Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study introduces PlumeQuant, a tool that assesses the consistency of methane plume masks and emission-rate estimates derived from imaging spectrometers. By analyzing 63 Carbon Mapper plume records, the authors reveal that different plume masks can yield the same integrated mass enhancement (IME) and emission rates, highlighting the ambiguity in plume boundary definitions. The results indicate that the high-confidence core of plume masks only covers a median of 13% of the plausible footprint envelope, particularly for weak plumes, underscoring the need for expert review in cases of uncertainty.
Substantially different plume masks can yield the same emission-rate estimates, revealing critical ambiguities in methane plume assessments.
Imaging spectrometers increasingly distribute source-resolved methane plume products in which the plume mask, integrated mass enhancement (IME), plume length, emission rate, and uncertainty are physically and algorithmically linked. Using 63 EMIT-derived Carbon Mapper plume records from 27 scenes, we show that these published scalar quantities do not uniquely constrain the plume boundary: substantially different yet plausible masks reproduce the same IME, plume length, and emission rate. Genetic-algorithm (GA) ensembles conditioned on the published IME and plume length make this equifinality explicit: the high-confidence core selected by nearly all target-consistent masks covers a median of 13% of the plausible footprint envelope, and ambiguity is largest for weak, low-overlap plumes. The diagnostics come from PlumeQuant, which recomputes IME, plume length, emission rate, and five-term uncertainty from distributed product components under stated conventions and evaluates four mask representations: the distributed reference mask, a transparent Carbon Mapper-informed analogue (CM-like), the GA ensemble, and optional expert edits. The CM-like mask is generated per plume without access to the reference mask or published quantities, with settings fixed once on a scene-disjoint 44-plume development split. It reproduced published IME with +0.72% median difference and emission rate with +0.16% (6.98% mean absolute), reached 0.843 median intersection-over-union against the reference masks, and matched the published uncertainty scale (median ratio 1.01). Holdout mean absolute errors were 7.6% (IME), 9.5% (length), and 6.1% (rate). These are product-level consistency diagnostics, not independent validation. They flag weak, offset, or ambiguous plumes for expert review.
