Analysis of recent atmospheric methane trends using models and observations

Over the past two decades the growth rate of methane has shown large variability on multi-year timescales, the reasons for which are not well understood. The JULES land surface model, TOMCAT 3-D chemical transport model and observations have been used to investigate causes for these variations, with a specific focus on wetland emissions and atmospheric loss. The role of atmospheric variability in the recent methane trends was investigated using TOMCAT, driven by variations in global mean hydroxyl concentrations derived from methyl chloroform observations. Results show that between 1999 and 2006, a stall in the atmospheric methane growth rate was, in part, caused by changes in the atmospheric loss. This was due largely to relatively small changes in global mean hydroxyl concentrations over time, with minor contributions from variations in atmospheric transport and temperature. Methane emissions from various wetland inventories were evaluated using TOMCAT and observations, and recent trends in emissions were investigated. Emissions calculated by JULES were spatially and temporally similar to a top-down emission inventory and produced good agreement with satellite observations when used in TOMCAT (R = 0.84). Emissions derived for the period 1993 – 2012 show a statistically significant (95%-level) positive trend of 0.43 Tg/yr. This suggests a long-term positive trend in wetland emissions that may continue. During the stall in methane growth (1999-2006) modelled wetland emissions were 0.4 Tg/yr lower than average. This suggests that a decrease in wetland emissions contributed to the observed stall in methane growth. The wetland methane processes within JULES were developed to include transport, oxidation, sulphate suppression, unsaturated production and methane storage pools. The parameters required for the additional processes were derived using a perturbed parameter ensemble to optimise the fit with observed fluxes. This slightly increased model performance at flux sites from R = 0.32 in the standard model to R = 0.34 in the updated model. The new version of JULES was tested using TOMCAT and satellite observations, and model agreement improved from R = 0.84 to R = 0.87, additionally the root-mean-squared-error reduced from 17.17 ppb to 15.09 ppb. This suggests the optimised additional model processes slightly improved model performance

Global nature run data with realistic high-resolution carbon weather for the year of the Paris Agreement

The CO2 Human Emissions project has generated realistic high-resolution 9 km global simulations for atmospheric carbon tracers referred to as nature runs to foster carbon-cycle research applications with current and planned satellite missions, as well as the surge of in situ observations. Realistic atmospheric CO2, CH4 and CO fields can provide a reference for assessing the impact of proposed designs of new satellites and in situ networks and to study atmospheric variability of the tracers modulated by the weather. The simulations spanning 2015 are based on the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service forecasts at the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts, with improvements in various model components and input data such as anthropogenic emissions, in preparation of a CO2 Monitoring and Verification Support system. The relative contribution of different emissions and natural fluxes towards observed atmospheric variability is diagnosed by additional tagged tracers in the simulations. The evaluation of such high-resolution model simulations can be used to identify model deficiencies and guide further model improvements.The Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service is operated by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts on behalf of the European Commission as part of the Copernicus Programme (http://copernicus.eu). The CHE and CoCO2 projects have received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 776186 and No 958927. We also thank the FLUXNET and TCCON PIs for providing the data used for the validation of the nature run dataset.Peer Reviewed"Article signat per 27 autors/es: Anna Agustí-Panareda, Joe McNorton, Gianpaolo Balsamo, Bianca C. Baier, Nicolas Bousserez, Souhail Boussetta, Dominik Brunner, Frédéric Chevallier, Margarita Choulga, Michail Diamantakis, Richard Engelen, Johannes Flemming, Claire Granier, Marc Guevara, Hugo Denier van der Gon, Nellie Elguindi, Jean-Matthieu Haussaire, Martin Jung, Greet Janssens-Maenhout, Rigel Kivi, Sébastien Massart, Dario Papale, Mark Parrington, Miha Razinger, Colm Sweeney, Alex Vermeulen & Sophia Walther "Postprint (published version

Evaluation of wetland CH4 in the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES) land surface model using satellite observations

