the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Tightening-up methane plume source rate estimation in EnMAP and PRISMA images
Abstract. Reducing methane emissions from human activities is essential to tackle climate change. To monitor these emissions, we rely on satellite observations, which enable regular, global-scale tracking. Methane emissions are typically quantified by their source rate – the mass of gas emitted per unit of time. Our goal here is to estimate the emission source rate of methane plumes detected by hyperspectral imagers such as PRISMA or EnMAP. For this task, we generated a large synthetic dataset using Large Eddy Simulations (LES) to train a deep learning model. This dataset was specifically designed to avoid network overfitting with careful plume temporal sampling and plume scaling. Our deep learning network, MetFluxNet, does not require any wind information or a plume mask. Moreover, it accurately predicts the source rate even in the presence of false positives. MetFluxNet performs well on our dataset with a mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of 8.3 % across a wide range of source rates from 500 kg h-1 to 25000 kg h-1. Notably, it remains effective at lower source rates, where background noise is typically high. To validate its real-world applicability, we tested MetFluxNet on real plumes with known ground truth fluxes. The predicted source rates systematically fell within the 95 % confidence intervals, demonstrating its reliability for real-world plume estimation. Finally, in a comparison with recent state-of-the-art methods, MetFluxNet outperformed the deep learning-based S2MetNet and the physics-based Integrated Mass Enhancement (IME) method.
- Preprint
(3997 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 10 May 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1075', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Apr 2025
reply
The authors present a new methodology for quantification of methane point source emissions with the PRISMA and EnMAP satellites using a deep learning based model. Its added value yields in the higher accuracy in reference to other state-of-the-art methods. Moreover, it provides accurate estimations without the need of wind speed data or plume masking, which are generally remarkable error sources. Consistency is also found with real emissions from controlled release experiments.
The manuscript is well written and achieves to illustrate complex concepts with relative simplicity. I personally want to congratulate the authors by this work.
I found some relatively minor issues that I will list next. After addressing these comments, I can recommend this work for publication.
L18 - The waste and coal mining sectors are also important contributors of the anthropogenic emissions, which can also be controlled/reduced. In the waste case, it generally related to area source emissions. However, the coal mining sector is also related to point source emissions (Karacan, 2025), which is the main focus of this study.
L41 - Please, you could also include here the following reference:
Joyce (2023): https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/16/2627/2023/
L47 - The input are methane concentration maps or methane concentration enhancement maps? Please, clarify.
L69-70 - Applying simulations of this kind to L1 data can lead to biases? In other words, can we trust the accuracy of the simulations? I am mostly concerned about how the simulations are convolved to the instrument spectral response function when integrating them into the L1 data. Not applying a correction as in Gorroño (2023) - Eq. 4 might lead to biases in reference to a real-like plume.
L71 - Later on in the text, it is mentioned that North America locations are more heterogeneous in comparison to the other two. Even with that comment, the location characteristics are vaguely defined. The brightness and heterogeneity of a scene is essential to assess the capability to detect and quantify. It would be very helpful to add further information about it. For instance, a Table listing the sites would be fine. IF the current list of sites are relatively bright and homogeneous, it is important to mention that the performance of the methodology could be worse in darker and more heterogeneous scenes. If so, testing the methods in this kind of scenes would be the ideal way to address this comment. However, mentioning that the location sampling does not consider this kind of scenes and that the results might be worse is also valid.
Section 2 (in general) - A diagram showing the methodology steps would be very useful for the reader. Please, consider to add one. One example of how to do it can be found in Gorroño (2023) - Figure 4.
L102-107 - Most part of this paragraph is redudant, since the previous paragraph already made this point. Please, consider to remove the redundant parts.
Figure 1,5,6 - Please, add labels in the colorbar (i.e. delta_XCH4)
L163 - IME acronym was already defined and Frankenberg paper was already cited. Please, just use IME.
L190 - It would be nice to show the Ueff fit. Since the number of points and the wind speed range is larger than in Guanter (2021) simulation dataset, there should be a higher robustness in the fit. Please, consider to add it. On the other hand, it is not explained how the Ueff is deduced. Please, a brief description of the process will be appreciated.
L197 - Frankenberg paper was already cited in the text due to the IME method. Moreover, the IME acronym was already defined. Using the IME acronym would be more consistent than the 'Integrated Mass Enhancement'.
L202 - Please, add a reference to the COnvNext models.
L205 - The validation set should be independent from the training set. Please, clarify.
L211 - Why the shifts have not been done with higher pixel separation (more than 3 pixels)? Please, clarify.
L213-226: this part is hard to understand. Why is there uncertainty when applying plume rotation? Then, the rotation is only applied for the plumes to follow a x-axis direction? Then, the shift is only 0-3 pixels? Please, I recommend the authors to reword this part of the text to enhance clarity.
L223 - Saying that the plume tail in the retrieval is very noise is not accurate. I would rather say that the authors meant that the plume tail enhancement is approximately at background level. Please, clarify.
Section 4.3 - What can be said about the level of uncertainty of the estimations? Since wind speed and plume masking (big error sources) were removed from the calculations, how does it benefit the flux rate uncertainty? Later on the text, when analyzing the controlled releases, it is mentioned that the precision is better. This is an important point because it improves the state of the art situation in which the uncertainty is huge. Please, emphasize this achievement in the text.
L332 - But the main problem was the appearance of retrieval artifacts. What happens if using MetFluxNet on retrievals with false positives? Wouldn’t it be better to use MetFluxNet-sparse after cropping the area with the plume to not account for retrieval artifacts? Later on the text, it is shown that the artifacts in the controlled release retrievals do not have a big impact in the results. What would happen if (for instance) there is a facility with a high score in the retrieval? How would the prediction change? This is important because this is a relatively common case in real plumes. Please, discuss.
L350 - In Sherwin 2023b, there are more PRISMA plumes. Since there are very few plumes from controlled releases to test the methodologies, it is important to leverage the whole extension of available data. Please, consider to extend the analysis to the rest of PRISMA plumes from Sherwin 2023b.
L384 - The IME method is based on the Ueff calibration. This calibration is made using a specific criteria for masking. Here, the masking process is not specified and the lack of accuracy in the IME method could be due to using a masking criteria different from the one used in the original calibration. Please, clarify.
Conclusions - It would be great to talk about the implications of this work to other instruments such as EMIT or MethaneSAT. Can these insights be applied to other instruments?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1075-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
118 | 30 | 4 | 152 | 5 | 5 |
- HTML: 118
- PDF: 30
- XML: 4
- Total: 152
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1