Journal cover Journal topic
Earth System Science Data The Data Publishing Journal

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 8.286 IF 8.286
  • CiteScore<br/> value: 7.07 CiteScore
  • SNIP value: 2.755 SNIP 2.755
  • SJR value: 5.363 SJR 5.363
  • IPP value: 6.509 IPP 6.509
  • h5-index value: 23 h5-index 23
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 8, 697-751, 2016
© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed
under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Review article
12 Dec 2016
The global methane budget 2000–2012
Marielle Saunois1, Philippe Bousquet1, Ben Poulter2, Anna Peregon1, Philippe Ciais1, Josep G. Canadell3, Edward J. Dlugokencky4, Giuseppe Etiope5, David Bastviken6, Sander Houweling7,8, Greet Janssens-Maenhout9, Francesco N. Tubiello10, Simona Castaldi11,12,13, Robert B. Jackson14, Mihai Alexe9, Vivek K. Arora15, David J. Beerling16, Peter Bergamaschi9, Donald R. Blake17, Gordon Brailsford18, Victor Brovkin19, Lori Bruhwiler4, Cyril Crevoisier20, Patrick Crill21, Kristofer Covey22, Charles Curry23, Christian Frankenberg24, Nicola Gedney25, Lena Höglund-Isaksson26, Misa Ishizawa27, Akihiko Ito27, Fortunat Joos28, Heon-Sook Kim27, Thomas Kleinen19, Paul Krummel29, Jean-François Lamarque30, Ray Langenfelds29, Robin Locatelli1, Toshinobu Machida27, Shamil Maksyutov27, Kyle C. McDonald31, Julia Marshall32, Joe R. Melton33, Isamu Morino25, Vaishali Naik34, Simon O'Doherty35, Frans-Jan W. Parmentier36, Prabir K. Patra37, Changhui Peng38, Shushi Peng1, Glen P. Peters39, Isabelle Pison1, Catherine Prigent40, Ronald Prinn41, Michel Ramonet1, William J. Riley42, Makoto Saito27, Monia Santini13, Ronny Schroeder31,43, Isobel J. Simpson17, Renato Spahni28, Paul Steele29, Atsushi Takizawa44, Brett F. Thornton21, Hanqin Tian45, Yasunori Tohjima27, Nicolas Viovy1, Apostolos Voulgarakis46, Michiel van Weele47, Guido R. van der Werf48, Ray Weiss49, Christine Wiedinmyer30, David J. Wilton16, Andy Wiltshire50, Doug Worthy51, Debra Wunch52, Xiyan Xu42, Yukio Yoshida27, Bowen Zhang45, Zhen Zhang2,53, and Qiuan Zhu54 1Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, LSCE-IPSL (CEA-CNRS-UVSQ), Université Paris-Saclay 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France
2NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Biospheric Science Laboratory, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA
3Global Carbon Project, CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
4NOAA ESRL, 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80305, USA
5Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma 2, via V. Murata 605 00143 Rome, Italy
6Department of Thematic Studies – Environmental Change, Linköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden
7Netherlands Institute for Space Research (SRON), Sorbonnelaan 2, 3584 CA Utrecht, the Netherlands
8Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, Sorbonnelaan 2, 3584 CA, Utrecht, the Netherlands
9European Commission Joint Research Centre, Ispra (Va), Italy
10Statistics Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, Rome 00153, Italy
11Dipartimento di Scienze Ambientali, Biologiche e Farmaceutiche, Seconda Università di Napoli, via Vivaldi 43, 81100 Caserta, Italy
12Far East Federal University (FEFU), Vladivostok, Russky Island, Russia
13Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change, Via Augusto Imperatore 16, 73100 Lecce, Italy
14School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-2210, USA
15Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Climate Research Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2, Canada
16Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK
17Department of Chemistry, University of California Irvine, 570 Rowland Hall, Irvine, CA 92697, USA
18National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, 301 Evans Bay Parade, Wellington, New Zealand
19Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Bundesstraße 53, 20146 Hamburg, Germany
20Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique, LMD-IPSL, Ecole Polytechnique, 91120 Palaiseau, France
21Department of Geological Sciences and Bolin Centre for Climate Research, Svante Arrhenius väg 8, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
22School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511, USA
23School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, P.O. Box 1700 STN CSC, Victoria, BC, Canada V8W 2Y2
24Jet Propulsion Laboratory, M/S 183-601, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA
25Met Office Hadley Centre, Joint Centre for Hydrometeorological Research, Maclean Building, Wallingford OX10 8BB, UK
26Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Program (AIR), International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), 2361 Laxenburg, Austria
27Center for Global Environmental Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES), Onogawa 16-2, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8506, Japan
28Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute and Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, Sidlerstr. 5, 3012 Bern, Switzerland
29CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Aspendale, Victoria 3195, Australia
30NCAR, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000, USA
31Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, City University of New York, New York, NY 10031, USA
32Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Hans-Knöll-Str. 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
33Climate Research Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2, Canada
34NOAA, GFDL, 201 Forrestal Rd., Princeton, NJ 08540, USA
35School of Chemistry, University of Bristol, Cantock's Close, Clifton, Bristol BS8 1TS, UK
36Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science, Lund University, Sölvegatan 12, 223 62, Lund, Sweden
37Department of Environmental Geochemical Cycle Research, JAMSTEC, 3173-25 Showa-machi, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama, 236-0001, Japan
38Department of Biology Sciences, Institute of Environment Science, University of Quebec at Montreal, Montreal, QC H3C 3P8, Canada
39Center for International Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo (CICERO), Pb. 1129 Blindern, 0318 Oslo, Norway
40CNRS/LERMA, Observatoire de Paris, 61 Ave. de l'Observatoire, 75014 Paris, France
41Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Building 54-1312, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
42Earth Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
43Institute of Botany, University of Hohenheim, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany
44Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), 1-3-4 Otemachi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8122, Japan
45International Center for Climate and Global Change Research, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University, 602 Duncan Drive, Auburn, AL 36849, USA
46Space & Atmospheric Physics, The Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK
47KNMI, P.O. Box 201, 3730 AE, De Bilt, the Netherlands
48Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Earth and Climate Cluster, VU Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
49Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO), University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA
50Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, UK
51Environnement Canada, 4905, rue Dufferin, Toronto, Canada
52Department of Physics, University of Toronto, 60 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
53Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Birmensdorf 8059, Switzerland
54State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess Plateau, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi 712100, China
Abstract. The global methane (CH4) budget is becoming an increasingly important component for managing realistic pathways to mitigate climate change. This relevance, due to a shorter atmospheric lifetime and a stronger warming potential than carbon dioxide, is challenged by the still unexplained changes of atmospheric CH4 over the past decade. Emissions and concentrations of CH4 are continuing to increase, making CH4 the second most important human-induced greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide. Two major difficulties in reducing uncertainties come from the large variety of diffusive CH4 sources that overlap geographically, and from the destruction of CH4 by the very short-lived hydroxyl radical (OH). To address these difficulties, we have established a consortium of multi-disciplinary scientists under the umbrella of the Global Carbon Project to synthesize and stimulate research on the methane cycle, and producing regular (∼ biennial) updates of the global methane budget. This consortium includes atmospheric physicists and chemists, biogeochemists of surface and marine emissions, and socio-economists who study anthropogenic emissions. Following Kirschke et al. (2013), we propose here the first version of a living review paper that integrates results of top-down studies (exploiting atmospheric observations within an atmospheric inverse-modelling framework) and bottom-up models, inventories and data-driven approaches (including process-based models for estimating land surface emissions and atmospheric chemistry, and inventories for anthropogenic emissions, data-driven extrapolations).

