MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972407136 · doi:10.5194/essd-12-1561-2020

The Global Methane Budget 2000-2017

2019· article· en· W2972407136 on OpenAlexaff
Marielle Saunois, Ann R. Stavert, Benjamin Poulter, Philippe Bousquet, Josep G. Canadell, Robert B. Jackson, Peter A. Raymond, E. J. Dlugokencky, Sander Houweling, Prabir K. Patra, Philippe Ciais, Vivek K. Arora, David Bastviken, P. Bergamaschi, D. R. Blake, Gordon Brailsford, Lori Bruhwiler, Kimberly M. Carlson, Mark Carrol, Simona Castaldi, Naveen Chandra, Cyril Crévoisier, Patrick Crill, Kristofer Covey, Charles L. Curry, Giuseppe Etiope, Christian Frankenberg, Nicola Gedney, Michaela I. Hegglin, Lena Höglund-Isaksson, Gustaf Hugelius, Misa Ishizawa, Akihiko Ito, Greet Janssens‐Maenhout, Katherine Jensen, Fortunat Joos, Thomas Kleinen, Paul B. Krummel, R. L. Langenfelds, Goulven G. Laruelle, Licheng Liu, Toshinobu Machida, Shamil Maksyutov, K. C. McDonald, Joe McNorton, Paul Miller, Joe R. Melton, Isamu Morino, Jurek Müller, Fabiola Murguía‐Flores, Vaishali Naïk, Yosuke Niwa, Sergio Noce, Simon O’Doherty, Robert J. Parker, Changhui Peng, Shushi Peng, Glen P. Peters, Catherine Prigent, Ronald G. Prinn, Michel Ramonet, Pierre Regnier, W. J. Riley, Judith A. Rosentreter, Arjo Segers, Isobel J. Simpson, Hao Shi, Steven J. Smith, L. P. Steele, Brett F. Thornton, Hanqin Tian, Yasunori Tohjima, Francesco N. Tubiello, Aki Tsuruta, Nicolas Viovy, Apostolos Voulgarakis, Thomas Weber, Michiel van Weele, Guido R. van der Werf, Ray F. Weiss, Doug Worthy, Debra Wunch, Yi Yin, Yukio Yoshida, Wenxin Zhang, Zhen Zhang, Yuanhong Zhao, Bo Zheng, Qing Zhu, Qiuan Zhu, Qianlai Zhuang

Bibliographic record

VenueNOAA Institutional Repository · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalPacific Institute for Climate SolutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of TorontoEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsGreenhouse gasMethaneEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric methaneRadiative forcingAtmospheric sciencesCarbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphereGlobal warmingClimate changeAtmospheric carbon cycleAtmospheric chemistryCarbon dioxideAtmospheric researchClimatologyMeteorologyCarbon sequestrationChemistryOzoneEcologyGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding and quantifying the global methane (CH4) budget is important for assessing realistic pathways to mitigate climate change. Atmospheric emissions and concentrations of CH4 continue to increase, making CH4 the second most important human-influenced greenhouse gas in terms of climate forcing, after carbon dioxide (CO2). The relative importance of CH4 compared to CO2 depends on its shorter atmospheric\nlifetime, stronger warming potential, and variations in atmospheric growth rate over the past decade, the causes of which are still debated. Two major challenges in reducing uncertainties in the atmospheric growth rate arise from the variety of geographically overlapping CH4 sources and from the destruction of CH4 by short-lived hydroxyl radicals (OH). To address these challenges, we have established a consortium of multidisciplinary scientists under the umbrella of the Global Carbon Project to synthesize and stimulate new research aimed at improving and regularly updating the global methane budget. Following Saunois et al. (2016), we present here the second version of the living review paper dedicated to the decadal methane budget, integrating results of top-down studies (atmospheric observations within an atmospheric inverse-modelling framework) and bottom-up estimates (including process-based models for estimating land surface emissions and atmospheric chemistry, inventories of anthropogenic emissions, and data-driven extrapolations).\nFor the 2008–2017 decade, global methane emissions are estimated by atmospheric inversions (a top-down approach) to be 576 TgCH4 yr-1 (range 550–594, corresponding to the minimum and maximum estimates of the model ensemble). Of this total, 359 TgCH4 yr-1 or 60% is attributed to anthropogenic sources, that is emissions caused by direct human activity (i.e. anthropogenic emissions; range 336–376 TgCH4 yr-1 or 50 %–65 %). The mean annual total emission for the new decade (2008–2017) is 29 TgCH4 yr-1 larger than our estimate for the previous decade (2000–2009), and 24 TgCH4 yr-1 larger than the one reported in the previous budget for 2003–2012 (Saunois et al., 2016). Since 2012, global CH4 emissions have been tracking the warmest scenarios assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Bottom-up methods suggest almost 30% larger global emissions (737 TgCH4 yr-1, range 594–881) than top-down inversion methods. Indeed, bottom-up estimates for natural sources such as natural wetlands, other inland water systems, and geological sources are higher than top-down estimates. The atmospheric constraints on the top-down budget suggest that at least some of these bottom-up emissions are overestimated. The latitudinal distribution of atmospheric observation-based emissions indicates a predominance of tropical emissions (∼65% of the global budget, <30◦N) compared to mid-latitudes (∼30 %, 30–60◦ N) and high northern latitudes (∼4 %, 60–90◦N). The most important source of uncertainty in the methane budget is attributable to natural emissions, especially those from wetlands and other inland waters.\nSome of our global source estimates are smaller than those in previously published budgets (Saunois et al., 2016; Kirschke et al., 2013). In particular wetland emissions are about 35 TgCH4 yr-1 lower due to improved partition wetlands and other inland waters. Emissions from geological sources and wild animals are also found to be smaller by 7 TgCH4 yr-1 by 8 TgCH4 yr-1, respectively. However, the overall discrepancy between bottom-up and top-down estimates has been reduced by only 5% compared to Saunois et al. (2016), due to a higher estimate of emissions from inland waters, highlighting the need for more detailed research on emissions factors. Priorities for improving the methane budget include (i) a global, high-resolution map of water-saturated soils and inundated areas emitting methane based on a robust classification of different types of emitting habitats; (ii) further development of process-based models for inland-water emissions; (iii) intensification of methane observations at local scales (e.g., FLUXNET-CH4 measurements) and urban-scale monitoring to constrain bottom-up land surface models, and at regional scales (surface networks and satellites) to constrain atmospheric inversions; (iv) improvements of transport models and the representation of photochemical sinks in top-down inversions; and (v) development of a 3D variational inversion system using isotopic and/or co-emitted species such as ethane to improve source partitioning.\nThe data presented here can be downloaded from https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-CH4-2019 (Saunois et al.,\n2020) and from the Global Carbon Project

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2,643
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNOAA Institutional RepositorySame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207