the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Remote sensing of methane point sources with the MethaneAIR airborne spectrometer
Abstract. The MethaneAIR imaging spectrometer was originally developed as an airborne demonstrator of the MethaneSAT satellite mission. MethaneAIR enables accurate methane concentration retrievals from high spectral resolution measurements in the 1650-nm methane absorption feature at a nominal spatial sampling of 5x25 m. In this work, we present a computationally-efficient data processing chain optimized for the detection and quantification of methane plumes with MethaneAIR. It involves the retrieval of methane concentration enhancements (ΔXCH4) with the high-precision matched-filter retrieval, which is applied to 1650-nm retrievals for the first time. Methane plumes are detected through visual inspection of the resulting ΔXCH4 maps. Flux rates are estimated from the detected plumes using the integrated mass enhancement (IME) method. The evaluation of the proposed methods included comparisons with simulated plumes, with existing plume retrieval and quantification methods for MethaneAIR, and with controlled methane releases. We applied our processing chain to MethaneAIR at-sensor radiance datasets acquired over the Permian Basin during flights in 2021 and 2023, which resulted in the detection of hundreds of point sources above 100–200 kg/h, with a conservative detection limit around 120 kg/h. Our results show the consistency of MethaneAIR's ΔXCH4 matched-filter retrievals, and their potential for the detection and quantification of methane point sources across large areas.
- Preprint
(7687 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 07 Feb 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3577', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Jan 2025
reply
The authors provide a straightforward reanalysis of MethaneAir data that has been processed with a more point source centric algorithm. The paper is clear, well written, and very interesting to see a matched filter algorithm applied to a high spectral resolution instrument like MethaneAir. I do have a few comments, most important Comment #4, as I think these results have broad implications around the importance of point sources generally. I ask the authors to clarify and provide this context before I recommend for submission.
1. Line 145. Can you confirm or clarify how the injection of WRF-LES concentrations was performed? You calculate transmission due to extra CH4 column concentration and then apply to MethaneAir radiance?2. Line 194. Why aren't matched filter retrievals suitable for estimation of total area budgets? Because the background normalization in an MF algorithm "removes" regional gradients? Ultimately in an area flux inversion, one has to create XCH4 enhancements relative to the background for assimilation. If one plotted retrieved XCH4 enhancements derived from matched filters vs. CO2 proxy, and they correlated reasonably well, I don't see why a matched filter algorithm couldn't be used. Please explain.
3. Figure 8. Why are only 8 data points shown here, when El Abbadi et al. (2024) reports 24 controlled releases were performed for MethaneAir? Shouldn't all points be shown? Were there plumes that didn't perform well with this new algorithm applied, hence they are not shown?
4. Please include point source datasets as part of the SI
5. Related to comment #4 - I am curious about how the improvement on detection limit affects the general understanding of point vs area sources, which appears to be a central mission thrust of MethaneAir. Looking at other datasets that are available online (https://showcase.earthengine.app/view/methanesat), I count 28 point sources that were detected from RF06, while this study reports 121. Relatedly, that dataset on Google Earth Engine states that point sources make up 33,700 kg/h compared to a total flux of 91,000 kg/h (37%). How much methane total do you now quantify from point sources using this new matched filter algorithm? It appears that it would have to be higher, potentially much higher. As some bottom-up studies have leveraged MethaneAir to suggest a small contribution from emission sources above 100 kg/h (e.g., https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1402), it appears that the conclusions from those studies may have been an artifact of point source detection limit. Though it is out of scope for this paper to comment on those studies, it is appropriate for you to state how much total CH4 there is from the Permian scenes you processed, and how that relates to total fluxes derived from the CO2 proxy method.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3577-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
191 | 50 | 5 | 246 | 0 | 0 |
- HTML: 191
- PDF: 50
- XML: 5
- Total: 246
- BibTeX: 0
- EndNote: 0
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1