| 1. |
- Saunois, M., et al.
(författare)
-
Variability and quasi-decadal changes in the methane budget over the period 2000–2012
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Atmospheric Chemistry And Physics. - : Copernicus GmbH. - 1680-7316 .- 1680-7324. ; 17:18, s. 11135-11161
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Following the recent Global Carbon Project (GCP) synthesis of the decadal methane (CH4) budget over 2000–2012 (Saunois et al., 2016), we analyse here the same dataset with a focus on quasi-decadal and inter-annual variability in CH4 emissions. The GCP dataset integrates results from top-down studies (exploiting atmospheric observations within an atmospheric inverse-modelling framework) and bottom-up models (including process-based models for estimating land surface emissions and atmospheric chemistry), inventories of anthropogenic emissions, and data-driven approaches. The annual global methane emissions from top-down studies, which by construction match the observed methane growth rate within their uncertainties, all show an increase in total methane emissions over the period 2000–2012, but this increase is not linear over the 13 years. Despite differences between individual studies, the mean emission anomaly of the top-down ensemble shows no significant trend in total methane emissions over the period 2000–2006, during the plateau of atmospheric methane mole fractions, and also over the period 2008–2012, during the renewed atmospheric methane increase. However, the top-down ensemble mean produces an emission shift between 2006 and 2008, leading to 22 [16–32] Tg CH4 yr−1 higher methane emissions over the period 2008–2012 compared to 2002–2006. This emission increase mostly originated from the tropics, with a smaller contribution from mid-latitudes and no significant change from boreal regions. The regional contributions remain uncertain in top-down studies. Tropical South America and South and East Asia seem to contribute the most to the emission increase in the tropics. However, these two regions have only limited atmospheric measurements and remain therefore poorly constrained. The sectorial partitioning of this emission increase between the periods 2002–2006 and 2008–2012 differs from one atmospheric inversion study to another. However, all top-down studies suggest smaller changes in fossil fuel emissions (from oil, gas, and coal industries) compared to the mean of the bottom-up inventories included in this study. This difference is partly driven by a smaller emission change in China from the top-down studies compared to the estimate in the Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGARv4.2) inventory, which should be revised to smaller values in a near future. We apply isotopic signatures to the emission changes estimated for individual studies based on five emission sectors and find that for six individual top-down studies (out of eight) the average isotopic signature of the emission changes is not consistent with the observed change in atmospheric 13CH4. However, the partitioning in emission change derived from the ensemble mean is consistent with this isotopic constraint. At the global scale, the top-down ensemble mean suggests that the dominant contribution to the resumed atmospheric CH4 growth after 2006 comes from microbial sources (more from agriculture and waste sectors than from natural wetlands), with an uncertain but smaller contribution from fossil CH4 emissions. In addition, a decrease in biomass burning emissions (in agreement with the biomass burning emission databases) makes the balance of sources consistent with atmospheric 13CH4 observations. In most of the top-down studies included here, OH concentrations are considered constant over the years (seasonal variations but without any inter-annual variability). As a result, the methane loss (in particular through OH oxidation) varies mainly through the change in methane concentrations and not its oxidants. For these reasons, changes in the methane loss could not be properly investigated in this study, although it may play a significant role in the recent atmospheric methane changes as briefly discussed at the end of the paper.
|
|
| 2. |
- Thonat, T., et al.
(författare)
-
Detectability of Arctic methane sources at six sites performing continuous atmospheric measurements
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Atmospheric Chemistry And Physics. - : Copernicus GmbH. - 1680-7316 .- 1680-7324. ; 17:13, s. 8371-8394
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Understanding the recent evolution of methane emissions in the Arctic is necessary to interpret the global methane cycle. Emissions are affected by significant uncertainties and are sensitive to climate change, leading to potential feedbacks. A polar version of the CHIMERE chemistry-transport model is used to simulate the evolution of tropospheric methane in the Arctic during 2012, including all known regional anthropogenic and natural sources, in particular freshwater emissions which are often overlooked in methane modelling. CHIMERE simulations are compared to atmospheric continuous observations at six measurement sites in the Arctic region. In winter, the Arctic is dominated by anthropogenic emissions; emissions from continental seepages and oceans, including from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, can contribute significantly in more limited areas. In summer, emissions from wetland and freshwater sources dominate across the whole region. The model is able to reproduce the seasonality and synoptic variations of methane measured at the different sites. We find that all methane sources significantly affect the measurements at all stations at least at the synoptic scale, except for biomass burning. In particular, freshwater systems play a decisive part in summer, representing on average between 11 and 26 % of the simulated Arctic methane signal at the sites. This indicates the relevance of continuous observations to gain a mechanistic understanding of Arctic methane sources. Sensitivity tests reveal that the choice of the land-surface model used to prescribe wetland emissions can be critical in correctly representing methane mixing ratios. The closest agreement with the observations is reached when using the two wetland models which have emissions peaking in August–September, while all others reach their maximum in June–July. Such phasing provides an interesting constraint on wetland models which still have large uncertainties at present. Also testing different freshwater emission inventories leads to large differences in modelled methane. Attempts to include methane sinks (OH oxidation and soil uptake) reduced the model bias relative to observed atmospheric methane. The study illustrates how multiple sources, having different spatiotemporal dynamics and magnitudes, jointly influence the overall Arctic methane budget, and highlights ways towards further improved assessments.
|
|
