% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Reid:44979,
author = {Reid, J. S. and Eck, T. F. and Christopher, S. A. and
Koppmann, R. and Dubovik, O. and Eleuterio, D. P. and
Holben, B. N. and Reid, E. A. and Zhang, J.},
title = {{A} review of biomass burning emissions part {III}:
intensive optical properties of biomass burning particles},
journal = {Atmospheric chemistry and physics},
volume = {5},
issn = {1680-7316},
address = {Katlenburg-Lindau},
publisher = {EGU},
reportid = {PreJuSER-44979},
pages = {827 - 849},
year = {2005},
note = {Record converted from VDB: 12.11.2012},
abstract = {Because of its wide coverage over much of the globe,
biomass burning has been widely studied in the context of
direct radiative forcing. Such study is warranted as smoke
particles scatter and at times absorb solar radiation
efficiently. Further, as much of what is known about smoke
transport and impacts is based on remote sensing
measurements, the optical properties of smoke particles have
far reaching effects into numerous aspects of biomass
burning studies. Global estimates of direct forcing have
been widely varying, ranging from near zero to -1W m(-2). A
significant part of this difference can be traced to varying
assumptions on the optical properties of smoke. This
manuscript is the third part of four examining
biomass-burning emissions. Here we review and discuss the
literature concerning measurement and modeling of optical
properties of biomass-burning particles. These include
available data from published sensitivity studies, field
campaigns, and inversions from the Aerosol Robotic Network
(AERONET) of Sun photometer sites. As a whole, optical
properties reported in the literature are varied, reflecting
both the dynamic nature of fires, variations in smoke aging
processes and differences in measurement technique. We find
that forward modeling or "internal closure" studies
ultimately are of little help in resolving outstanding
measurement issues due to the high degree of degeneracy in
solutions when using "reasonable" input parameters. This is
particularly notable with respect to index of refraction and
the treatment of black carbon. Consequently, previous claims
of column closure may in fact be more ambiguous. Differences
between in situ and retrieved omega(o) values have
implications for estimates of mass scattering and mass
absorption efficiencies. In this manuscript we review and
discuss this community dataset. Strengths and lapses are
pointed out, future research topics are prioritized, and
best estimates and uncertainties of key smoke particle
parameters are provided.},
keywords = {J (WoSType)},
cin = {ICG-II},
ddc = {550},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)VDB48},
pnm = {Chemie und Dynamik der Geo-Biosphäre},
pid = {G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK257},
shelfmark = {Meteorology $\&$ Atmospheric Sciences},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000227615700002},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/44979},
}