% 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{Osborne:903140,
author = {Osborne, Martin John and de Leeuw, Johannes and Witham,
Claire and Schmidt, Anja and Beckett, Frances and
Kristiansen, Nina and Buxmann, Joelle and Saint, Cameron and
Welton, Ellsworth J. and Fochesatto, Javier and Gomes, Ana
R. and Bundke, Ulrich and Petzold, Andreas and Marenco,
Franco and Haywood, Jim},
title = {{T}he 2019 {R}aikoke volcanic eruption part 2: {P}article
phase dispersion and concurrent wildfire smoke emissions},
reportid = {FZJ-2021-04864},
year = {2021},
abstract = {Abstract. Between 27 June and 14 July 2019 aerosol layers
were observed by the United Kingdom (UK) Raman lidar network
in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. The arrival
of these aerosol layers in late June caused some concern
within the London Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre (VAAC) as
according to dispersion simulations the volcanic plume from
the 21 June 2019 eruption of Raikoke was not expected over
the UK until early July. Using dispersion simulations from
the Met Office Numerical Atmospheric-dispersion Modelling
Environment (NAME), and supporting evidence from satellite
and in-situ aircraft observations, we show that the early
arrival of the stratospheric layers was not due to aerosols
from the explosive eruption of the Raikoke volcano, but due
to biomass burning smoke aerosols associated with intense
forest fires in Alberta, Canada that occurred four days
prior to the Raikoke eruption. We use the observations and
model simulations to describe the dispersion of both the
volcanic and forest fire aerosol clouds, and estimate that
the initial Raikoke ash aerosol cloud contained around 15 Tg
of volcanic ash, and that the forest fires produced around
0.2 Tg of biomass burning aerosol. The operational
monitoring of volcanic aerosol clouds is a vital capability
in terms of aviation safety and the synergy of NAME
dispersion simulations and lidar data with depolarising
capabilities allowed scientists at the Met Office to
interpret the various aerosol layers over the UK, and
attribute the material to their sources. The use of NAME
allowed the identification of the observed stratospheric
layers that reached the UK on 27 June as biomass burning
aerosol, characterised by a particle linear depolarisation
ratio of 9 $\%,$ whereas with the lidar alone the latter
could have been identified as the early arrival of a
volcanic ash/sulphate mixed aerosol cloud. In the case under
study, given the low concentration estimates, the exact
identification of the aerosol layers would have made little
substantive difference to the decision making process within
the London VAAC. However, our work shows how the use of
dispersion modelling together with multiple observation
sources enabled us to create a more complete description of
atmospheric aerosol loading.},
cin = {IEK-8},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-8-20101013},
pnm = {2111 - Air Quality (POF4-211)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-2111},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)25},
doi = {10.5194/acp-2021-448},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/903140},
}