<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="no"?>
<!DOCTYPE article SYSTEM "http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/inc/acpd/copernicus.dtd">
<article language="en">
	<journal>
		<journal_title>Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions</journal_title>
		<journal_url>www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net</journal_url>
		<issn>1680-7367</issn>
		<eissn>1680-7375</eissn>
		<volume_number>4</volume_number>
		<issue_number>2</issue_number>
		<publication_year>2004</publication_year>
	</journal>
	<doi>10.5194/acpd-4-1449-2004</doi>
	<article_url>http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/4/1449/2004/</article_url>
	<abstract_html>http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/4/1449/2004/acpd-4-1449-2004.html</abstract_html>
	<fulltext_pdf>http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/4/1449/2004/acpd-4-1449-2004.pdf</fulltext_pdf>
	<start_page>1449</start_page>
	<end_page>1471</end_page>
	<publication_date>2004-03-15</publication_date>
	<article_title content_type="html">Around the world in 17 days &amp;ndash; hemispheric-scale transport of forest fire smoke from Russia in May 2003</article_title>
	<authors>
		<author numeration="1" affiliations="1">
			<name>R. Damoah</name>
			<email>damoah@forst.tu-muenchen.de</email>
		</author>
		<author numeration="2" affiliations="1">
			<name>N. Spichtinger</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="3" affiliations="1">
			<name>C. Forster</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="4" affiliations="1">
			<name>P. James</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="5" affiliations="2">
			<name>I. Mattis</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="6" affiliations="2">
			<name>U. Wandinger</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="7" affiliations="3">
			<name>S. Beirle</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="8" affiliations="3">
			<name>T. Wagner</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="9" affiliations="4">
			<name>A. Stohl</name>
		</author>
	</authors>
	<affiliations>
		<affiliation numeration="1" content_type="html">Department of Ecology, Technical University of Munich, Freising, Germany</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="2" content_type="html">Institute for Tropospheric Research, Leipzig, Germany</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="3" content_type="html">Institute for Environmental Physics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="4" content_type="html">Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental science, University of Colorado/NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory, Boulder, USA</affiliation>
	</affiliations>
	<abstract content_type="html">In May 2003, severe forest fires in southeast Russia resulted in smoke
plumes extending widely across the Northern Hemisphere. This study combines
satellite data from a variety of platforms (Moderate Resolution Imaging
Spectroradiometer (MODIS), Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS),
Earth Probe Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) and Global Ozone
Monitoring Experiment (GOME)) and vertical aerosol profiles derived with
Raman lidar measurements with results from a Lagrangian particle dispersion
model to understand the transport processes that led to the large haze
plumes observed over North America and Europe. The satellite images provided
a unique opportunity for validating model simulations of tropospheric
transport on a truly hemispheric scale. Transport of the smoke occurred in
two directions: Smoke travelling northwestwards towards Scandinavia was
lifted over the Urals and arrived over the Norwegian Sea. Smoke travelling
eastwards to the Okhotsk Sea was also lifted, it then crossed the Bering Sea
to Alaska from where it proceeded to Canada and was later even observed over
Scandinavia and Eastern Europe on its way back to Russia. This is perhaps
the first time that air pollution was observed to circle the entire globe.
The total transport time was about 17 days. We compared transport model
simulations using meteorological analysis data from both the European Centre
for Medium-Range Weather Forecast (ECMWF) and the National Center for
Environmental Prediction (NCEP) in order to find out how well this event
could be simulated using these two datasets. Although differences between
the two simulations are found on small scales, both agree remarkably well
with each other and with the observations on large scales. On the basis of
the available observations, it cannot be decided which simulation was more
realistic.</abstract>
	<references>
	</references>
</article>

