2000
DOI: 10.1029/1999gl011200
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Observations of boreal forest fire smoke in the stratosphere by POAM III, SAGE II, and lidar in 1998

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
184
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 205 publications
(191 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
(3 reference statements)
7
184
0
Order By: Relevance
“…With this work we have attempted to reduce the unknowns by revealing several additional occasions when pyroCbs were either a significant or sole cause for the type of stratospheric pollution usually attributed to volcanic injections. Now it is established that pyroCb activity is sufficiently frequent that a measurable stratospheric increase in aerosols attributable to this process occurred in 1989-91, 1992 (Livesey et al 2004), 1998 (Fromm et al 2000(Fromm et al , 2005, and 2001-04 (Fromm et al 2006(Fromm et al , 2008aCammas et al 2009). Unpublished analyses of satellite data (e.g., SAGE II aerosol profiles and imager data) have also revealed pyroCbs and stratospheric aerosol layers that are attributable to the Great China Fire in May 1987 (Cahoon et al 1994) and the Yellowstone fires of 1988 (Alexander 2009).…”
Section: Pyroconvection In 2002mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…With this work we have attempted to reduce the unknowns by revealing several additional occasions when pyroCbs were either a significant or sole cause for the type of stratospheric pollution usually attributed to volcanic injections. Now it is established that pyroCb activity is sufficiently frequent that a measurable stratospheric increase in aerosols attributable to this process occurred in 1989-91, 1992 (Livesey et al 2004), 1998 (Fromm et al 2000(Fromm et al , 2005, and 2001-04 (Fromm et al 2006(Fromm et al , 2008aCammas et al 2009). Unpublished analyses of satellite data (e.g., SAGE II aerosol profiles and imager data) have also revealed pyroCbs and stratospheric aerosol layers that are attributable to the Great China Fire in May 1987 (Cahoon et al 1994) and the Yellowstone fires of 1988 (Alexander 2009).…”
Section: Pyroconvection In 2002mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Superimposed on this important topic is a relatively new discovery. In 1998 a remarkable manifestation of extreme wildfire impact was identified: there was smoke in the stratosphere that was hemispheric in scope, spanning into the stratospheric "overworld" 1 (Fromm et al 2000). The cause is now known to be a particularly energetic form of blowup: pyrocumulonimbus (pyroCb; see 1st ed.,s.v.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In their study for the year 2006, Labonne et al (2007), reported that the smoke from the fires in Eastern Europe is often contained within the mixing layer, but the authors report also a large number of cases where the smoke extends well above the ECMWF diagnosed top height. Direct injection of smoke in high free-tropospheric altitudes has been also reported in the past for biomass burning events in mid and high latitudes (Fromm et al, 1998;Jost et al, 2004). Taking into account the large range of injection heights for the studied area, we have tried to further investigate the relation between the fire intensity and the injection height.…”
Section: Smoke Injection In Respect To Mixing Height Fire Intensity mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additional buoyancy may be gained from latent heat release of condensation, which plays an important role in determining the effective injection height of the plume, that is, its terminal height. In that way, emissions from biomass burning can have a direct and rapid transport into the planetary boundary layer, the free troposphere, and even the stratosphere (e.g., Fromm et al, 2000), developing pyro-convection. This convective scale transport mechanism is simulated by embedding a 1-D time-dependent cloud model (Freitas et al, 2007) with appropriate lower boundary conditions in each column of WRF-Chem (the host model).…”
Section: Plume Rise and Online Estimation Of Injection Heightsmentioning
confidence: 99%