the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Radiative impacts of the Australian bushfires 2019–2020 – Part 1: Large-scale radiative forcing
Abstract. As a consequence of extreme heat and drought, record-breaking wildfires developed and ravaged south-eastern Australia during the fire season 2019–2020. The fire strength reached its paroxysmal phase at the turn of the year 2019–2020. During this phase, pyro-Cb developed and injected biomass burning aerosols and gases into the upper-troposphere–lower-stratosphere (UTLS). The UTLS aerosol layer was massively perturbed by these fires, with aerosol extinction increased by a factor 3 in the visible spectral range in the Southern Hemisphere, with respect to a background atmosphere, and stratospheric aerosol optical depth reaching values as large as 0.015 in February 2020. Using the best available description of this event by observations, we estimate the radiative forcing (RF) of such perturbations of the Southern-Hemispheric aerosol layer. We use offline radiative transfer modelling driven by observed information of the aerosol extinction perturbation and its spectral variability obtained from limb satellite measurements. Based on hypotheses on the absorptivity and the angular scattering properties of the aerosol layer, the regional (at three latitude bands in the Southern Hemisphere) clear-sky TOA (top-of-atmosphere) RF is found varying from small positive values to relatively large negative values (up to -2.0 W/m2), and the regional clear-sky surface RF is found to be consistently negative and reaching large values (up to -4.5 W/m2). We argue that clear-sky positive values are unlikely for this event, if the aging/mixing of the biomass burning plume is mirrored by the evolution of its optical properties. Our best estimate for the area-weighted global-equivalent clear-sky RF is -0.35 ± 0.21 (TOA RF) and -0.94 ± 0.26 W/m2 (surface RF), thus the strongest documented for a fire event and of comparable magnitude with the strongest volcanic eruptions of the post-Pinatubo era. The surplus of RF at the surface, with respect to TOA, is due to absorption within the plume that has contributed to the generation of ascending smoke vortices in the stratosphere. Highly reflective underlying surfaces, like clouds, can nevertheless swap negative to positive TOA RF, with global average RF as high as +1.0 W/m2 assuming highly absorbing particles.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(12141 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(12141 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-42', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Apr 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-42/egusphere-2022-42-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-42', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Apr 2022
General:
Although there are already numerous publications on the radiative impact of Australian smoke on the market, this manuscript adds new aspects and discusses inconsistencies in previous articles and thus is worthwhile to be published in ACP.
I have only minor points.
Details:
page2, line38: Please specify…. whole fire season…. was that from September 2019 to January 2020 or from July 2019 to March 2020?
p2, l42: Meanwhile there are many smoke-ozone papers in addition to Yu et al., 2021, who presented not more than a few hypothetic sentences. Now we have in addition: Solomon et al., PNAS, 2022, Bernath et al., Science, 2022, Rieger et al., GRL, 2022, Ohneiser et al., ACPD, 2022, Ansmann et al., ACPD 2022.
p2, l42-32: I suggest to cite also
Peterson et al., 2021, Australia’s Black Summer pyrocumulonimbus super outbreak reveals potential for increasingly extreme stratospheric smoke events, npj Clim Atmos Sci, 2021, doi=10.1038/s41612-021-00192-9 .
In this paper, a nice summary of this record-breaking Australian pyroCb event (29 December 2019 to 5 January 2020) is given including an estimate of 1.1 Tg of emitted smoke.
P4, l99: Can you provide numbers regarding the extinction coefficient measurement range that OMPS-LP at 675 nm can measure? Probably 20 Mm-1 along the line of sight is too high (saturation effect) and 0.1 Mm-1 may be too low (no longer distinguishable from clear air…)? But these are speculations, you should know the measurement range…. and thus should be able to provide numbers.
P6, section 2.2 Or provide the extinction measurement range here….
p8, Figure 2: I have a few questions to this figure!
25-60S: You probably had saturation effects in the height range from 10-15 km in January and February 2020. On the other hand, are you able to detect cirrus at heights up to about 12 km?
One should check the lidar long-term observations at Punta Arenas at 53S (Ohneiser et al., ACPD, 2022). Lidar does nor suffer from saturation effects. This lidar data set is for ONE single site, however, should be in general agreement with the development of the smoke extinction and AOD (as given here for latitudinal belts) in January to March 2020. The lidar extinction values are for 532 nm, and can be translated into 675 nm values by using the Angstroem exponents.
15-25S: The same here for the height range from 10-15 km in January and February 2020. Can we trust the January 2020 data?
p9, Figure 3 corroborates my ‘opinion’. There is a quite nice decay behavior from February to April. And because the smoke injection was in the beginning of January (not in the middle or the end of January). Why are the January data NOT in line with the general trend from Februray to April?
p10, Figure 4: Can you explain, why there is steady decrease of extinction coefficient from 12-24 km, but not in the belts 15-25S and 60-80S? Again, are you sure that all extinction is purely caused by smoke (no cirrus)? What about January profiles? Probably, signal saturation effects should show up in the extinction profiles.
I am so critical or suspicious in these points…. because in section 4 the radiative forcing results are shown, and the main question arises: Do these well and carefully performed simulations reflect the REALITY or the shortcomings (especially wrong January extinction profiles) in the satellite observations.
p12, Figure 5: the y-axis text is too long and too small. Why not simply: Daily average RF (W/m2) … and the rest is then explained in the figure caption.
