MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120071516 · doi:10.5194/acp-2020-1195

Estimating 2010–2015 Anthropogenic and Natural Methane Emissions in Canada using ECCC Surface and GOSAT Satellite Observations

2021· article· en· W3120071516 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sabour Baray, Daniel Jacob, Joannes D. Massakkers, Jian‐Xiong Sheng, Melissa P. Sulprizio, Dylan B. A. Jones, A. Anthony Bloom, R. McLaren

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoYork University
FundersJapan Aerospace Exploration AgencyNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationUniversity of LeicesterEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceGreenhouse gasMethaneWetlandAtmospheric sciencesSatelliteMethane emissionsEmission inventoryBorealAtmospheric methaneClimatologyMeteorologyGeographyEcologyAir quality indexGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Methane emissions in Canada have both anthropogenic and natural sources. Anthropogenic emissions are estimated to be 4.1 Tg a−1 from 2010–2015 in the Canadian Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Natural emissions, which are mostly due to Boreal wetlands, are the largest methane source in Canada and highly uncertain, on the order of ~20 Tg a−1 in biosphere process models. Top-down constraints on Canadian methane emissions using atmospheric observations have been limited by the sparse coverage of both surface and satellite observations. Aircraft studies over the last several years have provided snapshot emissions that have been conflicting with inventory estimates. Here we use surface data from the Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) in situ network and space borne data from the Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite (GOSAT) to determine 2010–2015 anthropogenic and natural methane emissions in Canada in a Bayesian inverse modelling framework. We use GEOS-Chem to simulate anthropogenic emissions comparable to the Canadian inventory and wetlands emissions using an ensemble of WetCHARTS v1.0 scenarios in addition to other minor natural sources. We conduct a comparative analysis of the monthly natural emissions and yearly anthropogenic emissions optimized by surface and satellite data independently. Mean 2010–2015 posterior emissions using ECCC surface data are 6.0 ± 0.4 Tg a−1 for total anthropogenic and 10.5 ± 1.9 Tg a−1 for total natural emissions, where the error intervals represent the 1-σ spread in yearly posterior results. These results agree with our posterior using GOSAT data of 6.5 ± 0.7 Tg a−1 for total anthropogenic and 11.7 ± 1.2 Tg a−1 for total natural emissions. The seasonal pattern of posterior natural emissions using either dataset shows slower to start emissions in the spring and a less intense peak in the summer compared to the mean of WetCHARTS scenarios. We combine ECCC and GOSAT data to evaluate capabilities for sectoral and provincial level inversions and identify limitations. We estimate Energy + Agriculture emissions to be 5.1 ± 1.0 Tg a−1 which is 59 % higher than the National GHG Inventory. We attribute 39 % higher anthropogenic emissions to Western Canada than the prior. Natural emissions are lower across Canada with large downscaling in the Hudson Bay Lowlands. Inversion results are verified against independent aircraft data in Saskatchewan and surface data in Quebec which show better agreement with posterior emissions. This study shows a readjustment of the Canadian methane budget is necessary to better match atmospheric observations with higher anthropogenic emissions partially offset by lower natural emissions.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207