科技科学

Evaluating space-based methane detection through a one-year blind test

Nature查看原文 ↗

Data availability

Ground-metered flow rate files, meteorology data files and cloud cover imagery from the cooperative phase 0 and all blind experimental phases are provided at https://doi.org/10.25740/QH001QT3946 (ref. 51). Spectral imagery from participating satellites was not collected by the experiment team and will not be made available directly through this study. However, these data can be acquired through public platforms or purchased from commercial platforms for many of the tested satellites, as described in Supplementary Information section 2.1. Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

The code to reproduce the figures in this paper is available at https://doi.org/10.25740/QH001QT3946 (ref. 51).

References

  1. Jacob, D. J. et al. Quantifying methane emissions from the global scale down to point sources using satellite observations of atmospheric methane. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 22, 9617–9646 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Sherwin, E. D. et al. Single-blind test of nine methane-sensing satellite systems from three continents. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 17, 765–782 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. IPCC Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2023).

  4. Kort, E. A. et al. Four corners: the largest US methane anomaly viewed from space. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 6898–6903 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Thompson, D. R. et al. Space-based remote imaging spectroscopy of the Aliso Canyon CH4 superemitter. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 6571–6578 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Cusworth, D. H. et al. Multisatellite imaging of a gas well blowout enables quantification of total methane emissions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 48, e2020GL090864 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Li, F. et al. Mapping methane super-emitters in China and United States with GF-5 02 hyperspectral imaging spectrometer. Natl Remote Sens. Bull. 28, 1986–2001 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Guanter, L. et al. Multisatellite data depicts a record-breaking methane leak from a well blowout. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 11, 825–830 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.4c00399 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Irakulis-Loitxate, I. et al. Satellite-based survey of extreme methane emissions in the Permian basin. Sci. Adv. 7, eabf4507 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Lauvaux, T. et al. Global assessment of oil and gas methane ultra-emitters. Science 375, 557–561 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abj4351 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pandey, S. et al. Satellite observations reveal extreme methane leakage from a natural gas well blowout. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 26376–26381 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Sánchez-García, E., Gorroño, J., Irakulis-Loitxate, I., Varon, D. J. & Guanter, L. Mapping methane plumes at very high spatial resolution with the WorldView-3 satellite. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 15, 1657–1674 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Varon, D. J. et al. Quantifying methane point sources from fine-scale satellite observations of atmospheric methane plumes. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 11, 5673–5686 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Varon, D. J. et al. Satellite Discovery of anomalously large methane point sources from oil/gas production. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 13507–13516 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Jervis, D. et al. The GHGSat-D imaging spectrometer. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 14, 2127–2140 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. The Satellite. MethaneSAT https://www.methanesat.org/satellite (2025).

  17. Duren, R. et al. The Carbon Mapper emissions monitoring system. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 18, 6933–6958 (2025).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. eoPortal. GHOSt (Global Hyperspectral Observation Satellite) - eoPortal https://www.eoportal.org/satellite-missions/ghost#eop-quick-facts-section (2024).

  19. Jongaramrungruang, S., Thorpe, A. K., Matheou, G. & Frankenberg, C. MethaNet – an AI-driven approach to quantifying methane point-source emission from high-resolution 2-D plume imagery. Remote Sens. Environ. 269, 112809 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Plewa, T., Butz, A., Frankenberg, C., Thorpe, A. K. & Marshall, J. Improvements of AI-driven emission estimation for point sources applied to high resolution 2-D methane-plume imagery. Remote Sens. Environ. 331, 115002 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rouet-Leduc, B. & Hulbert, C. Automatic detection of methane emissions in multispectral satellite imagery using a vision transformer. Nat. Commun. 15, 3801 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Bruno, J. H., Jervis, D., Varon, D. J. & Jacob, D. J. U-Plume: automated algorithm for plume detection and source quantification by satellite point-source imagers. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 17, 2625–2636 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Dashboard. Carbon Mapper https://data.carbonmapper.org/#1/25.3/50.5 (2025).

  24. NASA JPL. VISIONS: the EMIT Open Data Portal. EMIT https://earth.jpl.nasa.gov/data/data-portal/coverage-and-forecasts (2025).

  25. Eye on Methane Map. UNEP https://methanedata.unep.org/map (2025).

  26. California Satellite Methane Project. California Air Resources Board https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/california-satellite-methane-project/about (2025).

  27. Methane Super Emitter Program. EPA https://www.epa.gov/compliance/methane-super-emitter-program (2023).

  28. Nordin, S., Hoffmann, E., de Kersauson, Q. & De Catelle, W. Are you ready for the new EU rules on methane emissions in the energy sector? White & Case https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/are-you-ready-new-eu-rules-methane-emissions-energy-sector (8 April 2025).

  29. Methane Alert and Response System (MARS). UN Environment Programme https://www.unep.org/topics/energy/methane/international-methane-emissions-observatory/methane-alert-and-response-system (2022).

