High-resolution U.S. methane emissions inferred from an inversion of 2019 TROPOMI satellite data: contributions from individual states, urban areas, and landfills

. We quantify 2019 methane emissions in the contiguous U.S. (CONUS) at 0.25° × 0.3125° resolution by inverse analysis of atmospheric methane columns measured by the Tropospheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI). A gridded version of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory (GHGI) serves as the basis for the prior estimate for the inversion. We optimize emissions and quantify observing system information content for 20 an eight-member inversion ensemble through analytical minimization of a Bayesian cost function. We achieve high resolution with a reduced-rank characterization of the observing system that optimally preserves information content. Our optimal (posterior) estimate of anthropogenic emissions in CONUS is 30.9 (30.0 - 31.8) Tg a -1 , where the values in parentheses give the spread of the ensemble. This is a 13% increase from the 2023 GHGI estimate for CONUS in 2019. We find livestock emissions of 10.4 (10.0 - 10.7) Tg a -1 , oil and gas of 10.4 (10.1 - 10.7) Tg a -1 , coal of 1.5 (1.2 - 1.9) Tg a -1 , 25 landfills of 6.9 (6.4 - 7.5) Tg a -1 , wastewater of 0.6 (0.5 - 0.7), and other anthropogenic sources of 1.1 (1.0 - 1.2) Tg a -1 . The largest increase relative to the GHGI occurs for landfills (51%), with smaller increases for oil and gas (12%) and livestock (11%). These three sectors are responsible for 89% of posterior anthropogenic emissions in CONUS. The largest decrease (28%) is for coal. We exploit the high resolution of our inversion to quantify emissions from 73 individual landfills, where we find emissions are on median 77% larger than the values reported to the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program 30 (GHGRP), a key data source for the GHGI. We attribute this underestimate to overestimated recovery efficiencies at landfill gas facilities and to under-accounting of site-specific operational changes and leaks. We also quantify emissions for the 48 individual states in CONUS, which we compare to the GHGI’s new state-level inventories and to independent state-produced inventories. Our posterior emissions are on average 34% larger than the 2022 GHGI in the largest 10 methane-producing states, with the biggest upward adjustments in states with large oil and gas emissions, including Texas, New

[1]  M. Omara,et al.  Continuous weekly monitoring of methane emissions from the Permian Basin by inversion of TROPOMI satellite observations , 2023, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

[2]  J. Maasakkers,et al.  Observation-derived 2010-2019 trends in methane emissions and intensities from US oil and gas fields tied to activity metrics , 2023, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[3]  T. Borsdorff,et al.  Investigating high methane emissions from urban areas detected by TROPOMI and their association with untreated wastewater , 2023, Environmental Research Letters.

[4]  Mark M. Falinski,et al.  Underestimation of Sector-Wide Methane Emissions from United States Wastewater Treatment , 2023, Environmental science & technology.

[5]  M. Zondlo,et al.  Methane Emissions from Municipal Wastewater Collection and Treatment Systems , 2023, Environmental science & technology.

[6]  R. Weiss,et al.  A declining trend of methane emissions in the Los Angeles basin from 2015 to 2020 , 2023, Environmental Research Letters.

[7]  J. Sheng,et al.  Satellite quantification of oil and natural gas methane emissions in the US and Canada including contributions from individual basins , 2022, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

[8]  M. Sulprizio,et al.  Methane emissions from China: a high-resolution inversion of TROPOMI satellite observations , 2022, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

[9]  M. J. Schwab,et al.  Hydrogen Sulfide Emission Properties from Two Large Landfills in New York State , 2022, Atmosphere.

[10]  R. Gautam,et al.  Quantifying methane emissions from the global scale down to point sources using satellite observations of atmospheric methane , 2022, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

[11]  Evan D. Sherwin,et al.  Quantifying Regional Methane Emissions in the New Mexico Permian Basin with a Comprehensive Aerial Survey. , 2022, Environmental science & technology.

[12]  R. Gautam,et al.  Methane emissions in the United States, Canada, and Mexico: evaluation of national methane emission inventories and 2010–2017 sectoral trends by inverse analysis of in situ (GLOBALVIEWplus CH4 ObsPack) and satellite (GOSAT) atmospheric observations , 2022, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

[13]  G. Balsamo,et al.  Quantification of methane emissions from hotspots and during COVID-19 using a global atmospheric inversion , 2022, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

[14]  J. Maasakkers,et al.  Evaluating urban methane emissions from space using TROPOMI methane and carbon monoxide observations , 2022, Remote Sensing of Environment.

[15]  D. Jacob,et al.  A gridded inventory of Canada’s anthropogenic methane emissions , 2021, Environmental Research Letters.

