Abstract. A comprehensive analysis of the water budget over the Dome C (Concordia, Antarctica) station has been performed during the austral summer 2018–2019 as part of the Year of Polar Prediction (YOPP) international campaign. Thin (∼100 m deep) supercooled liquid water (SLW) clouds have been detected and analysed using remotely sensed observations at the station (tropospheric depolarization lidar, the H₂O Antarctica Microwave Stratospheric and Tropospheric Radiometer (HAMSTRAD), net surface radiation from the Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN)), radiosondes, and satellite observations (CALIOP, Cloud-Aerosol LIdar with Orthogonal Polarization/CALIPSO, Cloud Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observations) combined with a specific configuration of the numerical weather prediction model: ARPEGE-SH (Action de Recherche Petite Echelle Grande Echelle – Southern Hemisphere). The analysis shows that SLW clouds were present from November to March, with the greatest frequency occurring in December and January when ∼50 % of the days in summer time exhibited SLW clouds for at least 1 h. Two case studies are used to illustrate this phenomenon. On 24 December 2018, the atmospheric planetary boundary layer (PBL) evolved following a typical diurnal variation, which is to say with a warm and dry mixing layer at local noon thicker than the cold and dry stable layer at local midnight. Our study showed that the SLW clouds were observed at Dome C within the entrainment and the capping inversion zones at the top of the PBL. ARPEGE-SH was not able to correctly estimate the ratio between liquid and solid water inside the clouds with the liquid water path (LWP) strongly underestimated by a factor of 1000 compared to observations. The lack of simulated SLW in the model impacted the net surface radiation that was 20–30 W m⁻² higher in the BSRN observations than in the ARPEGE-SH calculations, mainly attributable to the BSRN longwave downward surface radiation being 50 W m⁻² greater than that of ARPEGE-SH. The second case study took place on 20 December 2018, when a warm and wet episode impacted the PBL with no clear diurnal cycle of the PBL top. SLW cloud appearance within the entrainment and capping inversion zones coincided with the warm and wet event. The amount of liquid water measured by HAMSTRAD was ∼20 times greater in this perturbed PBL than in the typical PBL. Since ARPEGE-SH was not able to accurately reproduce these SLW clouds, the discrepancy between the observed and calculated net surface radiation was even greater than in the typical PBL case, reaching +50 W m⁻², mainly attributable to the downwelling longwave surface radiation from BSRN being 100 W m⁻² greater than that of ARPEGE-SH. The model was then run with a new partition function favouring liquid water for temperatures below −20 down to −40 ^∘C. In this test mode, ARPEGE-SH has been able to generate SLW clouds with modelled LWP and net surface radiation consistent with observations during the typical case, whereas, during the perturbed case, the modelled LWP was 10 times less than the observations and the modelled net surface radiation remained lower than the observations by ∼50 W m⁻². Accurately modelling the presence of SLW clouds appears crucial to correctly simulate the surface energy budget over the Antarctic Plateau.

Abstract. Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in a changing climate – 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 and synthesize data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO₂ emissions (E_FOS) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (E_LUC), 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 (G_ATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO₂ sink (S_OCEAN) and terrestrial CO₂ sink (S_LAND) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (B_IM), 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 (2010–2019), E_FOS was 9.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr⁻¹ excluding the cement carbonation sink (9.4 ± 0.5 GtC yr⁻¹ when the cement carbonation sink is included), and E_LUC was 1.6 ± 0.7 GtC yr⁻¹. For the same decade, G_ATM was 5.1 ± 0.02 GtC yr⁻¹ (2.4 ± 0.01 ppm yr⁻¹), S_OCEAN 2.5 ±  0.6 GtC yr⁻¹, and S_LAND 3.4 ± 0.9 GtC yr⁻¹, with a budget imbalance B_IM of −0.1 GtC yr⁻¹ indicating a near balance between estimated sources and sinks over the last decade. For the year 2019 alone, the growth in E_FOS was only about 0.1 % with fossil emissions increasing to 9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr⁻¹ excluding the cement carbonation sink (9.7 ± 0.5 GtC yr⁻¹ when cement carbonation sink is included), and E_LUC was 1.8 ± 0.7 GtC yr⁻¹, for total anthropogenic CO₂ emissions of 11.5 ± 0.9 GtC yr⁻¹ (42.2 ± 3.3 GtCO₂). Also for 2019, G_ATM was 5.4 ± 0.2 GtC yr⁻¹ (2.5 ± 0.1 ppm yr⁻¹), S_OCEAN was 2.6 ± 0.6 GtC yr⁻¹, and S_LAND was 3.1 ± 1.2 GtC yr⁻¹, with a B_IM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO₂ concentration reached 409.85 ± 0.1 ppm averaged over 2019. Preliminary data for 2020, accounting for the COVID-19-induced changes in emissions, suggest a decrease in E_FOS relative to 2019 of about −7 % (median estimate) based on individual estimates from four studies of −6 %, −7 %, −7 % (−3 % to −11 %), and −13 %. Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2019, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr⁻¹ persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO₂ fluxes. Comparison of estimates from diverse approaches and 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 discrepancy between the different methods for the ocean sink outside the tropics, particularly in the Southern Ocean. 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 (Friedlingstein et al., 2019; Le Quéré et al., 2018b, a, 2016, 2015b, a, 2014, 2013). The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2020 (Friedlingstein et al., 2020).