The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here:

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

Paul Miller. Photo.

Paul Miller

Senior lecturer

Paul Miller. Photo.

The Global Methane Budget 2000–2017


  • Marielle Saunois
  • Ann R. Stavert
  • Ben Poulter
  • Philippe Bousquet
  • Josep G. Canadell
  • Robert B. Jackson
  • Peter A. Raymond
  • Edward J. Dlugokencky
  • Sander Houweling
  • Prabir K. Patra
  • Philippe Ciais
  • Vivek K. Arora
  • David Bastviken
  • Peter Bergamaschi
  • Donald R. Blake
  • Gordon Brailsford
  • Lori Bruhwiler
  • Kimberly M. Carlson
  • Mark Carrol
  • Simona Castaldi
  • Naveen Chandra
  • Cyril Crevoisier
  • Patrick M. Crill
  • Kristofer Covey
  • Charles L. Curry
  • Giuseppe Etiope
  • Christian Frankenberg
  • Nicola Gedney
  • Michaela I. Hegglin
  • Lena Höglund-Isaksson
  • Gustaf Hugelius
  • Misa Ishizawa
  • Akihiko Ito
  • Greet Janssens-Maenhout
  • Katherine M. Jensen
  • Fortunat Joos
  • Thomas Kleinen
  • Paul B. Krummel
  • Ray L. Langenfelds
  • Goulven G. Laruelle
  • Licheng Liu
  • Toshinobu MacHida
  • Shamil Maksyutov
  • Kyle C. McDonald
  • Joe McNorton
  • Paul A. Miller
  • Joe R. Melton
  • Isamu Morino
  • Jurek Müller
  • Fabiola Murguia-Flores
  • Vaishali Naik
  • Yosuke Niwa
  • Sergio Noce
  • Simon O'Doherty
  • Robert J. Parker
  • Changhui Peng
  • Shushi Peng
  • Glen P. Peters
  • Catherine Prigent
  • Ronald Prinn
  • Michel Ramonet
  • Pierre Regnier
  • William J. Riley
  • Judith A. Rosentreter
  • Arjo Segers
  • Isobel J. Simpson
  • Hao Shi
  • Steven J. Smith
  • L. Paul Steele
  • Brett F. Thornton
  • Hanqin Tian
  • Yasunori Tohjima
  • Francesco N. Tubiello
  • Aki Tsuruta
  • Nicolas Viovy
  • Apostolos Voulgarakis
  • Thomas S. Weber
  • Michiel Van Weele
  • Guido R. Van Der Werf
  • Ray F. Weiss
  • Doug Worthy
  • Debra Wunch
  • Yi Yin
  • Yukio Yoshida
  • Wenxin Zhang
  • Zhen Zhang
  • Yuanhong Zhao
  • Bo Zheng
  • Qing Zhu
  • Qiuan Zhu
  • Qianlai Zhuang

Summary, in English

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.

The data presented here can be downloaded from (Saunois et al., 2020) and from the Global Carbon Project.


  • Centre for Environmental and Climate Science (CEC)
  • eSSENCE: The e-Science Collaboration
  • BECC: Biodiversity and Ecosystem services in a Changing Climate
  • MERGE: ModElling the Regional and Global Earth system
  • Dept of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science

Publishing year







Earth System Science Data





Document type

Journal article


Copernicus GmbH


  • Physical Geography
  • Climate Research


  • Methane Emission
  • methane budget
  • climate change




  • ISSN: 1866-3516