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

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

MethaNet – An AI-driven approach to quantifying methane point-source emission from high-resolution 2-D plume imagery

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

A new aerial approach for quantifying and attributing methane emissions: implementation and validation

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

Controlled-release Experiment to Investigate Uncertainties in UAV-based Emission Quantification for Methane Point Sources

Exploiting the entire near-infrared spectral range to improve the detection of methane plumes with high-resolution imaging spectrometers

Evaluating the detectability of methane point sources from satellite observing systems using microscale modeling

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

Quantifying methane emission from fugitive sources by combining tracer release and downwind measurements - a sensitivity analysis based on multiple field surveys

Quantitative comparison of methods used to estimate methane emissions from small point sources

Attribution of methane point source emissions using airborne imaging spectroscopy and the Vista-California methane infrastructure dataset

Detection, localization, and quantification of single-source methane emissions on oil and gas production sites using point-in-space continuous monitoring systems

Sensitive Drone Mapping of Methane Emissions without the Need for Supplementary Ground-Based Measurements

Improving quantification of methane point source emissions from imaging spectroscopy

Assessment of current methane emission quantification techniques for natural gas midstream applications

Exploiting the Matched Filter to Improve the Detection of Methane Plumes with Sentinel-2 Data

High-Resolution Methane Mapping With the EnMAP Satellite Imaging Spectroscopy Mission

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

High spatial and temporal resolution simulations of methane column loadings due to routine emissions and emission events in oil and gas regions