MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386861335 · doi:10.5194/acp-23-9071-2023

Automated detection and monitoring of methane super-emitters using satellite data

2023· article· en· W4386861335 on OpenAlexaff
Berend J. Schuit, Joannes D. Maasakkers, Pieter van der Bijl, Gourav Mahapatra, Anne-Wil Van den Berg, Sudhanshu Pandey, Alba Lorente, Tobias Borsdorff, Sander Houweling, Daniel J. Varon, Jason McKeever, Dylan Jervis, Marianne Girard, Itziar Irakulis‐Loitxate, Javier Gorroño, Luis Guanter, Daniel Cusworth, Ilse Aben

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsGHGSat (Canada)
FundersNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsMethaneEnvironmental sciencePlumeRemote sensingSatelliteTroposphereMeteorologyGreenhouse gasAtmospheric sciencesGeologyGeographyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. A reduction in anthropogenic methane emissions is vital to limit near-term global warming. A small number of so-called super-emitters is responsible for a disproportionally large fraction of total methane emissions. Since late 2017, the TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) has been in orbit, providing daily global coverage of methane mixing ratios at a resolution of up to 7×5.5 km2, enabling the detection of these super-emitters. However, TROPOMI produces millions of observations each day, which together with the complexity of the methane data, makes manual inspection infeasible. We have therefore designed a two-step machine learning approach using a convolutional neural network to detect plume-like structures in the methane data and subsequently apply a support vector classifier to distinguish the emission plumes from retrieval artifacts. The models are trained on pre-2021 data and subsequently applied to all 2021 observations. We detect 2974 plumes in 2021, with a mean estimated source rate of 44 t h−1 and 5–95th percentile range of 8–122 t h−1. These emissions originate from 94 persistent emission clusters and hundreds of transient sources. Based on bottom-up emission inventories, we find that most detected plumes are related to urban areas and/or landfills (35 %), followed by plumes from gas infrastructure (24 %), oil infrastructure (21 %), and coal mines (20 %). For 12 (clusters of) TROPOMI detections, we tip and cue the targeted observations and analysis of high-resolution satellite instruments to identify the exact sources responsible for these plumes. Using high-resolution observations from GHGSat, PRISMA, and Sentinel-2, we detect and analyze both persistent and transient facility-level emissions underlying the TROPOMI detections. We find emissions from landfills and fossil fuel exploitation facilities, and for the latter, we find up to 10 facilities contributing to one TROPOMI detection. Our automated TROPOMI-based monitoring system in combination with high-resolution satellite data allows for the detection, precise identification, and monitoring of these methane super-emitters, which is essential for mitigating their emissions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations106
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric chemistry and physicsSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207