[16]  J. Maasakkers,et al.  The 2019 Methane Budget And Uncertainties At 1 Degree Resolution And Each Country Through Bayesian Integration Of GOSAT Total Column Methane Data And A Priori Inventory Estimates , 2021, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

[17]  S. Wofsy,et al.  Majority of US urban natural gas emissions unaccounted for in inventories , 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  H. Eskes,et al.  A New Divergence Method to Quantify Methane Emissions Using Observations of Sentinel‐5P TROPOMI , 2021, Geophysical Research Letters.

[19]  J. Sheng,et al.  AGU Advances Authors’ Response to Peer Review Comments on Satellite constraints on the latitudinal distribution and temperature sensitivity of wetland methane emissions , 2021 .

[20]  Atul K. Jain,et al.  Comparing national greenhouse gas budgets reported in UNFCCC inventories against atmospheric inversions , 2021, Earth System Science Data.

[21]  Chris H. Rycroft,et al.  Reduced-cost construction of Jacobian matrices for high-resolution inversions of satellite observations of atmospheric composition , 2021, Atmospheric Measurement Techniques.

[22]  J. Maasakkers,et al.  Supplementary material to "Global distribution of methane emissions: a comparative inverse analysis of observations from the TROPOMI and GOSAT satellite instruments" , 2021, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

[23]  I. Aben,et al.  Systematic detection of local CH4 anomalies by combining satellite measurements with high-resolution forecasts , 2021, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

[24]  J. Sheng,et al.  2010–2015 North American methane emissions, sectoral contributions, and trends: a high-resolution inversion of GOSAT observations of atmospheric methane , 2021 .

[25]  T. Borsdorff,et al.  Methane retrieved from TROPOMI: improvement of the data product and validation of the first 2 years of measurements , 2021 .

[26]  P. Shepson,et al.  Relative flux measurements of biogenic and natural gas-derived methane for seven U.S. cities , 2021, Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene.

[27]  Chris H. Rycroft,et al.  Reduced-Cost Construction of Jacobian Matrices for High-Resolution Inversions of Satellite Observations of Atmospheric Composition , 2020 .

[28]  J. Sheng,et al.  Global methane budget and trend, 2010–2017: complementarity of inverse analyses using in situ (GLOBALVIEWplus CH4 ObsPack) and satellite (GOSAT) observations , 2020, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

[29]  D. Jacob,et al.  A gridded inventory of anthropogenic methane emissions from Mexico based on Mexico’s national inventory of greenhouse gases and compounds , 2020, Environmental Research Letters.

[30]  E. Kort,et al.  Aircraft-based inversions quantify the importance of wetlands and livestock for Upper Midwest methane emissions , 2020, Atmospheric chemistry and physics.

[31]  Z. Barkley,et al.  Background heterogeneity and other uncertainties in estimating urban methane flux: results from the Indianapolis Flux Experiment (INFLUX) , 2020 .

[32]  O. Schneising,et al.  Remote sensing of methane leakage from natural gas and petroleum systems revisited , 2020, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

[33]  M. Omara,et al.  Quantifying methane emissions from the largest oil-producing basin in the United States from space , 2020, Science Advances.

[34]  R. Duren,et al.  Synthesis of Methane Observations Across Scales: Strategies for Deploying a Multitiered Observing Network , 2020, Geophysical Research Letters.

[35]  John C. Lin,et al.  Daily Satellite Observations of Methane from Oil and Gas Production Regions in the United States , 2020, Scientific Reports.

[36]  Brian D. Bue,et al.  California’s methane super-emitters , 2019, Nature.

[37]  E. Kort,et al.  Large Fugitive Methane Emissions From Urban Centers Along the U.S. East Coast , 2019, Geophysical research letters.

[38]  R. Weiss,et al.  Spatio‐temporally Resolved Methane Fluxes From the Los Angeles Megacity , 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres.

[39]  D. Blake,et al.  Source Apportionment of Ambient Methane Enhancements in Los Angeles, California, To Evaluate Emission Inventory Estimates. , 2019, Environmental science & technology.

[40]  J. Sheng,et al.  Monitoring global tropospheric OH concentrations using satellite observations of atmospheric methane , 2018, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

[41]  Haili Hu,et al.  Toward Global Mapping of Methane With TROPOMI: First Results and Intersatellite Comparison to GOSAT , 2018 .

[42]  C. Sweeney,et al.  Source Partitioning of Methane Emissions and its Seasonality in the U.S. Midwest , 2018, Journal of geophysical research. Biogeosciences.

[43]  Peter Bergamaschi,et al.  EDGAR v4.3.2 Global Atlas of the three major greenhouse gas emissions for the period 1970–2012 , 2017, Earth System Science Data.

[44]  D. Jacob,et al.  A global wetland methane emissions and uncertainty dataset for atmospheric chemical transport models (WetCHARTs version 1.0) , 2017 .

[45]  E. Kort,et al.  Top‐down estimate of methane emissions in California using a mesoscale inverse modeling technique: The San Joaquin Valley , 2017 .