Wetlands are the largest natural source of methane. The ability to model the emissions of methane from natural wetlands accurately is critical to our understanding of the global methane budget and how it may change under future climate scenarios. The simulation of wetland methane emissions involves a complicated system of meteorological drivers coupled to hydrological and biogeochemical processes. The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES) is a process-based land surface model that underpins the UK Earth System Model (UKESM) and is capable of generating estimates of wetland methane emissions. In this study, we use GOSAT satellite observations of atmospheric methane along with the TOMCAT global 3-D chemistry transport model to evaluate the performance of JULES in reproducing the seasonal cycle of methane over a wide range of tropical wetlands. By using an ensemble of JULES simulations with differing input data and process configurations, we investigate the relative importance of the meteorological driving data, the vegetation, the temperature dependency of wetland methane production and the wetland extent. We find that JULES typically performs well in replicating the observed methane seasonal cycle. We calculate correlation coefficients to the observed seasonal cycle of between 0.58 and 0.88 for most regions; however, the seasonal cycle amplitude is typically underestimated (by between 1.8 and 19.5 ppb). This level of performance is comparable to that typically provided by state-of-the-art data-driven wetland CH4 emission inventories. The meteorological driving data are found to be the most significant factor in determining the ensemble performance, with temperature dependency and vegetation having moderate effects. We find that neither wetland extent configuration outperforms the other, but this does lead to poor performance in some regions. We focus in detail on three African wetland regions (Sudd, Southern Africa and Congo) where we find the performance of JULES to be poor and explore the reasons for this in detail. We find that neither wetland extent configuration used is sufficient in representing the wetland distribution in these regions (underestimating the wetland seasonal cycle amplitude by 11.1, 19.5 and 10.1 ppb respectively, with correlation coefficients of 0.23, 0.01 and 0.31). We employ the Catchment-based Macro-scale Floodplain (CaMa-Flood) model to explicitly represent river and floodplain water dynamics and find that these JULES-CaMa-Flood simulations are capable of providing a wetland extent that is more consistent with observations in this regions, highlighting this as an important area for future model development.</p

Evaluation of wetland CH4 in the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES) land surface model using satellite observations

Wetlands are the largest natural source of methane. The ability to model the emissions of methane from natural wetlands accurately is critical to our understanding of the global methane budget and how it may change under future climate scenarios. The simulation of wetland methane emissions involves a complicated system of meteorological drivers coupled to hydrological and biogeochemical processes. The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES) is a process-based land surface model that underpins the UK Earth System Model (UKESM) and is capable of generating estimates of wetland methane emissions. In this study, we use GOSAT satellite observations of atmospheric methane along with the TOMCAT global 3-D chemistry transport model to evaluate the performance of JULES in reproducing the seasonal cycle of methane over a wide range of tropical wetlands. By using an ensemble of JULES simulations with differing input data and process configurations, we investigate the relative importance of the meteorological driving data, the vegetation, the temperature dependency of wetland methane production and the wetland extent. We find that JULES typically performs well in replicating the observed methane seasonal cycle. We calculate correlation coefficients to the observed seasonal cycle of between 0.58 and 0.88 for most regions; however, the seasonal cycle amplitude is typically underestimated (by between 1.8 and 19.5 ppb). This level of performance is comparable to that typically provided by state-of-the-art data-driven wetland CH4 emission inventories. The meteorological driving data are found to be the most significant factor in determining the ensemble performance, with temperature dependency and vegetation having moderate effects. We find that neither wetland extent configuration outperforms the other, but this does lead to poor performance in some regions. We focus in detail on three African wetland regions (Sudd, Southern Africa and Congo) where we find the performance of JULES to be poor and explore the reasons for this in detail. We find that neither wetland extent configuration used is sufficient in representing the wetland distribution in these regions (underestimating the wetland seasonal cycle amplitude by 11.1, 19.5 and 10.1 ppb respectively, with correlation coefficients of 0.23, 0.01 and 0.31). We employ the Catchment-based Macro-scale Floodplain (CaMa-Flood) model to explicitly represent river and floodplain water dynamics and find that these JULES-CaMa-Flood simulations are capable of providing a wetland extent that is more consistent with observations in this regions, highlighting this as an important area for future model development

The consolidated European synthesis of CH4 and N2O emissions for the European Union and United Kingdom : 1990-2017

