Abstract:Understanding and quantifying the global methane (CH 4 ) budget is important for assessing realistic pathways to mitigate climate change. Emissions and atmospheric concentrations of CH 4 continue to increase, maintaining CH 4 as the second most important human-influenced greenhouse gas in terms of climate forcing after carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). The relative importance of CH 4 compared to CO 2 for temperature change is related to its shorter atmospheric lifetime, stronger radiative effect, and acceleration in atmospheric growth rate over the past decade, the causes of which are still debated. Two major challenges in reducing uncertainties in the factors explaining the well-observed atmospheric growth rate arise from diverse, geographically overlapping CH 4 sources and from the uncertain magnitude and temporal change in the destruction of CH 4 by short-lived and highly variable hydroxyl radicals (OH). To address these challenges, we have established a consortium of multi-disciplinary scientists under the umbrella of the Global Carbon Project to improve, synthesise and update the global CH 4 budget regularly and to stimulate new research on the methane cycle. Following Saunois et al. (2016, 2020), we present here the third version of the living review paper dedicated to the decadal CH 4 budget, integrating results of top-down CH 4 emission estimates (based on in-situ and greenhouse gas observing satellite (GOSAT) atmospheric observations and an ensemble of atmospheric inverse-model results) and bottom-up estimates (based on process-based models for estimating land-surface emissions and atmospheric chemistry, inventories of anthropogenic emissions, and data-driven extrapolations). We present a budget for the most recent 2010–2019 calendar decade (the latest period for which full datasets are available), for the previous decade of 2000–2009 and for the year 2020. The revision of the bottom-up budget in this edition benefits from important progress in estimating inland freshwater emissions, with better accounting of emissions from lakes and ponds, reservoirs, and streams and rivers. This budget also reduces double accounting across freshwater and wetland emissions and, for the first time, includes an estimate of the potential double accounting that still exists (average of 23 Tg CH 4 yr -1 ). Bottom-up approaches show that the combined wetland and inland freshwater emissions average 248 [159–369] Tg CH 4 yr -1 for the 2010–2019 decade. Natural fluxes are perturbed by human activities through climate, eutrophication, and land use. In this budget, we also estimate, for the first time, this anthropogenic component contributing to wetland and inland freshwater emissions. Newly available gridded products also allowed us to derive an almost complete latitudinal and regional budget based on bottom-up approaches. For the 2010–2019 decade, global CH 4 emissions are estimated by atmospheric inversions (top-down) to be 575 Tg CH 4 yr -1 (range 553–586, corresponding to the minimum and maximum estimates of the model ensemble). Of this amount, 369 Tg CH 4 yr -1 or ~65 % are attributed to direct anthropogenic sources in the fossil, agriculture and waste and anthropogenic biomass burning (range 350–391 Tg CH 4 yr -1 or 63–68 %). For the 2000–2009 period, the atmospheric inversions give a slightly lower total emission than for 2010–2019, by 32 Tg CH 4 yr -1 (range 9–40). Since 2012, global direct anthropogenic CH 4 emission trends have been tracking scenarios that assume no or minimal climate mitigation policies proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (shared socio-economic pathways SSP5 and SSP3). Bottom-up methods suggest 16 % (94 Tg CH 4 yr -1 ) larger global emissions (669 Tg CH 4 yr -1 , range 512–849) than top-down inversion methods for the 2010–2019 period. The discrepancy between the bottom-up and the top-down budgets has been greatly reduced compared to the previous differences (167 and 156 Tg CH 4 yr -1 in Saunois et al. (2016, 2020), respectively), and for the first time uncertainty in bottom-up and top-down budgets overlap. The latitudinal distribution from atmospheric inversion-based emissions indicates a predominance of tropical and southern hemisphere emissions (~65 % of the global budget, <30° N) compared to mid (30° N–60° N, ~30 % of emissions) and high-northern latitudes (60° N–90° N, ~4 % of global emissions). This latitudinal distribution is similar in the bottom-up budget though the bottom-up budget estimates slightly larger contributions for the mid and high-northern latitudes, and slightly smaller contributions from the tr -Abstract Truncated-

Global methane pledge versus carbon dioxide emission reduction

CH 4 mitigation potentials from China landfills and related environmental co-benefits.

The methane imperative

Aligning long-term climate mitigation with enhanced methane action

Global atmospheric methane: budget, changes and dangers

Does Shortwave Absorption by Methane Influence Its Effectiveness?

Effect of Methane Mitigation on Global Temperature under a Permafrost Feedback

20 Methane Accounting and Its Importance to the Beef industry’s Implied Contribution to Climate Warming

Levers of climate pledges influencing the Paris Agreement target

Global Methane Budget 2000–2020

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Removal: Long-Term Consequences and Commitment

National Strategies for Addressing Climate Change Via Methane Emissions

How much methane removal is required to avoid overshooting 1.5°C?

Long-term reduction potential of non-CO2 greenhouse gases

The role of rice cultivation in changes in atmospheric methane concentration and the Global Methane Pledge

Atmospheric methane underestimated in future climate projections

National GHG Emissions Reduction Pledges and 2°C: Comparison of Studies

Methane emissions from California dairies estimated using novel climate metric Global Warming Potential Star show improved agreement with modeled warming dynamics

A solution to the misrepresentations of CO2-equivalent emissions of short-lived climate pollutants under ambitious mitigation

Global temperature goals should determine the time horizons for greenhouse gas emission metrics

Regional trends and drivers of the global methane budget