The collection 6 MODIS active fire detection algorithm and fire products.
TL;DR: Improvements made to the fire detection algorithm and swath-level product that were implemented as part of the Collection 6 land-product reprocessing, which commenced in May 2015, indicated targeted improvements in the performance of the collection 6 activeFire detection algorithm compared to Collection 5, with reduced omission errors over large fires, and reduced false alarm rates in tropical ecosystems.
About: This article is published in Remote Sensing of Environment.The article was published on 2016-06-01 and is currently open access. It has received 810 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Fire detection & Moderate-resolution imaging spectroradiometer.
Citations
More filters
University of Exeter1, École Normale Supérieure2, Norwich Research Park3, University of Groningen4, Wageningen University and Research Centre5, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich6, Max Planck Society7, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation8, Université Paris-Saclay9, Stanford University10, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration11, National Institute for Space Research12, Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences13, University of Southampton14, PSL Research University15, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology16, National Institute for Environmental Studies17, University of Maryland, College Park18, University of Leeds19, International Institute of Minnesota20, Flanders Marine Institute21, ETH Zurich22, University of East Anglia23, German Aerospace Center24, Woods Hole Research Center25, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign26, University of Toulouse27, Japan Meteorological Agency28, Plymouth Marine Laboratory29, University of Paris30, Hobart Corporation31, Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research32, Tsinghua University33, National Center for Atmospheric Research34, Appalachian State University35, University of Colorado Boulder36, University of Washington37, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory38, Princeton University39, Met Office40, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences41, Auburn University42, University of Tasmania43, VU University Amsterdam44, Oak Ridge National Laboratory45, Sun Yat-sen University46, Nanjing University47
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors describe and synthesize data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties, including emissions from land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models.
Abstract: Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in a changing climate – the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe and synthesize data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFOS) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade available (2010–2019), EFOS was 9.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 excluding the cement carbonation sink (9.4 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when the cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 1.6 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1. For the same decade, GATM was 5.1 ± 0.02 GtC yr−1 (2.4 ± 0.01 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN 2.5 ± 0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.4 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1, with a budget imbalance BIM of −0.1 GtC yr−1 indicating a near balance between estimated sources and sinks over the last decade. For the year 2019 alone, the growth in EFOS was only about 0.1 % with fossil emissions increasing to 9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 excluding the cement carbonation sink (9.7 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 1.8 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, for total anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 11.5 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1 (42.2 ± 3.3 GtCO2). Also for 2019, GATM was 5.4 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.5 ± 0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 2.6 ± 0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.1 ± 1.2 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 409.85 ± 0.1 ppm averaged over 2019. Preliminary data for 2020, accounting for the COVID-19-induced changes in emissions, suggest a decrease in EFOS relative to 2019 of about −7 % (median estimate) based on individual estimates from four studies of −6 %, −7 %, −7 % (−3 % to −11 %), and −13 %. Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2019, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. Comparison of estimates from diverse approaches and observations shows (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land-use change emissions over the last decade, (2) a persistent low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent discrepancy between the different methods for the ocean sink outside the tropics, particularly in the Southern Ocean. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Friedlingstein et al., 2019; Le Quere et al., 2018b, a, 2016, 2015b, a, 2014, 2013). The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2020 (Friedlingstein et al., 2020).
1,764 citations
Cites methods from "The collection 6 MODIS active fire ..."
...…BLUE, HandN2017, and OSCAR, starting from their estimates for 2019 assuming unaltered peat drainage, which has low interannual variability, and the highly variable emissions from peat fires, tropical deforestation, and degradation as estimated using active fire data (MCD14ML; Giglio et al., 2016)....
[...]
University of East Anglia1, University of Exeter2, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research3, Max Planck Society4, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich5, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation6, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology7, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory8, Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies9, École Normale Supérieure10, Centre national de la recherche scientifique11, University of Maryland, College Park12, University of Virginia13, Flanders Marine Institute14, Oak Ridge National Laboratory15, Woods Hole Research Center16, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign17, Geophysical Institute, University of Bergen18, Met Office19, University of California, San Diego20, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency21, Utrecht University22, University of Paris23, Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research24, Tsinghua University25, National Center for Atmospheric Research26, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research27, National Institute for Environmental Studies28, Cooperative Research Centre29, Hobart Corporation30, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology31, University of Groningen32, Wageningen University and Research Centre33, Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research34, Goddard Space Flight Center35, Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research36, Princeton University37, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences38, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration39, Auburn University40, Food and Agriculture Organization41, VU University Amsterdam42
TL;DR: In this article, the authors describe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties, including emissions from land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models.