Reliable quantification of the sources and sinks of greenhouse gases, together with trends and uncertainties, is essential to monitoring the progress in mitigating anthropogenic emissions under the Paris Agreement. This study provides a consolidated synthesis of CH4 and N2O emissions with consistently derived state-of-the-art bottom-up (BU) and top-down (TD) data sources for the European Union and UK (EU27 C UK). We integrate recent emission inventory data, ecosystem process-based model results and inverse modeling estimates over the period 1990-2017. BU and TD products are compared with European national greenhouse gas inventories (NGHGIs) reported to the UN climate convention UNFCCC secretariat in 2019. For uncertainties, we used for NGHGIs the standard deviation obtained by varying parameters of inventory calculations, reported by the member states (MSs) following the recommendations of the IPCC Guidelines. For atmospheric inversion models (TD) or other inventory datasets (BU), we defined uncertainties from the spread between different model estimates or model-specific uncertainties when reported. In comparing NGHGIs with other approaches, a key source of bias is the activities included, e.g., anthropogenic versus anthropogenic plus natural fluxes. In inversions, the separation between anthropogenic and natural emissions is sensitive to the geospatial prior distribution of emissions. Over the 2011-2015 period, which is the common denominator of data availability between all sources, the anthropogenic BU approaches are directly comparable, reporting mean emissions of 20.8 TgCH(4) yr (-1) (EDGAR v5.0) and 19.0 TgCH(4) yr(-1) (GAINS), consistent with the NGHGI estimates of 18.9 +/- 1.7 TgCH(4) yr(-1). The estimates of TD total inversions give higher emission estimates, as they also include natural emissions. Over the same period regional TD inversions with higher-resolution atmospheric transport models give a mean emission of 28.8 TgCH(4) yr(-1). Coarser-resolution global TD inversions are consistent with regional TD inversions, for global inversions with GOSAT satellite data (23.3 TgCH(4) yr(-1)) and surface network (24.4 TgCH(4) yr (-1)). The magnitude of natural peatland emissions from the JSBACH-HIMMELI model, natural rivers and lakes emissions, and geological sources together account for the gap between NGHGIs and inversions and account for 5.2 TgCH(4) yr(-1). For N2O emissions, over the 2011-2015 period, both BU approaches (EDGAR v5.0 and GAINS) give a mean value of anthropogenic emissions of 0.8 and 0.9 TgN(2)Oyr(-1), respectively, agreeing with the NGHGI data (0.9 0.6 TgN(2)Oyr(-1)). Over the same period, the average of the three total TD global and regional inversions was 1.3 +/- 0.4 and 1.3 +/- 0.1 TgN(2)Oyr(-1), respectively. The TD and BU comparison method defined in this study can be operationalized for future yearly updates for the calculation of CH4 and N2O budgets both at the EU CUK scale and at the national scale.Peer reviewe

The CO2 Human Emissions (CHE) Project: First steps towards a European operational capacity to monitor anthropogenic CO2 emissions

The Paris Agreement of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is a binding international treaty signed by 196 nations to limit their greenhouse gas emissions through ever-reducing Nationally Determined Contributions and a system of 5-yearly Global Stocktakes in an Enhanced Transparency Framework. To support this process, the European Commission initiated the design and development of a new Copernicus service element that will use Earth observations mainly to monitor anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The CO2 Human Emissions (CHE) project has been successfully coordinating efforts of its 22 consortium partners, to advance the development of a European CO2 monitoring and verification support (CO2MVS) capacity for anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Several project achievements are presented and discussed here as examples. The CHE project has developed an enhanced capability to produce global, regional and local CO2 simulations, with a focus on the representation of anthropogenic sources. The project has achieved advances towards a CO2 global inversion capability at high resolution to connect atmospheric concentrations to surface emissions. CHE has also demonstrated the use of Earth observations (satellite and ground-based) as well as proxy data for human activity to constrain uncertainties and to enhance the timeliness of CO2 monitoring. High-resolution global simulations (at 9 km) covering the whole of 2015 (labelled CHE nature runs) fed regional and local simulations over Europe (at 5 km and 1 km resolution) and supported the generation of synthetic satellite observations simulating the contribution of a future dedicated Copernicus CO2 Monitoring Mission (CO2M

Satellite and in situ observations for advancing global Earth surface modelling: a review

In this paper, we review the use of satellite-based remote sensing in combination with in situ data to inform Earth surface modelling. This involves verification and optimization methods that can handle both random and systematic errors and result in effective model improvement for both surface monitoring and prediction applications. The reasons for diverse remote sensing data and products include (i) their complementary areal and temporal coverage, (ii) their diverse and covariant information content, and (iii) their ability to complement in situ observations, which are often sparse and only locally representative. To improve our understanding of the complex behavior of the Earth system at the surface and sub-surface, we need large volumes of data from high-resolution modelling and remote sensing, since the Earth surface exhibits a high degree of heterogeneity and discontinuities in space and time. The spatial and temporal variability of the biosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere and anthroposphere calls for an increased use of Earth observation (EO) data attaining volumes previously considered prohibitive. We review data availability and discuss recent examples where satellite remote sensing is used to infer observable surface quantities directly or indirectly, with particular emphasis on key parameters necessary for weather and climate prediction. Coordinated high-resolution remote-sensing and modelling/assimilation capabilities for the Earth surface are required to support an international application-focused effort

The consolidated European synthesis of CH4 and N2O emissions for the European Union and United Kingdom : 1990-2019

