Im et al. (2026) Evolution of Near‐Term Atmospheric Methane and Associated Temperature Response Under the Global Methane Pledge: Insights From an Earth System Model

Identification

• Journal: Geophysical Research Letters
• Year: 2026
• Date: 2026-01-12
• Authors: Ulas Im, Drew Shindell, Kostas Tsigaridis, Susanne E. Bauer, Dirk Olivié, Simon Wilson, L. L. Sørensen, Peter L. Langen, Sabine Eckhardt, Lena Höglund‐Isaksson, Z. Klimont, Florian Lindl, Lori Bruhwiler
• DOI: 10.1029/2025gl118967

Research Groups

• Department of Environmental Science/ Interdisciplinary Centre for Climate Change (iClimate), Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark
• Laboratory of Atmospheric Processes and Their Impacts (LAPI), École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
• Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
• Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
• NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, USA
• The Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway
• Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Tromsø, Norway
• Department for Atmosphere and Climate, NILU, Kjeller, Norway
• International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria
• NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Global Monitoring Division, Boulder, CO, USA

Short Summary

This study assesses the effectiveness of the Global Methane Pledge (GMP) in reducing methane emissions and mitigating global warming by 2050 using an Earth system model. It finds that current GMP commitments will fall significantly short of the 30% reduction target by 2030, leading to only a modest global temperature reduction, with the Arctic experiencing the most significant benefits.

Objective

• To evaluate the near-term evolution of atmospheric methane and its associated temperature response under the Global Methane Pledge (GMP) and various mitigation scenarios through 2050, using an Earth system model with interactive methane sources and sinks.

Study Configuration

• Spatial Scale: Global, with a horizontal resolution of 2° latitude by 2.5° longitude and 40 vertical layers extending from the surface to 0.1 hPa.
• Temporal Scale: Historical period (1995–2023) and future projections (2015–2050 or 2025–2050 depending on the scenario).

Methodology and Data

• Models used:
  • GISS-E2.1-G Earth System Model (ESM) with interactive CH4 sources and sinks.
  • GAINS model version 2.1 (IIASA's Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollution Interactions and Synergies model) for anthropogenic emission scenarios.
• Data sources:
  • NOAA global and annual mean CH4 observations.
  • ERA5 observations for surface temperature.
  • Anthropogenic emission scenarios (Current Legislation (CLE), Global Methane Pledge (GMP), Methane Action Plan (MAP), Full Policy (POL), Maximum Technical Feasible Reduction (MTFR)) from GAINS.
  • Global Carbon Project for comparison of CH4 emissions.
  • CMIP6 for prescribed CO2 and N2O concentrations.

Main Results

• Current GMP commitments achieve only a 10% reduction in global anthropogenic CH4 emissions by 2030 (to 314 Tg CH4 yr⁻¹), falling well below the 30% target (245 Tg CH4 yr⁻¹).
• Only the Maximum Technically Feasible Reduction (MTFR) scenario can achieve the 30% reduction target by 2030 (242 Tg CH4 yr⁻¹).
• By 2050, the current GMP scenario leads to a 3% decrease in global CH4 concentrations relative to 2025 (from 1.88 ppm to 1.82 ppm).
• The MTFR scenario leads to an 8% decrease in global CH4 concentrations by 2050 relative to 2025 (from 1.88 ppm to 1.77 ppm).
• The GMP scenario avoids 0.11 ± 0.11 °C of global warming by 2050 compared to the Current Legislation (CLE) scenario.
• The MTFR scenario avoids 0.13 ± 0.12 °C of global warming by 2050 compared to the CLE scenario, which is still below the 0.2 °C avoidance aimed for in the Pledge.
• The Arctic region experiences the largest benefits, with up to 2 °C less warming under stronger methane cuts (MTFR scenario), and is the only region where temperature responses are consistently significant.
• Global surface ozone (O3) concentrations decrease slightly by 1% under GMP by 2050, while the MTFR scenario can reduce them by 23% by 2050.

Contributions

• This is the first study to use an Earth System Model (GISS-E2.1-G) with interactive methane sources and sinks to evaluate the impacts of the Global Methane Pledge (GMP) and National Methane Action Plans (MAPs).
• It utilizes realistic emission projections based on the current status of country participation in the GMP and MAPs, providing a more policy-relevant assessment compared to previous studies that assumed fixed global reduction percentages.
• The study provides detailed insights into the spatial and temporal evolution of methane concentrations and associated temperature responses under various mitigation scenarios, highlighting the amplified benefits in the Arctic.

Funding

• Nordic Council of Ministers project Reduch4e (no. NKL‐2304)
• Horizon Europe funded GreenFeedBack (no. 01056921)
• Horizon Europe funded CleanCloud (no. 101137639)
• Horizon Europe project IM4CA Investigating Methane for Climate Action (project number 101183460)
• EuroHPC Joint Undertaking for awarding access to the EuroHPC supercomputer LUMI.

Citation

@article{Im2026Evolution,
  author = {Im, Ulas and Shindell, Drew and Tsigaridis, Kostas and Bauer, Susanne E. and Olivié, Dirk and Wilson, Simon and Sørensen, L. L. and Langen, Peter L. and Eckhardt, Sabine and Höglund‐Isaksson, Lena and Klimont, Z. and Lindl, Florian and Bruhwiler, Lori},
  title = {Evolution of Near‐Term Atmospheric Methane and Associated Temperature Response Under the Global Methane Pledge: Insights From an Earth System Model},
  journal = {Geophysical Research Letters},
  year = {2026},
  doi = {10.1029/2025gl118967},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1029/2025gl118967}
}