4.7 Article

Estimates of North African Methane Emissions from 2010 to 2017 Using GOSAT Observations

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY LETTERS
Volume 8, Issue 8, Pages 626-632

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00327

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) [NE/N016548/1, NE/S016155/1]
  2. NERC Independent Research Fellowship [NE/L010992/1]
  3. NERC GW4+ Doctoral Training Partnership
  4. UK National Centre for Earth Observation [NE/R016518/1, NE/N018079/1]
  5. Copernicus Climate Change Service C3S
  6. NERC [NE/S004211/1, NE/N016548/1, NE/L013088/1, NE/L010992/1, NE/S016155/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/R016518/1, nceo020005, NE/N015681/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study estimated methane emissions in North Africa from 2010 to 2017 using satellite observations and an inverse algorithm, showing that emissions in the Nile Delta region during summer are significantly higher than predicted, possibly due to agricultural practices and the influence of the Nile.
Source characteristics of methane emissions in Africa are not well understood, despite methane's role as the second largest anthropogenic contributor to climate change. Here, we present monthly methane emission estimates from Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, and Tunisia between 2010 and 2017, a region dominated by anthropogenic emissions. Emissions are estimated using observations from the GOSAT satellite and a Markov chain Monte Carlo inverse algorithm. Our top-down North African methane emissions are generally in line with inventory estimates and national reporting to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). An exception is that summertime emissions from the Nile Delta region are considerably higher than those predicted by inventory estimates, possibly due to agricultural practices and the influence of the Nile.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available