For the 2003–2012 decade, global methane emissions are estimated by top-down inversions at 558 Tg CH4 yr−1, range 540–568. About 60 % of global emissions are anthropogenic (range 50–65 %). Since 2010, the bottom-up global emission inventories have been closer to methane emissions in the most carbon-intensive Representative Concentrations Pathway (RCP8.5) and higher than all other RCP scenarios. Bottom-up approaches suggest larger global emissions (736 Tg CH4 yr−1, range 596–884) mostly because of larger natural emissions from individual sources such as inland waters, natural wetlands and geological sources. Considering the atmospheric constraints on the top-down budget, it is likely that some of the individual emissions reported by the bottom-up approaches are overestimated, leading to too large global emissions. Latitudinal data from top-down emissions indicate a predominance of tropical emissions (∼ 64 % of the global budget, < 30° N) as compared to mid (∼ 32 %, 30–60° N) and high northern latitudes (∼ 4 %, 60–90° N). Top-down inversions consistently infer lower emissions in China (∼ 58 Tg CH4 yr−1, range 51–72, −14 %) and higher emissions in Africa (86 Tg CH4 yr−1, range 73–108, +19 %) than bottom-up values used as prior estimates. Overall, uncertainties for anthropogenic emissions appear smaller than those from natural sources, and the uncertainties on source categories appear larger for top-down inversions than for bottom-up inventories and models.

The most important source of uncertainty on the methane budget is attributable to emissions from wetland and other inland waters. We show that the wetland extent could contribute 30–40 % on the estimated range for wetland emissions. Other priorities for improving the methane budget include the following: (i) the development of process-based models for inland-water emissions, (ii) the intensification of methane observations at local scale (flux measurements) to constrain bottom-up land surface models, and at regional scale (surface networks and satellites) to constrain top-down inversions, (iii) improvements in the estimation of atmospheric loss by OH, and (iv) improvements of the transport models integrated in top-down inversions. The data presented here can be downloaded from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center ( and the Global Carbon Project.

Citation: Saunois, M., Bousquet, P., Poulter, B., Peregon, A., Ciais, P., Canadell, J. G., Dlugokencky, E. J., Etiope, G., Bastviken, D., Houweling, S., Janssens-Maenhout, G., Tubiello, F. N., Castaldi, S., Jackson, R. B., Alexe, M., Arora, V. K., Beerling, D. J., Bergamaschi, P., Blake, D. R., Brailsford, G., Brovkin, V., Bruhwiler, L., Crevoisier, C., Crill, P., Covey, K., Curry, C., Frankenberg, C., Gedney, N., Höglund-Isaksson, L., Ishizawa, M., Ito, A., Joos, F., Kim, H.-S., Kleinen, T., Krummel, P., Lamarque, J.-F., Langenfelds, R., Locatelli, R., Machida, T., Maksyutov, S., McDonald, K. C., Marshall, J., Melton, J. R., Morino, I., Naik, V., O'Doherty, S., Parmentier, F.-J. W., Patra, P. K., Peng, C., Peng, S., Peters, G. P., Pison, I., Prigent, C., Prinn, R., Ramonet, M., Riley, W. J., Saito, M., Santini, M., Schroeder, R., Simpson, I. J., Spahni, R., Steele, P., Takizawa, A., Thornton, B. F., Tian, H., Tohjima, Y., Viovy, N., Voulgarakis, A., van Weele, M., van der Werf, G. R., Weiss, R., Wiedinmyer, C., Wilton, D. J., Wiltshire, A., Worthy, D., Wunch, D., Xu, X., Yoshida, Y., Zhang, B., Zhang, Z., and Zhu, Q.: The global methane budget 2000–2012, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 8, 697-751, doi:10.5194/essd-8-697-2016, 2016.
Short summary
An accurate assessment of the methane budget is important to understand the atmospheric methane concentrations and trends and to provide realistic pathways for climate change mitigation. The various and diffuse sources of methane as well and its oxidation by a very short lifetime radical challenge this assessment. We quantify the methane sources and sinks as well as their uncertainties based on both bottom-up and top-down approaches provided by a broad international scientific community.
An accurate assessment of the methane budget is important to understand the atmospheric methane...