[46]  R. Weiss,et al.  Estimating methane emissions in California's urban and rural regions using multitower observations , 2016 .

[47]  J. Maasakkers,et al.  Gridded National Inventory of U.S. Methane Emissions. , 2016, Environmental science & technology.

[48]  Geoffrey C. Toon,et al.  Quantifying the loss of processed natural gas within California's South Coast Air Basin using long-term measurements of ethane and methane , 2016 .

[49]  Daven K. Henze,et al.  Optimal and scalable methods to approximate the solutions of large‐scale Bayesian problems: theory and application to atmospheric inversion and data assimilation , 2016, ArXiv.

[50]  Riley M. Duren,et al.  Mitigation of methane emissions in cities: How new measurements and partnerships can contribute to emissions reduction strategies , 2016 .

[51]  Karen C. Seto,et al.  Climate change: Track urban emissions on a human scale , 2015, Nature.

[52]  E. Kort,et al.  Top‐down estimate of methane emissions in California using a mesoscale inverse modeling technique: The South Coast Air Basin , 2015 .

[53]  Gabrielle Pétron,et al.  Aircraft-Based Estimate of Total Methane Emissions from the Barnett Shale Region. , 2015, Environmental science & technology.

[54]  Hartmut Boesch,et al.  Estimating global and North American methane emissions with high spatial resolution using GOSAT satellite data , 2015 .

[55]  J. Bogner,et al.  From California dreaming to California data: Challenging historic models for landfill CH4 emissions , 2015 .

[56]  Kevin R. Gurney,et al.  Quantification and source apportionment of the methane emission flux from the city of Indianapolis , 2015 .

[57]  John R. Worden,et al.  Spatially resolving methane emissions in California: constraints from the CalNex aircraft campaign and from present (GOSAT, TES) and future (TROPOMI, geostationary) satellite observations , 2014 .

[58]  Zhe Jiang,et al.  Mapping of North American methane emissions with high spatial resolution by inversion of SCIAMACHY satellite data , 2014 .

[59]  E. Kort,et al.  Mapping CH 4 : CO 2 ratios in Los Angeles with CLARS-FTS from Mount Wilson, California , 2014 .

[60]  Scot M. Miller,et al.  Anthropogenic emissions of methane in the United States , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[61]  Peter Bergamaschi,et al.  A multi-year methane inversion using SCIAMACHY, accounting for systematic errors using TCCON measurements , 2013 .

[62]  R. Martin,et al.  Emissions estimation from satellite retrievals: A review of current capability , 2013 .

[63]  R. Lucchesi,et al.  File Specification for GEOS-5 FP (Forward Processing) , 2013 .

[64]  M. Wall.  Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Naturally Occurring Asbestos Regulations and Enforcement Protocols , 2012 .

[65]  K. Seto,et al.  Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[66]  Henk Eskes,et al.  TROPOMI on the ESA Sentinel-5 Precursor: A GMES mission for global observations of the atmospheric composition for climate, air quality and ozone layer applications , 2012 .

[67]  Rebecca Castano,et al.  A method for evaluating bias in global measurements of CO 2 total columns from space , 2011 .

[68]  Frédéric Chevallier,et al.  Impact of correlated observation errors on inverted CO2 surface fluxes from OCO measurements , 2007 .

[69]  Y. Calisesi,et al.  Regridding of remote soundings: Formulation and application to ozone profile comparison , 2005 .

[70]  John C. Gille,et al.  Comparative inverse analysis of satellite (MOPITT) and aircraft (TRACE-P) observations to estimate Asian sources of carbon monoxide , 2004 .

[71]  Clive D Rodgers,et al.  Inverse Methods for Atmospheric Sounding: Theory and Practice , 2000 .

[72]  William Lane Austin,et al.  The Census of Agriculture , 1930 .

[73]  J. Maasakkers,et al.  A blended TROPOMI+GOSAT satellite data product for atmospheric methane using machine learning to correct retrieval biases , 2023, Atmospheric Measurement Techniques.

[74]  O. Hasekamp,et al.  Algorithm Theoretical Baseline Document for Sentinel-5 Precursor Methane Retrieval[1cm] Otto Hasekamp, Alba Lorente, Haili Hu, Andre Butz, Joost aan de Brugh, Jochen Landgraf , 2019 .

[75]  J. Sheng,et al.  Global distribution of methane emissions, emission trends, and OH concentrations and trends inferred from an inversion of GOSAT satellite data for 2010–2015 , 2019 .

[76]  S. Houweling,et al.  Algorithm Theoretical Baseline Document for Sentinel-5 Precursor: Carbon Monoxide Total Column Retrieval[1cm] Jochen Landgraf, Joost aan de Brugh, Remco A. Scheepmaker, [1mm] Tobias Borsdorff, Sander Houweling, Otto P. Hasekamp , 2018 .