The 2019 Methane Budget And Uncertainties At 1 Degree Resolution And Each Country Through Bayesian Integration Of GOSAT Total Column Methane Data And A Priori Inventory Estimates

Abstract. We present 2019 global methane (CH4) emissions and uncertainties, by sector, at 1-degree and country-scale resolution based on a Bayesian integration of satellite data and inventories. Globally, we find that agricultural and fire emissions are 227 +/− 19 Tg CH4/yr, waste is 50 +/− 7 Tg CH4/yr , anthropogenic fossil emissions are 82 +/− 12 Tg CH4/yr, and natural wetland/aquatic emissions are 180 +/− 10 Tg CH4/yr. These estimates are intended as a pilot dataset for the Global Stock Take in support of the Paris Agreement. However, differences between the emissions reported here and widely-used bottom-up inventories should be used as a starting point for further research because of potential systematic errors of these satellite based emissions estimates. Calculation of emissions and uncertainties: We first apply a standard optimal estimation (OE) approach to quantify CH4 fluxes using Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite (GOSAT) total column CH4 concentrations and the GEOS-Chem global chemistry transport model. Second, we use a new Bayesian algorithm that projects these posterior fluxes to emissions by sector to 1 degree and country-scale resolution. This algorithm can also quantify uncertainties from measurement as well as smoothing error, which is due to the spatial resolution of the top-down estimate combined with the assumed structure in the prior emission uncertainties. Detailed Results: We find that total emissions for approximately 58 countries can be resolved with this observing system based on the degrees-of-freedom for signal (DOFS) metric that can be calculated with our Bayesian flux estimation approach. We find the top five emitting countries (Brazil, China, India, Russia, USA) emit about half of the global anthropogenic budget, similar to our choice of prior emissions. However, posterior emissions for these countries are mostly from agriculture, waste and fires (~129 Tg CH4/yr) with ~45 Tg CH4/yr from fossil emissions, as compared to prior inventory estimates of ~88 and 60 Tg CH4/yr respectively, primarily because the satellite observed concentrations are larger than expected in regions with substantive livestock activity. Differences are outside of 1-sigma uncertainties between prior and posterior for Brazil, India, and Russia but are consistent for China and the USA. The new Bayesian algorithm to quantify emissions from fluxes also allows us to “swap priors” if better informed or alternative priors and/or their covariances are available for testing. For example, recent bottom-up literature supposes greatly increased values for wetland/aquatic as well as fossil emissions. Swapping in priors that reflect these increased emissions results in posterior wetland emissions or fossil emissions that are inconsistent (differences greater than calculated uncertainties) with these increased bottom-up estimates, primarily because constraints related to the methane sink only allow total emissions across all sectors of ~560 Tg CH4/yr and because the satellite based estimate well constrains the spatially distinct fossil and wetland emissions. Given that this observing system consisting of GOSAT data and the GEOS-Chem model can resolve much of the different sectoral and country-wide emissions, with ~402 DOFS for the whole globe, our results indicate additional research is needed to identify the causes of discrepancies between these top-down and bottom-up results for many of the emission sectors reported here. In particular, the impact of systematic errors in the methane retrievals and transport model employed should be assessed where differences exist. However, our results also suggest that significant attention must be provided to the location and magnitude of emissions used for priors in top-down inversions; for example, poorly characterized prior emissions in one region and/or sector can affect top-down estimates in another because of the limited spatial resolution of these top-down estimates. Satellites such as the Tropospheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) and those in formulation such as the Copernicus CO2M, Methane-Sat, or Carbon Mapper offer the promise of much higher resolution fluxes relative to GOSAT assuming they can provide data with comparable or better accuracy, thus potentially reducing this uncertainty from poorly characterized emissions. These higher resolution estimates can therefore greatly improve the accuracy of emissions by reducing smoothing error. Fluxes calculated from other sources can also in principal be incorporated in the Bayesian estimation framework demonstrated here for the purpose of reducing uncertainty and improving the spatial resolution and sectoral attribution of subsequent methane emissions estimates.

[1]  J. Maasakkers,et al.  A Bayesian framework for deriving sector-based methane emissions from top-down fluxes , 2021, Communications Earth & Environment.

[2]  D. Jacob,et al.  Supplementary material to "Updated Global Fuel Exploitation Inventory (GFEI) for methane emissions from the oil, gas, and coal sectors: evaluation with inversions of atmospheric methane observations" , 2021, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

[3]  Shamil Maksyutov,et al.  Regional trends and drivers of the global methane budget , 2021, Global change biology.

[4]  J. Sheng,et al.  AGU Advances Authors’ Response to Peer Review Comments on Satellite constraints on the latitudinal distribution and temperature sensitivity of wetland methane emissions , 2021 .

[5]  Atul K. Jain,et al.  Comparing national greenhouse gas budgets reported in UNFCCC inventories against atmospheric inversions , 2021, Earth System Science Data.