Also the x-axis text could be enlarged. a), b), c)….e) in the panels are larger than the x-axis text! That is not optimum.
p13, l297-l328: What do we learn? ... if we do not trust the extinction observations?
p14, Figure 6, again, February to April values show a coherent development…. but January results are very different. Underestimation of smoke extinction values?
Please, improve y-axis text also here (too long, too small).
p15, Table 1, again the same problem, why are the January values not in line with the rest (Feb to April data).
p16, Table 2, the same problem.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-42-RC2 - AC1: 'Reply to reviewers on egusphere-2022-42', Pasquale Sellitto, 13 Jun 2022
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-42', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Apr 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-42/egusphere-2022-42-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-42', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Apr 2022
General:
Although there are already numerous publications on the radiative impact of Australian smoke on the market, this manuscript adds new aspects and discusses inconsistencies in previous articles and thus is worthwhile to be published in ACP.
I have only minor points.
Details:
page2, line38: Please specify…. whole fire season…. was that from September 2019 to January 2020 or from July 2019 to March 2020?
p2, l42: Meanwhile there are many smoke-ozone papers in addition to Yu et al., 2021, who presented not more than a few hypothetic sentences. Now we have in addition: Solomon et al., PNAS, 2022, Bernath et al., Science, 2022, Rieger et al., GRL, 2022, Ohneiser et al., ACPD, 2022, Ansmann et al., ACPD 2022.
p2, l42-32: I suggest to cite also
Peterson et al., 2021, Australia’s Black Summer pyrocumulonimbus super outbreak reveals potential for increasingly extreme stratospheric smoke events, npj Clim Atmos Sci, 2021, doi=10.1038/s41612-021-00192-9 .
In this paper, a nice summary of this record-breaking Australian pyroCb event (29 December 2019 to 5 January 2020) is given including an estimate of 1.1 Tg of emitted smoke.
P4, l99: Can you provide numbers regarding the extinction coefficient measurement range that OMPS-LP at 675 nm can measure? Probably 20 Mm-1 along the line of sight is too high (saturation effect) and 0.1 Mm-1 may be too low (no longer distinguishable from clear air…)? But these are speculations, you should know the measurement range…. and thus should be able to provide numbers.
P6, section 2.2 Or provide the extinction measurement range here….
p8, Figure 2: I have a few questions to this figure!
25-60S: You probably had saturation effects in the height range from 10-15 km in January and February 2020. On the other hand, are you able to detect cirrus at heights up to about 12 km?
One should check the lidar long-term observations at Punta Arenas at 53S (Ohneiser et al., ACPD, 2022). Lidar does nor suffer from saturation effects. This lidar data set is for ONE single site, however, should be in general agreement with the development of the smoke extinction and AOD (as given here for latitudinal belts) in January to March 2020. The lidar extinction values are for 532 nm, and can be translated into 675 nm values by using the Angstroem exponents.
15-25S: The same here for the height range from 10-15 km in January and February 2020. Can we trust the January 2020 data?
p9, Figure 3 corroborates my ‘opinion’. There is a quite nice decay behavior from February to April. And because the smoke injection was in the beginning of January (not in the middle or the end of January). Why are the January data NOT in line with the general trend from Februray to April?
p10, Figure 4: Can you explain, why there is steady decrease of extinction coefficient from 12-24 km, but not in the belts 15-25S and 60-80S? Again, are you sure that all extinction is purely caused by smoke (no cirrus)? What about January profiles? Probably, signal saturation effects should show up in the extinction profiles.
I am so critical or suspicious in these points…. because in section 4 the radiative forcing results are shown, and the main question arises: Do these well and carefully performed simulations reflect the REALITY or the shortcomings (especially wrong January extinction profiles) in the satellite observations.
p12, Figure 5: the y-axis text is too long and too small. Why not simply: Daily average RF (W/m2) … and the rest is then explained in the figure caption.
Also the x-axis text could be enlarged. a), b), c)….e) in the panels are larger than the x-axis text! That is not optimum.
p13, l297-l328: What do we learn? ... if we do not trust the extinction observations?
p14, Figure 6, again, February to April values show a coherent development…. but January results are very different. Underestimation of smoke extinction values?
Please, improve y-axis text also here (too long, too small).
p15, Table 1, again the same problem, why are the January values not in line with the rest (Feb to April data).
p16, Table 2, the same problem.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-42-RC2 - AC1: 'Reply to reviewers on egusphere-2022-42', Pasquale Sellitto, 13 Jun 2022
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
435 | 143 | 17 | 595 | 10 | 9 |
- HTML: 435
- PDF: 143
- XML: 17
- Total: 595
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 9
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
2 citations as recorded by crossref.
- Three-Dimensional Distribution of Biomass Burning Aerosols from Australian Wildfires Observed by TROPOMI Satellite Observations F. Lemmouchi et al. 10.3390/rs14112582
- Important role of stratospheric injection height for the distribution and radiative forcing of smoke aerosol from the 2019–2020 Australian wildfires B. Heinold et al. 10.5194/acp-22-9969-2022
Pasquale Sellitto
Redha Belhadji
Corinna Kloss
Bernard Legras
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(12141 KB) - Metadata XML