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

Using Different Spectroscopic Databases to Model the Transfer of Radiation in the Near-IR Range and Retrieve the Content of Methane in the Atmosphere

Methane Retrieval from Hyperspectral Infrared Atmospheric Sounder on FY3D

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

Retrieval of Atmospheric CH4 Vertical Information from Ground-Based FTS Near-Infrared Spectra

Accounting for surface reflectance spectral features in TROPOMI methane retrievals

Synergetic use of IASI and TROPOMI space borne sensors forgenerating a tropospheric methane profile product

Compensation for the Systematic Error of Spectral Measurements of the Background Concentration of Methane in the Earth's Atmosphere

Deriving Temporal and Vertical Distributions of Methane in Xianghe Using Ground-based Fourier Transform Infrared and Gas-analyzer Measurements

Synergetic use of IASI profile and TROPOMI total-column level 2 methane retrieval products

A methane line list with sub-MHz accuracy in the 1250 to 1380 cm-1 range from optical frequency comb Fourier transform spectroscopy

Global Distribution of Methane in the Mid-Troposphere As Seen by IASI Onboard Three Successive Metop Platforms

Atmospheric N2O and CH4 Total Columns Retrieved from Low-Resolution Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectra (bruker VERTEX 70) in the Mid-Infrared Region

Atmospheric Methane Retrieval Based on Back Propagation Neural Network and Simulated AVIRIS-NG Data

Evaluation of single-footprint AIRS CH<sub>4</sub> profile retrieval uncertainties using aircraft profile measurements

Retrieval of atmospheric CH 4 vertical information from TCCONFTIR spectra

Intercomparison of CH4 Products in China from GOSAT, TROPOMI, IASI, and AIRS Satellites

Comparison of Atmospheric Methane Retrievals from AIRS and IASI

Using radiative transfer models to study the atmospheric water vapor content and to eliminate telluric lines from high-resolution optical spectra

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

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

Comparison of Atmospheric Methane Observations from AIRS and IASI.