  30. El Abbadi, S. H. et al. Technological maturity of aircraft-based methane sensing for greenhouse gas mitigation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 58, 9591–9600 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Sherwin, E. D. et al. Single-blind validation of space-based point-source detection and quantification of onshore methane emissions. Sci. Rep. 13, 3836 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Bell, C. Single-blind determination of methane detection limits and quantification accuracy using aircraft-based LiDAR. Elem. Sci. Anthr. 10, 00080 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Bell, C., Ilonze, C., Duggan, A. & Zimmerle, D. Performance of continuous emission monitoring solutions under a single-blind controlled testing protocol. Environ. Sci. Technol. 57, 5794–5805 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Ravikumar, A. P. et al. Single-blind inter-comparison of methane detection technologies – results from the Stanford/EDF Mobile Monitoring Challenge. Elem. Sci. Anthr. 7, 37 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Darynova, Z., Blanco, B., Juery, C., Donnat, L. & Duclaux, O. Data assimilation method for quantifying controlled methane releases using a drone and ground-sensors. Atmos. Environ. X 17, 100210 (2023).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Worden, J. R., Nickeson, J. & Policelli, F. Commercial Satellite Data Acquisition Program: GHGSat Principal Investigator Evaluation Summary https://earthdata.nasa.gov/s3fs-public/2025-03/CSDA%20GHGSat%20Evaluation%20PI%20Report%20v2.pdf (CSDA, NASA, 2024).

  37. Ayasse, A. K. et al. Probability of detection and multi-sensor persistence of methane emissions from coincident airborne and satellite observations. Environ. Sci. Technol. 58, 21536–21544 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Zhang, X. et al. Global identification of solid waste methane super emitters using hyperspectral satellites. Environ. Sci. Technol. 59, 18134–18145 (2025).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Worden, J., Green, P., Eldering, A. & Sherwin, E. Common Practices for Quantifying Methane Emissions from Plumes Detected by Remote Sensing. Report No. NIST IR 8575 https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2025/NIST.IR.8575.pdf (NIST, 2025).

  40. Zhang, X. et al. HyperGas 1.0: a python package for analyzing hyperspectral data for greenhouse gases from retrieval to emission rate quantification. Geosci. Model Dev. 19, 5979–6000 (2026).

  41. Duren, R. M. et al. California’s methane super-emitters. Nature 575, 180–184 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Eldering, A. Methane plume detection and quantification intercomparison analysis based on EMIT measurements. Data Foundation https://datafoundation.org/news/reports/812/812-Methane-Plume-Detection-and-Quantification-Intercomparison-Analysis-Based-on-EMIT-Measurements- (2026).

  43. Akani-Guéry, J., Roger, J. & Buchwitz, M. ESA Project MEDSUA: algorithm Intercomparison Report (AIR). (European Space Agency, 2026).

  44. Jervis, D., MacLean, J.-P. W., McKeever, J., Ramier, A. & Strupler, M. Joint estimation of the global facility-scale oil–gas methane emission rate distribution and survey-mode detection probabilities from multiple satellite systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 60, 14961–14970 (2026).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Ramier, A. et al. Performance validation of the GHGSat Methane Constellation via controlled releases. Preprint at EarthArXiv https://doi.org/10.31223/X5N78R (2026).

  46. Gorroño, J., Varon, D. J., Irakulis-Loitxate, I. & Guanter, L. Understanding the potential of Sentinel-2 for monitoring methane point emissions. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 16, 89–107 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Frankenberg, C. et al. Data drought in the humid tropics: how to overcome the cloud barrier in greenhouse gas remote sensing. Geophys. Res. Lett. 51, e2024GL108791 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Carbon Mapper. Data Dispatch - Seeing around the clouds. https://carbonmapper.org/articles/seeing-around-the-clouds (2025).

  49. Cusworth, D. H. et al. Intermittency of large methane emitters in the Permian Basin. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 8, 567–573 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Sherwin, E. D. et al. US oil and gas system emissions from nearly one million aerial site measurements. Nature 627, 328–334 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Reuland, F., Adams, T., Galvin, K., Kort, E. A. & Brandt, A. R. Large-scale controlled methane releases for satellite-based detection and emission quantification of point-sources. Stanford Digital Repository https://doi.org/10.25740/QH001QT3946 (2025).

  52. Knoop, S., Bosveld, F. C., de Haij, M. J. & Apituley, A. A 2-year intercomparison of continuous-wave focusing wind lidar and tall mast wind measurements at Cabauw. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 14, 2219–2235 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Products Sizing Tool. Emerson https://www.emerson.com/en/measurement-instrumentation (2025).

  54. Ehret, T. et al. Global tracking and quantification of oil and gas methane emissions from recurrent Sentinel-2 imagery. Environ. Sci. Technol. 56, 10517–10529 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Bell, C. & Zimmerle, D. METEC controlled test protocol: survey emission detection and quantification. Mountain Scholar https://doi.org/10.25675/10217/235363 (2022).

  56. Green, R. O. et al. The Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation: an Earth Science Imaging Spectroscopy Mission. In Proc. 2020 IEEE Aerospace Conference 1–15 https://doi.org/10.1109/AERO47225.2020.9172731 (IEEE, 2020).

