Performance validation of the GHGSat Methane Constellation via controlled releases
Abstract. Satellite remote sensing has become an important tool for detecting, quantifying, and attributing methane emissions, yet a rigorous, condition-dependent characterization of point-source imager performance has not previously been established, despite being essential to support its use in regulatory and voluntary reporting frameworks. We present a comprehensive performance assessment of the GHGSat constellation of high-resolution methane-imaging satellites based on a multi-campaign controlled release dataset spanning 2021 to 2026 that combines self-organized campaigns with independent third-party experiments. We develop a probabilistic, environmental conditions-dependent detection model in which the probability of detection depends on the plume signal to noise ratio (SNR), which is in turn a function of emission rate, wind speed, retrieval noise, and spatial resolution. We find that an SNR of 1.72 ± 0.39 is required to achieve a 50 % probability of detection, which translates to a detection limit Q50 = 99.0 ± 5.3 kg h⁻¹ in median environmental conditions encountered in controlled releases (3 m s⁻¹ wind speed, 7 mmol m⁻² column density noise, 27 m resolution). The estimated Q50 is shown to converge stably as data accumulate and to remain consistent when blind validation samples are added to self-organized releases. Quantification accuracy is evaluated through parity analysis of estimated versus metered emission rates, yielding an ordinary least squares slope of 0.93 ± 0.03 and R² of 0.92 using reported model winds, improving to 0.96 ± 0.02 and R² = 0.95 with a co-located anemometer. A comparison of emission rate estimates based on ERA5, IFS, and HRRR winds shows that quantification accuracy is largely insensitive to the choice of operationally available wind product, with a residual underestimation at low emission rates that correlates with wind model spatial resolution. We further demonstrate a bias correction combining a local concentration background correction with an empirically recalibrated effective wind speed, which recovers the low-rate sources that were previously underestimated and removes most of the residual bias without degrading accuracy at higher emission rates. These results establish a transparent, statistically grounded baseline for the GHGSat constellation's detection and quantification performance and provide a methodological framework that can be extended as additional controlled-release data become available.
Ramier et al. present a detailed accounting of GHGSat’s performance validation work during 2021-2026, specifically with respect to detection sensitivity and quantification accuracy. The validation assessment is based in single- and pseudo-blind controlled releases by the authors/GHGSat and third parties. The work largely leverages published methods but also presents unique insights into the relevant parameters affecting sensitivity in addition to a novel bias correction method for emission rate quantification.
I have some minor concerns about the underlying methodology of the paper. Specifically, the use of an idealized predictor; the limited assessment of alternative model formulations; and the extensibility of the results to other regions of observation (i.e., not the controlled release locations).
The paper is generally well-written, describes novel methods and results, and will be a relevant contribution to the readership of AMT. I recommend that it be accepted for publication after the comments below are addressed.
Main comments:
Abstract
Methods
Detection performance
Quantification accuracy
Minor comments:
Page 2, line 28 – Ayasse et al. (2024; doi: 10.1021/acs.est.4c06702) evaluated the detection performance of EMIT.
Page 3, line 52 – provide citation for the atmospheric lifetime of methane and the GWP.
Page 3, line 64 – can the authors comment on the steady-state count of GHGSat-C satellites? This might be interesting and relevant to the reader.
Page 6, figure 1 – I suggest including this figure in an SI. Are there similar figures of the other release sites?
Page 7, eq. 1 – should this be a summation over pixels in the plume “mask” rather than an integral?
Page 8, line 177 – there are many examples of measurement-based and -informed inventories in the literature that consider detection sensitivity. Consider citing some additional sources.
Page 11, line 269 – I’m surprised that the Rice distribution did not work as well given its physical basis. I was hopeful; kudos for trying. Could the AICc of the various fits be provided in an SI (or added to Table 4) so that the reader could get a sense of how differently the various models performed?
Page 12, line 282 – cite Conrad et al. (10.1016/j.rse.2023.113499).
Page 15, line 325 – Q90 seems to vary much more than Q50 suggesting that the tails of the various POD fits can be quite different.
Page 16, line 358 – I’m very fond of this incremental assessment of each variable’s predictive power and the insights. Consider adding it to the abstract if space allows.
Page 17, figure 5 – there is an interesting spike in Q90 early in 2025. Can the authors comment on whether this is a new satellite performing very differently vs. additional controlled release data (I think the latter)?
Page 18, line 402 – why is “true” in quotes? Considered replacing with metered as in the following paragraph.
Page 18, line 417 – clarify which specific wind data are used here and clarify in the caption of Figure 6 that the top and bottom rows are modelled and local wind speeds, respectively.
Page 21, line 457 – can “markedly” be quantified? E.g., the scatter at rates less than some kg/h reduce by some amount.
Page 23, line 511 – this is very interesting. Is this related to the skewness of the wind speed distribution?