Funding Information: We thank Aurélie Paquirissamy, Géraud Moulas and the ARTTIC team for the great managerial support offered during the project. FAOSTAT statistics are produced and disseminated with the support of its member countries to the FAO regular budget. Annual, gap-filled and harmonized NGHGI uncertainty estimates for the EU and its member states were provided by the EU GHG inventory team (European Environment Agency and its European Topic Centre on Climate change mitigation). Most top-down inverse simulations referred to in this paper rely for the derivation of optimized flux fields on observational data provided by surface stations that are part of networks like ICOS (datasets: 10.18160/P7E9-EKEA , Integrated Non-CO Observing System, 2018a, and 10.18160/B3Q6-JKA0 , Integrated Non-CO Observing System, 2018b), AGAGE, NOAA (Obspack Globalview CH: 10.25925/20221001 , Schuldt et al., 2017), CSIRO and/or WMO GAW. We thank all station PIs and their organizations for providing these valuable datasets. We acknowledge the work of other members of the EDGAR group (Edwin Schaaf, Jos Olivier) and the outstanding scientific contribution to the VERIFY project of Peter Bergamaschi. Timo Vesala thanks ICOS-Finland, University of Helsinki. The TM5-CAMS inversions are available from https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu (last access: June 2022); Arjo Segers acknowledges support from the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service, implemented by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts on behalf of the European Commission (grant no. CAMS2_55). This research has been supported by the European Commission, Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (VERIFY, grant no. 776810). Ronny Lauerwald received support from the CLand Convergence Institute. Prabir Patra received support from the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (grant no. JPMEERF20182002) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency of Japan. Pierre Regnier received financial support from the H2020 project ESM2025 – Earth System Models for the Future (grant no. 101003536). David Basviken received support from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (METLAKE, grant no. 725546). Greet Janssens-Maenhout received support from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (CoCO, grant no. 958927). Tuula Aalto received support from the Finnish Academy (grants nos. 351311 and 345531). Sönke Zhaele received support from the ERC consolidator grant QUINCY (grant no. 647204).Peer reviewedPublisher PD

The global methane budget 2000–2017

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−1 (range 550–594, corresponding to the minimum and maximum estimates of the model ensemble). Of this total, 359 Tg CH4 yr−1 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−1 or 50 %–65 %). The mean annual total emission for the new decade (2008–2017) is 29 Tg CH4 yr−1 larger than our estimate for the previous decade (2000–2009), and 24 Tg CH4 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 Tg CH4 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. 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−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 Tg CH4 yr−1 by 8 Tg CH4 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

Exploring constraints on a wetland methane emission ensemble (WetCHARTs) using GOSAT observations

Wetland emissions contribute the largest uncertainties to the current global atmospheric CH4 budget, and how these emissions will change under future climate scenarios is also still poorly understood. Bloom et al. (2017b) developed WetCHARTs, a simple, data-driven, ensemble-based model that produces estimates of CH4 wetland emissions constrained by observations of precipitation and temperature. This study performs the first detailed global and regional evaluation of the WetCHARTs CH4 emission model ensemble against 9 years of high-quality, validated atmospheric CH4 observations from GOSAT (the Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite). A 3-D chemical transport model is used to estimate atmospheric CH4 mixing ratios based on the WetCHARTs emissions and other sources. Across all years and all ensemble members, the observed global seasonal-cycle amplitude is typically underestimated by WetCHARTs by −7.4 ppb, but the correlation coefficient of 0.83 shows that the seasonality is well-produced at a global scale. The Southern Hemisphere has less of a bias (−1.9 ppb) than the Northern Hemisphere (−9.3 ppb), and our findings show that it is typically the North Tropics where this bias is the worst (−11.9 ppb). We find that WetCHARTs generally performs well in reproducing the observed wetland CH4 seasonal cycle for the majority of wetland regions although, for some regions, regardless of the ensemble configuration, WetCHARTs does not reproduce the observed seasonal cycle well. In order to investigate this, we performed detailed analysis of some of the more challenging exemplar regions (Paraná River, Congo, Sudd and Yucatán). Our results show that certain ensemble members are more suited to specific regions, due to either deficiencies in the underlying data driving the model or complexities in representing the processes involved. In particular, incorrect definition of the wetland extent is found to be the most common reason for the discrepancy between the modelled and observed CH4 concentrations. The remaining driving data (i.e. heterotrophic respiration and temperature) are shown to also contribute to the mismatch with observations, with the details differing on a region-by-region basis but generally showing that some degree of temperature dependency is better than none. We conclude that the data-driven approach used by WetCHARTs is well-suited to producing a benchmark ensemble dataset against which to evaluate more complex process-based land surface models that explicitly model the hydrological behaviour of these complex wetland regions