[6]  J. Sheng,et al.  Unravelling a large methane emission discrepancy in Mexico using satellite observations , 2021, Remote Sensing of Environment.

[7]  Joseph W. Heckler,et al.  Quantifying Global Power Plant Carbon Dioxide Emissions With Imaging Spectroscopy , 2021, AGU Advances.

[8]  J. Maasakkers,et al.  Supplementary material to "Global distribution of methane emissions: a comparative inverse analysis of observations from the TROPOMI and GOSAT satellite instruments" , 2021, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

[9]  B. Poulter,et al.  Half of global methane emissions come from highly variable aquatic ecosystem sources , 2021, Nature Geoscience.

[10]  J. Sheng,et al.  2010–2015 North American methane emissions, sectoral contributions, and trends: a high-resolution inversion of GOSAT observations of atmospheric methane , 2021 .

[11]  J. Sheng,et al.  Attribution of the accelerating increase in atmospheric methane during 2010–2018 by inverse analysis of GOSAT observations , 2020, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

[12]  J. Sheng,et al.  Global methane budget and trend, 2010–2017: complementarity of inverse analyses using in situ (GLOBALVIEWplus CH4 ObsPack) and satellite (GOSAT) observations , 2020, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

[13]  P. Ciais,et al.  Accelerating methane growth rate from 2010 to 2017: leading contributions from the tropics and East Asia , 2020, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

[14]  G. Janssens‑Maenhout,et al.  High resolution temporal profiles in the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research , 2020, Scientific Data.

[15]  R. Weiss,et al.  Preindustrial 14CH4 indicates greater anthropogenic fossil CH4 emissions , 2020, Nature.

[16]  Johannes W. Kaiser,et al.  Country-Scale Analysis of Methane Emissions with a High-Resolution Inverse Model Using GOSAT and Surface Observations , 2020, Remote. Sens..

[17]  G. Balsamo,et al.  Representing model uncertainty for global atmospheric CO2 flux inversions using ECMWF-IFS-46R1 , 2020, Geoscientific Model Development.

[18]  V. Brovkin,et al.  The Global Methane Budget 2000–2017 , 2016, Earth System Science Data.

[19]  A. Taffesse,et al.  Evolving livestock sector , 2020 .

[20]  R. Gautam,et al.  Satellite observations reveal extreme methane leakage from a natural gas well blowout , 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[21]  R. Jackson,et al.  Advancing Scientific Understanding of the Global Methane Budget in Support of the Paris Agreement , 2019, Global Biogeochemical Cycles.

[22]  S. Pandey,et al.  Satellite Discovery of Anomalously Large Methane Point Sources From Oil/Gas Production , 2019, Geophysical Research Letters.

[23]  Brian D. Bue,et al.  California’s methane super-emitters , 2019, Nature.

[24]  J. Sheng,et al.  A global gridded (0.1° × 0.1°) inventory of methane emissions from oil, gas, and coal exploitation based on national reports to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , 2019, Earth System Science Data.

[25]  J. Sheng,et al.  Global distribution of methane emissions, emission trends, and OH concentrations and trends inferred from an inversion of GOSAT satellite data for 2010–2015 , 2019, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

[26]  David R. Thompson,et al.  Potential of next-generation imaging spectrometers to detect and quantify methane point sources from space , 2019, Atmospheric Measurement Techniques.

[27]  Dylan B. A. Jones,et al.  Quantifying the Impact of Atmospheric Transport Uncertainty on CO2 Surface Flux Estimates , 2019, Global biogeochemical cycles.

[28]  E. Kort,et al.  Interpreting contemporary trends in atmospheric methane , 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[29]  Scot M. Miller,et al.  China’s coal mine methane regulations have not curbed growing emissions , 2019, Nature Communications.

[30]  Peter Bergamaschi,et al.  EDGAR v4.3.2 Global Atlas of the three major greenhouse gas emissions for the period 1970–2012 , 2017, Earth System Science Data.

[31]  J. Sheng,et al.  Global distribution of methane emissions, emission trends, and OH concentrations and trends inferred from an inversion of GOSAT satellite data for 2010–2015 , 2019 .

[32]  G. Etiope,et al.  Gridded maps of geological methane emissions and their isotopic signature , 2018, Earth System Science Data.

[33]  A. Turner,et al.  Modulation of hydroxyl variability by ENSO in the absence of external forcing , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[34]  M. Omara,et al.  Assessment of methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain , 2018, Science.

[35]  B. Poulter,et al.  Spatially Resolved Isotopic Source Signatures of Wetland Methane Emissions , 2018 .

[36]  A. Taffesse,et al.  The evolving livestock sector in Ethiopia: Growth by heads, not by productivity , 2018 .

[37]  S. Pandey,et al.  Reduced biomass burning emissions reconcile conflicting estimates of the post-2006 atmospheric methane budget , 2017, Nature Communications.