  57. Earth Observation Center of DLR. Mission. EnMAP https://www.enmap.org/mission/ (2023).

  58. Roger, J. et al. High-resolution methane mapping with the EnMAP satellite imaging spectroscopy mission. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 62, 1–12 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Li, F. et al. Comparing the performance of different hyperspectral satellite imaging spectroscopy in mapping methane point-source emissions. Remote Sens. Environ. 334, 115224 (2026).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. OHB Italia. Satellites & Missions: PRISMA. PRISMA https://www.ohb-italia.it/satellites-missions/ (2022).

  61. ESA. WorldView-3. Earth Online https://earth.esa.int/eogateway/ missions/worldview-3 (2022).

  62. Chen, L. et al. Mapping alteration minerals using ZY-1 02D hyperspectral remote sensing data in coalbed methane enrichment areas. Remote Sens. 15, 3590 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Landsat 8. USGS https://www.usgs.gov/landsat-missions/landsat-8 (2023).

  64. ESA. S2 Mission. SentiWiki https://sentiwiki.copernicus.eu/web/s2-mission (2021).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project relied on the contributions of many satellite operators and participating organizations. We thank S. Wofsy, M. Sargent, J. Pittman and J. Franklin of MethaneSat; D. Cusworth, R. Duren, A. Ayasse, J. Heckler and A. Jackson of Carbon Mapper; A. Thorpe, R. Green, M. Eastwood, J. Fahlen, P. Brodrick and D. Jensen of NASA Jet Propulsion Lab; G. M. Garcia, M. M. San Martin and I. I. Loitxate of IMEO; B. Shetty, V. Batchu, A. Wilson, M. Conserva, C. Van Arsdale, A. Michalak and M. Kansal of Google; C. de Franchis and J. A. Guery of Kayrros; Z. Mouton, M. Rischard and R. Huppertz of Orbio Earth; M. Girard, D. Jervis, J. McKeever, A. Deslieres and N. Schultz of GHGSat; J. Roger Juan, A. V. Iglesias and L. G. Palomar of UPV; F. Li and Y. Zhang of NJU; A. Hayden and J. Wan of Arka; C. Hulbert and B. Rouet-Leduc of Geolabe; A. Gilat and A. Eshel of Momentick; X. Zhang, J. D. Maasakkers and I. Aben of SRON; K. Brodie and A. Spivey of Orbital Sidekick; and S. Noel, M. Buchwitz, J. Hachmeister, M. Hilker and M. Reuter of the University of Bremen. We also thank the German Aerospace Center and the Italian Space Agency for assistance with tasking the EnMAP and PRISMA satellites. We thank K. Galvin, J. Romo, R. Xie and E. Whiting for assisting with field visits, site set-up and meteorology analyses. The teams at Volta, Rawhide Leasing (M. Norton, K. Loflin, J. Elliot, V. Christensen, D. Nesterenko, P. Bermudez and R. Baker), Wematics (M. Aragon and P. Matteschk), and Armadillo Trucking (K. Kurtesevic and A. Kurtesevic) provided indispensable logistical and engineering support throughout the experiment.

Funding

This research was supported by the Global Methane Hub, the Grantham Foundation, Saudi Aramco and the Stanford Natural Gas Initiative (industrial affiliates program). F.E.R.’s research time was supported by the Stanford Knight-Hennessy Scholars program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Energy Science & Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Frances E. Reuland & Adam R. Brandt

  2. Climate and Space Sciences and Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Taylor Adams & Eric A. Kort

  3. Energy & Biosciences Institute, University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Evan D. Sherwin

  4. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

    Sahar H. El Abbadi

  5. Atmospheric Chemistry Department, Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, Mainz, Germany

    Eric A. Kort

Authors

  1. Frances E. Reuland
  2. Taylor Adams
  3. Evan D. Sherwin
  4. Sahar H. El Abbadi
  5. Eric A. Kort
  6. Adam R. Brandt

Contributions

F.E.R., T.A., E.D.S., E.A.K. and A.R.B. conceptualized the study. F.E.R., T.A., E.D.S., S.H.E. and A.R.B. devised the methodology. A.R.B. managed the resources. F.E.R. and T.A. curated the data. F.E.R., T.A. and A.R.B. performed the formal analysis. F.E.R., T.A., A.R.B. administered the project and E.A.K. and A.R.B. supervised the project. F.E.R. and A.R.B. wrote the original draft. F.E.R., T.A., E.A.K., E.D.S., S.H.E. and A.R.B. reviewed and edited the manuscript. E.A.K. and A.R.B. helped with funding acquisition.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam R. Brandt.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

E.A.K. is chair of the Carbon Mapper Science and Measurement Committee. A.R.B. is also a member of the committee. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Table 1 Participating satellites, listed by grouping

Full size table

Supplementary information

Source data

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reuland, F.E., Adams, T., Sherwin, E.D. et al. Evaluating space-based methane detection through a one-year blind test. Nature 658, 673–681 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-11115-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-11115-0