2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.oneear.2022.02.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Brown carbon from biomass burning imposes strong circum-Arctic warming

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
21
0
1

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 43 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 88 publications
0
21
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…(criteria shown in Table S2). In general, the two biomass-burning BrCs exhibited a similar class distribution, while SRFA and PM2.5 differed substantially from biomass-burning BrC (Figure e). SRFA contained more aromatic structures (10% for SRFA vs <4% for the others), while PM2.5 is enriched with saturated components like aliphatics and carbonyls (24% for PM2.5 vs <7% for the others), which may be related to the formation of charge transfer complexes (discussed as follows).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…(criteria shown in Table S2). In general, the two biomass-burning BrCs exhibited a similar class distribution, while SRFA and PM2.5 differed substantially from biomass-burning BrC (Figure e). SRFA contained more aromatic structures (10% for SRFA vs <4% for the others), while PM2.5 is enriched with saturated components like aliphatics and carbonyls (24% for PM2.5 vs <7% for the others), which may be related to the formation of charge transfer complexes (discussed as follows).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…However, this would not solve acidification of the Arctic Ocean and would very likely disrupt global agriculture while exacerbating the Arctic ozone hole (Tilmes et al, 2008;Proctor et al, 2018;Zarnetske et al, 2021). Likewise, converting portions of the Boreal forest for BECCS could decrease local ecosystem carbon storage while producing pollution that would harm public health and create substantial regional warming from black and brown carbon deposition (Hanssen et al, 2020;Calì Quaglia et al, 2022;Yue et al, 2022). Additionally, many of these proposed solutions may be ineffective or counterproductive in the new conditions created by anthropogenic climate change.…”
Section: What Can We Do?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Yet, biomass burning particles also play a central role in atmospheric processes (Crutzen and Andreae, 1990;Andreae et al, 1994;Sokolik et al, 2019). For instance, they can affect the hydrological cycle and climate directly, through the absorption and scattering of light, and indirectly, when acting as cloud nuclei, affecting precipitation formation and cloud microphysical properties, with important ramifications for the regional and global energy budget (Bond et al, 2013;Bond and Bergstrom, 2006;Penner et al, 1992;Chylek and Wong, 1995;Koren et al, 2004;Kaufman and Koren, 2006;Kaufman and Fraser, 1997;Ditas et al, 2018;Yue et al, 2022). Despite the surge in the emissions of biomass burning particles and their importance for climate, their aerosolcloud interactions, in particular their ability to act as icenucleating particles (INPs;Vali et al, 2015), remain associated with large uncertainties (Bond et al, 2013;Sokolik et al, 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%