2011
DOI: 10.1134/s0001433811060028
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Aerosol and radiation characteristics of the atmosphere during forest and peat fires in 1972, 2002, and 2010 in the region of Moscow

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Elevated SSA values (0.95-0.96 in the visible spectrum) have been already observed over the same region by Chubarova et al (2011) during the 2002 fire event and could be explained by smoldering conditions (Chubarova et al, 2011. Such SSA are however higher than values measured for smoke aerosols at other locations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…Elevated SSA values (0.95-0.96 in the visible spectrum) have been already observed over the same region by Chubarova et al (2011) during the 2002 fire event and could be explained by smoldering conditions (Chubarova et al, 2011. Such SSA are however higher than values measured for smoke aerosols at other locations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…Biomass burning at Moscow during the period considered (summers of 2002 and 2010) was influenced more strongly by peat burning than the other boreal sites, although forest burning contributed in some cases (Gorchakov et al, 2004;Chubarova et al, 2011); 90 % of the inversions obtained at Moscow were from intense (predominantly peat) burning during summer 2002. A complication for Moscow is that it is a large city and thus there will be an additional contribution from local aerosol sources, which may also lead to scatter in the parametrisations.…”
Section: Discussion Of Aerosol Propertiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For Moscow State University (MSU) in western Russia (hereafter Moscow for brevity), only data from 2002 and 2010 were considered, to minimise the potential for urbandominated aerosol cases, as these 2 years had extensive summertime burning (Chubarova et al, 2011). The restriction to τ 440 ≥ 0.4 (corresponding, for typical α ∼ 1.5-1.9, to τ 550 ≥ 0.26-0.29) introduces a sampling bias in that it favours cases of more intense smoke, which may conceivably exhibit different microphysical/optical properties from less intense smoke.…”
Section: Data Filteringmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…= In a review on radiation monitoring of all three smoky summers Chubarova et al (2011aChubarova et al ( , 2011b) recommended implementation of correction by Eq. (3) from AOD500* 0.5 = onward, which means an absence of corrected AOD500 even in a larger range, 0.5-0.609.…”
Section: Model M2amentioning
confidence: 99%