Abstract:Methods for uncertainty analysis(1) Uncertainties in the PRISMA-based methane retrievals.The PRISMA-based methane retrievals can present systematic and random errors.We thus evaluated their performance using end-to-end simulations, as shown in previous studies.First, the ideal plumes were prescribed via the large-eddy-driven Weather and Research Forecasting Model (the WRF-Chem-LES model) [1].The key configuration included common wind fields (i.e., 3.5 m/s), high resolution (i.e., 30 ×30 m 2 ), and constant emission rates (e.g., 500, 1000, and 1500 kg/h).On this basis, uncorrelated noises with random increments were then added.They represented the expected instrument precision presenting normal distributions with zero mean biases and standard deviations of 1 ~ 5 %.Second, the enhancements of volume mixing ratios were converted into two-way spectral atmospheric transmittance.The calculation basis included air mass factors based on the real observation zenith angles, vertical profiles of dry air column densities, and methane absorption cross-section data.These three data came from the satellite instrument records, ERA5 reanalysis dataset, and the HIgh-resolution TRANSmission molecular absorption (HITRAN2016) database.Third, the subsequent transmittance spectra were convolved with the PRISMA-based spectral responses and then multiplied by the original PRISMA top-of-atmosphere radiance spectrums.To prevent across-track variations in spectral calibration, we performed such processes on a per-column basis.Finally, the resulting PRISMA-based top-of-atmosphere radiance images were processed with the same matched-filter algorithm over the cases explored in this work.Methane retrieval results via the WRF-Chem-LES simulations and associated biases were presented in Table S3.Therefore, we did not observe systematic errors in the PRISMA-based methane retrievals.Detailed evaluations are shown in Supplementary Information.(2) Uncertainties in the TROPOMI-based methane emission estimates.We provided independent emission estimates for the TROPOMI-based methane hotspots using the WRF-Chem model.On this basis, the differences between the WRF-Chembased and IME-based results reflected the intrinsic uncertainties in the IME method.The WRF simulation was nudged to National Centers for Environmental Prediction final analysis data at 0.25° × 0.25° spatial resolution and six-hour temporal resolution.For each hotspot, the model was performed at 5 × 5 km 2 horizontal resolution over a 50 × 50 km 2 domain.The boundary condition was obtained from the CAMS reanalysis dataset.Note that the inner domain did not feedback with the outer domain (i.e., so-called one-way nested simulations).The grid-specific methane emissions were originally taken from the bottom-up emission inventories (EDGARv6.0).Other general configurations could be found in our previous studies [2,3].Methane emissions were estimated via the Bayesian inverse solution which optimized a single state vector as: ̂= + ( + ) - ( - ), (Eq.6)where ̂ was the optimized state vector containing individual elements for daily emissions as well as daily background concentrations; was the prior taken as the mean reported emission rate from the bottom-up emission inventories; was the Jacobian constructed by running perturbation simulations for the state vector element; was the prior error covariance matrix using 100% error for the emissions and10% for the boundary conditions; contained the TROPOMI observations; and was

Avoiding methane emission rate underestimates when using the divergence method

A new divergence method to quantify methane emissions using observations of Sentinel‐5P TROPOMI

Global distribution of methane emissions: a comparative inverse analysis of observations from the TROPOMI and GOSAT satellite instruments

Supplementary Material to "A Versatile Spaceborne Architecture for Immediate Monitoring of the Global Methane Pledge"

Attribution of the Accelerating Increase in Atmospheric Methane During 2010&#8211;2018 by Inverse Analysis of GOSAT Observations

Enhanced monitoring of atmospheric methane from space over the Permian basin with hierarchical Bayesian inference

Current Potential of CH4 Emission Estimates Using TROPOMI in the Middle East

The 2019 methane budget and uncertainties at 1° resolution and each country through Bayesian integration Of GOSAT total column methane data and a priori inventory estimates

East Asian methane emissions inferred from high-resolution inversions of GOSAT and TROPOMI observations: a comparative and evaluative analysis

High-resolution Modelling of Methane Plumes: Validation and Sensitivity Experiments to Explore UAV and Satellite Observations

Understanding the potential of Sentinel-2 for monitoring methane point emissions

Methodology and Uncertainty Analysis of Methane Flux Measurement for Small Sources Based on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

Decadal Methane Emission Trend Inferred from Proxy GOSAT XCH4 Retrievals: Impacts of Transport Model Spatial Resolution

Country-level methane emissions and their sectoral trends during 2009–2020 estimated by high-resolution inversion of GOSAT and surface observations

Widespread Frequent Methane Emissions from the Oil and Gas Industry in the Permian Basin

Unravelling a large methane emission discrepancy in Mexico using satellite observations

Integrated Methane Inversion (IMI 1.0): A User-Friendly, Cloud-Based Facility for Inferring High-Resolution Methane Emissions from TROPOMI Satellite Observations

Urban methane emission monitoring across North America using TROPOMI data: an analytical inversion approach

Global Methane Budget and Trend, 2010–2017: Complementarity of Inverse Analyses Using in Situ (globalviewplus CH4 ObsPack) and Satellite (GOSAT) Observations

Investigation of the renewed methane growth post-2007 with high-resolution 3-D variational inverse modeling and isotopic constraints

2010–2015 North American methane emissions, sectoral contributions, and trends: a high-resolution inversion of GOSAT observations of atmospheric methane