Evaluating Methane Emission Estimates from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Compared to Sentinel-Derived Air–Methane Data
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper needs more improvement before publication. My comments are below:
-The introduction should be enhanced by more references related to methane emissions. Please give the resources and mechanism of formation.
-Section 2.1., Please give the detail Tier-II methodology. The numerical estimation tool should be given.
-Please give the details about Sentinel-5P Data.
-You applied an PCA analysis. Please give the validation of your data.
-You should apply a sensitivity analysis to verify the results.
-Please give the limitation of your study.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Please review the language of the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study compares IPCC and Sentinel-5P methane data, finding that satellite data reveals recent atmospheric methane increases while IPCC shows emission reductions. Integrating both methods enhances methane monitoring for climate goals.
The research is interesting and well-structured; however, some minor revisions are suggested:
- In paragraph 2, the different methodologies being compared are described only in a brief textual format. It would aid readers’ comprehension if this section were supplemented with graphs, tables, and especially comparative tables (particularly in the statistical analysis section, paragraph 2.3).
- The conclusions should be more comprehensive, offering a broader perspective that includes the study’s limitations and potential future implications.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have read this paper with interests. This paper mainly focusses on methane emission estimates, expecting to advance the current knowledge about air-methane data analysis. Some suggestions are provided below for author’s consideration to enhance paper quality.
Comment 1: I strongly recommend the authors to add one paragraph discussing the difference between their work and the previously performed studies in literature. In other words, what is the novelty of this work? I offer the authors to revise the abstract and introduction in order to incorporate the novelty of their work.
Comment 2: It is suggested to discuss more about the findings of this study in the abstract.
Comment 3: It is recommended to mention about the applications of this study at the end of the abstract. The findings of this study can help for better understanding of ….
Comment 4: It is suggested to add a figure in section 1 (Introduction) which shows the general sketch of the problem. Also, some references the authors can use are provided.
Optimal Nanocone Geometry for water flow. AIChE Journal. DOI: 10.1002/aic.17543.
Molecular Dynamics of Methane Flow Behavior through Realistic Organic Nanopores under Geologic Shale Condition: Pore size and Kerogen Types. Chemical Engineering Journal, 398, 124341.
Nanoconfined methane density over pressure and temperature: Wettability effect. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 2022, 99: 104426.
Comment 5: What are the limitations behind this study? This topic should be highlighted somewhere in the text of manuscript.
Comment 6: What are the advantages and disadvantages of this study compared to the existing studies in this area? This topic should be highlighted somewhere in the text of manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript entitled, “Evaluating Methane Emission Estimates: IPCC Methodology Compared to Sentinel-Derived Air-Methane Data” has detailed the significance of adopting satellite based monitoring of methane emissions, a supportive approach to the conventional techniques. The adoption of Sentinel−5P satellite equipped with TROPOMI has been proposed as a robust technology that aids in efficient methane monitoring. A comparison of the IPCC methodology and Sentinel−5P data has been clearly elaborated with use of appropriate statistical tools to draw insights. The trends from longitudinal analysis, table, biplots and map gives a more clarified picture of methane emission patterns in specific sector and countries. The additional use of Sentinel−5P has added contrast to the former systems of monitoring methane emissions. In addition, the highlighted future research efforts are versatile and will play a potential role in speeding mitigation efforts. In my opinion, the manuscript has high novelty and is authored very well. But before the paper is considered for publication the authors must address the following points:
Introduction
1) Line 13 or in line 30, abbreviate IPCC
Results
1) Line 175-185, the trends highlighted in different colours can be mentioned in the description in brackets for better comprehension (e.g. CH4 emissions from Energy begin at 44.7 176Mt and decrease to 27.3 Mt by 2021 (orange)
Discussion
1) Line 352-373, this paragraph can be summarised as it seems quite repeatable and inappropriate
2) In addition, mention the significance of using comprehensive approach. Use references to validate the results. In the discussion section, a slight drift from the objective of comparing IPCC methodology and Sentinel−5P data can be noted. Consider, revisiting this section based on this comment.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper could be published in this form.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThis paper could be published in this form.
Author Response
Thank you for your feedback and for recommending the manuscript for publication.
In response, we have carefully reviewed the text and revised it for improved readability and expression. We believe these edits have enhanced the manuscript's overall clarity.
