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

FI-SCAPE: A Divergence Theorem Based Emission Quantification Model for Air/Space-Borne Imaging Spectrometer Derived XCH4 Observations

Mapping Methane Super-Emitters in China and United States with GF5-02 Hyperspectral Imaging Spectrometer

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

Quantify the Regional Methane Emissions Based on a New SCIAMACHY Data Set

An Optimized Methane Retrieval Approach Based on Kalman Filter for Mapping Methane Point Source Emissions from Spaceborne Imaging Spectrometer

Quantifying Methane Emissions from the Global Scale Down to Point Sources Using Satellite Observations of Atmospheric Methane

Methane Retrieval Algorithms Based on Satellite: A Review

Methane point source quantification using MethaneAIR: a new airborne imaging spectrometer

Towards accurate methane point-source quantification from high-resolution 2D plume imagery

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

Spectral Fingerprinting of Methane from Hyper-Spectral Sounder Measurements Using Machine Learning and Radiative Kernel-Based Inversion

Improving quantification of methane point source emissions from imaging spectroscopy

Emission Determination by Three Remote Sensing Methods in Two Release Trials

Quantifying strong point sources emissions of CO 2 using spaceborne LiDAR: Method development and potential analysis

Toward a Versatile Spaceborne Architecture for Immediate Monitoring of the Global Methane Pledge

Near-real-time Monitoring of Fossil CH4 Emission from Fossil Fuel Activities

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

A survey of methane point source emissions from coal mines in Shanxi province of China using AHSI on board Gaofen-5B

Towards Supporting Satellite Design Through the Top-Down Approach: A General Model for Assessing the Ability of Future Satellite Missions to Quantify Point Source Emissions

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

MethaneMapper: Spectral Absorption aware Hyperspectral Transformer for Methane Detection