the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Using high frequency observations of δ13C-CH4 and δ2H-CH4 and uncertain regional isotopic signatures to estimate sources of UK methane emissions
Abstract. Methane is emitted from a range of anthropogenic and natural sources, and identifying these sources is important for emissions monitoring and mitigation. Different sources emit methane with different isotopic signatures; however these signatures are often uncertain or vary spatially or temporally. Top-down inverse models can be used with measurement of methane mole fractions to estimate total emissions of methane from all sources. We present an inverse model for estimating regional fossil-fuel (FF) and non-fossil-fuel (non-FF) emissions concurrently, using isotope ratio observations and uncertain isotopic signatures. This method is highly adaptable and could be used to estimate emissions from any number of sources. Synthetic data tests with this method show that this model can accurately estimate FF and non-FF methane emissions across the UK, when isotopic source signatures are fixed at known values. However, emissions estimation becomes less accurate when source signature uncertainties rise above approximately 50 % of their likely ranges. In a real-world test of this method, we estimated south-east UK FF and non-FF emissions using high-frequency δ13C-CH4 and δ2H-CH4 observations from one UK site, with source signature uncertainties reflecting our current understanding of these values. Results show a limited impact on emissions uncertainty or magnitude, when compared with output from an inversion using only mole fraction observations. This suggests that both the ongoing expansion of isotope ratio observations and an improved understanding of isotopic signatures is required for this method to be used to estimate UK FF and non-FF methane emissions, with reduced uncertainty compared to traditional inverse methods.
- Preprint
(11609 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 06 May 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-779', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Apr 2026 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-779', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Apr 2026
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-779/egusphere-2026-779-RC2-supplement.pdf
Data sets
Methane mole fraction data for Mace Head, Weybourne, Tacolneston, Bilsdale, Ridge Hill and Heathfield ICOS RI, F. Apadula et al. https://doi.org/10.18160/46ST-DEVK
Measurements of methane isotope ratio from HFD C. Rennick et al. https://hdl.handle.net/11676/MRHwmQFqm0O_Y39065JsIQLS
NOAA MHD flask measurements of δ13C-CH4 NOAA GML https://gml.noaa.gov/aftp/data/trace_gases/ch4c13/flask/surface/
Meteorological data used to drive the transport model from the UK Met Office operational Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) Unified Model (UM) Met Office http://catalogue.ceda.ac.uk/uuid/78f23c539d304591b137cf986b69a525
EDGAR - Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research v8.0 M. Crippa et al. https://doi.org/10.2760/953322
Model code and software
multiple_gas_inverse_model v1.0 A. Ramsden https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18496508
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 48 | 19 | 5 | 72 | 5 | 7 |
- HTML: 48
- PDF: 19
- XML: 5
- Total: 72
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The paper by Ramsden et al. explores how methane isotope observations can refine estimates of methane emission sources in the UK. By providing additional constraints, these observations show strong potential to distinguish between emissions from different categories. However, further research across multiple scales is needed to better understand their impact on top-down estimates and to establish best practices for their application.
This study contributes to ongoing efforts to better leverage methane isotope data at different scales. Given the limited number of studies assessing the added value of isotope data at the national scale, this work represents an important contribution. The paper presents a new inversion system, coupled with the Lagrangian transport model NAME, that can assimilate δ13-CH₄ and δD-CH₄ observations while optimizing the associated isotopic signatures. Expanding the still limited number of systems capable of performing such inversions represents an important achievement.
General comments
The paper demonstrates a significant effort to clearly describe and thoroughly test the system, both in synthetic experiments and real-world applications. The methodology is sound and well structured. In its current form, the paper is suitable for publication (after addressing a significant number of minor comments) as it presents a robust system. However, the scientific contribution is somewhat limited, as it is already well established that accounting for uncertainties in source signatures can strongly influence posterior emission estimates and must be properly quantified to ensure robust results. Including a few additional tests could substantially enhance the impact of this work. Since the transport footprints have already been computed, the computational cost of such tests is likely to be relatively low.
For instance, I do not understand why δ¹³C alone and the combined δ¹³C + δD configuration were not tested separately in the real-world application, given that this distinction was explored in the synthetic experiments. Assessing these configurations would help clarify the added value of δD in this context. Additionally, you could try to extend the isotope observation network in the synthetic data case to estimate the maximum value of methane isotopes in the UK. The discussion also mentions the future use of spatial and temporal correlations, it would have been valuable to include at least one test incorporating spatial correlations. These are critical for both the synthetic experiments and the real-world application, and allowing all source signatures to be optimized independently may not be realistic. It is unclear why this aspect is deferred to future work rather than being addressed in the present study.
In addition, I believe the paper would benefit from an overall improvement in the presentation of the paper. The system should be presented more carefully. The different tests should be clearly named and properly introduced, ideally in a dedicated table that readers can refer to throughout the manuscript. Figure readability could also be improved: subplot titles and axis labels should be larger and more concise (use test names), and the overall font sizes appear too small. There are also several typos to correct and sentences to clarify/correct. More specific comments on this topic are included in the attached document.
I would like to emphasize that, once the presentation is improved and the other minor comments (see the attached document) are addressed, I would be inclined to accept it for publication. However, I believe the manuscript could be significantly strengthened (without substantial additional effort if I am not mistaken) by including a few additional tests.
See the other comments in the attached document.