[38]  R. Parker,et al.  Atmospheric observations show accurate reporting and little growth in India’s methane emissions , 2017, Nature Communications.

[39]  G. Asrar,et al.  Revised methane emissions factors and spatially distributed annual carbon fluxes for global livestock , 2017, Carbon Balance and Management.

[40]  J. Randerson,et al.  Global fire emissions estimates during 1997–2016 , 2017 .

[41]  Bin Zhao,et al.  The Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications, Version 2 (MERRA-2). , 2017, Journal of climate.

[42]  D. Jacob,et al.  A global wetland methane emissions and uncertainty dataset for atmospheric chemical transport models (WetCHARTs version 1.0) , 2017 .

[43]  Christian Frankenberg,et al.  Ambiguity in the causes for decadal trends in atmospheric methane and hydroxyl , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[44]  S. Houweling,et al.  Global methane emission estimates for 2000–2012 from CarbonTracker Europe-CH4 v1.0 , 2017 .

[45]  G. Janssens‑Maenhout,et al.  EDGAR v 4 . 3 . 2 Global Atlas of the three major greenhouse gas emissions for the period 1970 – 2012 , 2017 .

[46]  V. Brovkin,et al.  Global wetland contribution to 2000–2012 atmospheric methane growth rate dynamics , 2017 .

[47]  J. Maasakkers,et al.  Gridded National Inventory of U.S. Methane Emissions. , 2016, Environmental science & technology.

[48]  Merritt N. Deeter,et al.  A 15-year record of CO emissions constrained by MOPITT CO observations , 2016 .

[49]  Pieter P. Tans,et al.  Upward revision of global fossil fuel methane emissions based on isotope database , 2016, Nature.

[50]  Hanqin Tian,et al.  Methane emissions from global rice fields: Magnitude, spatiotemporal patterns, and environmental controls , 2016 .

[51]  S. Michel,et al.  A 21st-century shift from fossil-fuel to biogenic methane emissions indicated by 13CH4 , 2016, Science.

[52]  Anthony J. Marchese,et al.  Reconciling divergent estimates of oil and gas methane emissions , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[53]  Hartmut Boesch,et al.  Estimating global and North American methane emissions with high spatial resolution using GOSAT satellite data , 2015 .

[54]  Dylan B. A. Jones,et al.  Regional data assimilation of multi-spectral MOPITT observations of CO over North America , 2015 .

[55]  Zhe Jiang,et al.  Mapping of North American methane emissions with high spatial resolution by inversion of SCIAMACHY satellite data , 2014 .

[56]  Peter Bergamaschi,et al.  Three decades of global methane sources and sinks , 2013 .

[57]  Peter Bergamaschi,et al.  Atmospheric CH4 in the first decade of the 21st century: Inverse modeling analysis using SCIAMACHY satellite retrievals and NOAA surface measurements , 2013 .

[58]  Hartmut Boesch,et al.  The Greenhouse Gas Climate Change Initiative (GHG-CCI): Comparison and quality assessment of near-surface-sensitive satellite-derived CO2 and CH4 global data sets , 2013 .

[59]  Dylan B. A. Jones,et al.  Impact of model errors in convective transport on CO source estimates inferred from MOPITT CO retrievals , 2013 .

[60]  Benjamin Poulter,et al.  Present state of global wetland extent and wetland methane modelling: conclusions from a model inter-comparison project (WETCHIMP) , 2012 .

[61]  Michael J. Prather,et al.  Reactive greenhouse gas scenarios: Systematic exploration of uncertainties and the role of atmospheric chemistry , 2012 .

[62]  E. Dlugokencky,et al.  Global atmospheric methane: budget, changes and dangers , 2011, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[63]  Nadine Unger,et al.  Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions , 2009, Science.

[64]  Hartmut Boesch,et al.  Orbiting Carbon Observatory: Inverse method and prospective error analysis , 2008 .

[65]  Reinhard Beer,et al.  Tropospheric emission spectrometer: retrieval method and error analysis , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing.

[66]  J. F. Meirink,et al.  Assessing Methane Emissions from Global Space-Borne Observations , 2005, Science.

[67]  John C. Gille,et al.  Comparative inverse analysis of satellite (MOPITT) and aircraft (TRACE-P) observations to estimate Asian sources of carbon monoxide , 2004 .

[68]  Shepard A. Clough,et al.  Predicted errors of tropospheric emission spectrometer nadir retrievals from spectral window selection , 2004 .

[69]  Clive D Rodgers,et al.  Inverse Methods for Atmospheric Sounding: Theory and Practice , 2000 .

[70]  ProblemsPer Christian HansenDepartment The L-curve and its use in the numerical treatment of inverse problems , 2000 .

[71]  B. Connor,et al.  Intercomparison of remote sounding instruments , 1999 .

[72]  J. Lerner,et al.  Three‐dimensional model synthesis of the global methane cycle , 1991 .