the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Assessing the ability of stationary in situ ground-based observations to constrain local methane emissions in space and time in New York State
Abstract. Reductions in methane (CH4) emissions are essential to mitigate near-term climate forcing and enable jurisdictions such as New York State (NYS) to meet greenhouse-gas (GHG) reduction targets. This requires quantification of present-day emissions, underpinned by a robust, independent monitoring framework capable of verifying reported reductions. Assessing whether existing observational infrastructure meets these requirements is essential for emissions accounting and policy implementation. Here, we evaluate the ability of stationary in situ methane observations, coupled with a Bayesian inverse modeling framework – the Integrated Methane Inversion (IMI) driven by chemistry-transport model GEOS-Chem – to constrain annual methane emissions and trends across NYS for 2018–2024. We develop capacity for the IMI to assimilate hourly measurements from 29 sites, including four new high-precision continuous monitoring stations calibrated according to international standards. Prior methane emissions for NYS are based on the Gridded New York State (GNYS) inventory, which disaggregates the official NYS bottom-up total state methane emissions estimate for 2020. The observational network provides its strongest constraints around the New York City metropolitan area. Aggregated NYS posterior methane emissions are consistent with the GNYS prior within estimated uncertainties; however, we identify localized emission biases, including underestimates in the New York City area (p < 0.05) and broad overestimates throughout most of NYS. We detect statistically significant regional trends in select locations, but no robust statewide trend over 2018–2024. These results demonstrate the strengths and limitations of stationary in situ monitoring for policy-relevant methane verification and underscore the need for top-down strategies that integrate observations from multiple platforms.
- Preprint
(5160 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1457 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 25 Sep 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3153', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Sep 2026 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3153', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Sep 2026
reply
See attached
Data sets
Datasets from "Assessing the ability of stationary in situ ground-based observations to constrain local methane emissions in space and time in New York State" M. Loman et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20451108
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 144 | 69 | 35 | 248 | 44 | 40 | 36 |
- HTML: 144
- PDF: 69
- XML: 35
- Total: 248
- Supplement: 44
- BibTeX: 40
- EndNote: 36
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This is a policy-relevant timely study that combines multiple surface methane dataset within the Integrated Methane Inversion to evaluate the ability to constrain methane emissions in New York State. The authors are commendably transparent about the limited information content of the network and the sensitivity of the results to model configuration. However, several aspects of the uncertainty framework and statistical analysis can be improved.
Major comments
Minor comments
Introduction
Line 35-40: The inference that satellite data is rare in NYS lacks reasonable evidence. Please consider removing. This also contradicts with the section 3.2.1 “Nesser et al. (2024) … from their results, we calculate ensemble mean DOFS of 7.6 and 0.8 aggregated over NYS and southeastern NYS.”
Line 49: assimilating stationary in situ observation is an existing capability in IMI. Please revise the “new capability” wording. If the authors developed the observation operator separately and independently than other groups, please clarify.
Method
Section 2.1.2. This section has a good summary of wetland extent, but is unclear on the emission intensity, or the approach to compute wetland emissions based on wetland area extent.
Section 2.2 TM5 has a different vertical and horizontal grids than GEOS-Chem. Please clarify the approach and the associated uncertainties in applying a TM5-derived boundary condition in GEOS-Chem model. In particular, please clarify the uncertainties related to the vertical profiles, which can be substantial.
Section 2.2 Did the study notice any discrepancies before and after 2018/03, due to applying different boundary conditions?
Section 2.3 “For our simulations using MERRA-2 meteorological fields, we simulate only with CarbonTracker-CH4 boundary conditions because we find that they match the observed methane mixing ratios more closely”. The biases from simulation can arise from meteorological data, emission estimates, and many other aspects. What emission was used here for model evaluation? Can the mismatch from GEOS-FP simulation be attributed to other factors instead?
Line 292 It would be helpful to directly list the regularization parameter values. If a list is too long, a figure in supplementary would be helpful.
Line 300. It is also common to apply a correlation length to the error covariance matrices, particular for wetland rich areas. Did this study investigate the emission covariance length? If not, to what degree would this influence the inversion results?
Table 3: It seems like most of the case are CarbonTracker boundary condition. Are they referring to a mixed CarbonTracker + TROPOMI/GOSAT boundary condition, or all CarbonTracker? Please consider to clarify.
Results
Section 3.1. The study states “lower mean bias using MERRA2” and “reflects a decline in performance of the GEOS-FP” in Line 370. However, Table 1 shows that only one case is MERRA2 and ten cases are GEOS-FP. The MERRA2 case has a similar mean bias (0.1 versus -0.1) compared to the comparable GEOS-FP case.
Section 3.1 In line 385, the results in Figure 6 (and later in Figure 7) are described as ensemble, but is also described as one case in terms of model setups (GEOS-FP, CaarbonTracker CH4, afternoon observation only, large state vector). Does it refer to one case or an ensemble? Please also consider clarifying it for all other “ensemble” cases.
Line 409. What statistical method was used for this significant test?
Line 410 “are mostly likely from natural gas end-use emissions”. Considering the model resolution (25 km or coarser) is unlikely to separate the emissions from the mixed sectors, why the higher posterior emissions are attributed to natural gas end-use rather than other sectors such as landfill?
Line 430. Does it imply that except southeastern NYS, there is no statistically significant departures from the prior in other regions?
Section 3.2.1 and Section 3.2.2 Which years are the emissions from other studies (Pitt, Nesser, and others)? Please consider to separate the interannual emission variability from this comparison.