Search

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 lifetime, 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). For the 2008–2017 decade, global methane emissions are estimated by atmospheric inversions (a top-down approach) to be 576 Tg CH4/yr (range 550–594, corresponding to the minimum and maximum estimates of the model ensemble). Of this total, 359 Tg CH4/yr or ∼ 60 % is attributed to anthropogenic sources, that is emissions caused by direct human activity (i.e. anthropogenic emissions; range 336–376 Tg CH4/yr or 50 %–65 %). The mean annual total emission for the new decade (2008–2017) is 29 Tg CH4/yr larger than our estimate for the previous decade (2000–2009), and 24 Tg CH4/yr 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 Tg CH4/yr, 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. Some 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 Tg CH4/yr 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 Tg CH4/yr by 8 Tg CH4/yr, 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.

Lack of national data on water-related ecosystems is a major challenge to achieving the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6 targets by 2030. Monitoring surface water extent, wetlands, and water quality from space can be an important asset for many countries in support of SDG 6 reporting. We demonstrate the potential for Earth observation (EO) data to support country reporting for SDG Indicator 6.6.1, ‘Change in the extent of water-related ecosystems over time’ and identify important considerations for countries using these data for SDG reporting. The spatial extent of water-related ecosystems, and the partial quality of water within these ecosystems is investigated for seven countries. Data from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and Landsat 5, 7, and 8 with Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) are used to measure surface water extent at 250 m and 30 m spatial resolution, respectively, in Cambodia, Jamaica, Peru, the Philippines, Senegal, Uganda, and Zambia. The extent of mangroves is mapped at 30 m spatial resolution using Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager (OLI), Sentinel-1, and SRTM data for Jamaica, Peru, and Senegal. Using Landsat 8 and Sentinel 2A imagery, total suspended solids and chlorophyll-a are mapped over time for a select number of large surface water bodies in Peru, Senegal, and Zambia. All of the EO datasets used are of global coverage and publicly available at no cost. The temporal consistency and long time-series of many of the datasets enable replicability over time, making reporting of change from baseline values consistent and systematic. We find that statistical comparisons between different surface water data products can help provide some degree of confidence for countries during their validation process and highlight the need for accuracy assessments when using EO-based land change data for SDG reporting. We also raise concern that EO data in the context of SDG Indicator 6.6.1 reporting may be more challenging for some countries, such as small island nations, than others to use in assessing the extent of water-related ecosystems due to scale limitations and climate variability. Country-driven validation of the EO data products remains a priority to ensure successful data integration in support of SDG Indicator 6.6.1 reporting. Multi-country studies such as this one can be valuable tools for helping to guide the evolution of SDG monitoring methodologies and provide a useful resource for countries reporting on water-related ecosystems. The EO data analyses and statistical methods used in this study can be easily replicated for country-driven validation of EO data products in the future.