthropogenic carbon which will be sequestered at depth as the water overturns. This pre-equilibration leaves no room for further uptake of Cant in the parts of the Nordic seas dominated by Atlantic Water. The upper ocean pCO2 in these regions appears to have increased at a greater rate than the atmospheric pCO2 over the last two decades; this is reconcilable with a large lateral advective supply of Cant. acceptedVersion

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 and 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 (2008–2017), EFF was 9.4 ± 0.5 GtC yr⁻¹, ELUC 1.5 ± 0.7 GtC yr⁻¹ , GATM 4.7 ± 0.02 GtC yr⁻¹, SOCEAN 2.4 ± 0.5 GtC yr⁻¹, and SLAND 3.2 ± 0.8 GtC yr⁻¹ , with a budget imbalance BIM of 0.5 GtC yr⁻¹ indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2017 alone, the growth in EFF was about 1.6 % and emissions increased to 9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr⁻¹. Also for 2017, ELUC was 1.4 ± 0.7 GtC yr⁻¹ , GATM was 4.6 ± 0.2 GtC yr⁻¹, SOCEAN was 2.5 ± 0.5 GtC yr⁻¹, and SLAND was 3.8 ± 0.8 GtC yr⁻¹, with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO₂ concentration reached 405.0±0.1 ppm averaged over 2017. For 2018, preliminary data for the first 6–9 months indicate a renewed growth in EFF of +2.7 % (range of 1.8 % to 3.7 %) based on national emission projections for China, the US, 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. The analysis presented here shows that the mean and trend in the five components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period of 1959–2017, 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 show (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land-use change emissions, (2) a persistent low agreement among 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, originating 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 the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quéré et al., 2018, 2016, 2015a, b, 2014, 2013)

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).