Abstract: . Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide
( CO2 ) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere,
ocean, and terrestrial biosphere – the “global carbon budget” – is
important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the
development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we
describe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of
the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2
emissions ( EFF ) are based on energy statistics and cement
production data, while emissions from land use and land-use change ( ELUC ),
mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data and
bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured
directly and its growth rate ( GATM ) is computed from the annual
changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink ( SOCEAN )
and terrestrial CO2 sink ( SLAND ) are estimated with
global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon
budget imbalance ( BIM ), the difference between the estimated
total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and
terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of
the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ . For the last decade available (2008–2017), EFF was
9.4±0.5 GtC yr −1 , ELUC 1.5±0.7 GtC yr −1 , GATM 4.7±0.02 GtC yr −1 ,
SOCEAN 2.4±0.5 GtC yr −1 , and SLAND 3.2±0.8 GtC yr −1 , with a budget imbalance BIM of
0.5 GtC yr −1 indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated
sinks. For the year 2017 alone, the growth in EFF was about 1.6 %
and emissions increased to 9.9±0.5 GtC yr −1 . Also for 2017,
ELUC was 1.4±0.7 GtC yr −1 , GATM was 4.6±0.2 GtC yr −1 , SOCEAN was 2.5±0.5 GtC yr −1 , and SLAND was 3.8±0.8 GtC yr −1 ,
with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric
CO2 concentration reached 405.0±0.1 ppm averaged over 2017.
For 2018, preliminary data for the first 6–9 months indicate a renewed
growth in EFF of + 2.7 % (range of 1.8 % to 3.7 %) based
on national emission projections for China, the US, the EU, and India and
projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the
carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. The analysis
presented here shows that the mean and trend in the five components of the
global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period of 1959–2017,
but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr −1 persist for the representation
of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. A detailed comparison
among individual estimates and the introduction of a broad range of
observations show (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land-use change
emissions, (2) a persistent low agreement among the different methods on
the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics,
and (3) an apparent underestimation of the CO2 variability by ocean
models, originating outside the tropics. This living data update documents
changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget
and the progress in understanding the global carbon cycle compared with
previous publications of this data set (Le Quere et al., 2018, 2016,
2015a, b, 2014, 2013). All results presented here can be downloaded from
https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2018 .
1,458 citations
Cites methods from "The collection 6 MODIS active fire ..."
...Peat burning as well as tropical deforestation and degradation are estimated using active fire data (MCD14ML; Giglio et al., 2016), which scales almost linearly with GFED (van der Werf et al., 2017) and thus allows for tracking fire emissions in deforestation and tropical peat zones in near-real…...
[...]
...Peat burning as well as tropical deforestation and degradation are estimated using active fire data (MCD14ML; Giglio et al., 2016), which scales almost linearly with GFED (van der Werf et al....
[...]
University of Exeter1, École Normale Supérieure2, Norwich Research Park3, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research4, Wageningen University and Research Centre5, University of Groningen6, Max Planck Society7, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich8, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation9, Centre national de la recherche scientifique10, Stanford University11, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology12, Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies13, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory14, Geophysical Institute, University of Bergen15, Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research16, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology17, University of Maryland, College Park18, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research19, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration20, Appalachian State University21, Flanders Marine Institute22, Augsburg College23, ETH Zurich24, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences25, University of East Anglia26, Woods Hole Research Center27, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign28, University of Hong Kong29, Utrecht University30, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency31, University of Paris32, University of Tasmania33, Hobart Corporation34, University of Bern35, National Center for Atmospheric Research36, University of Reading37, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences38, National Institute for Environmental Studies39, Russian Academy of Sciences40, Goddard Space Flight Center41, Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research42, Princeton University43, Met Office44, Lund University45, Auburn University46, Food and Agriculture Organization47, VU University Amsterdam48
TL;DR: In this article, the authors describe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties, including emissions from land use and land use change, and show that the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle.
Abstract: . Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide ( CO2 ) emissions and
their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere
– the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand the
global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and
project future climate change. Here we describe data sets and methodology to
quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their
uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions ( EFF ) are based on energy
statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land use change
( ELUC ), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land use change
data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured
directly and its growth rate ( GATM ) is computed from the annual changes
in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink ( SOCEAN ) and terrestrial
CO2 sink ( SLAND ) are estimated with global process models
constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance
( BIM ), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the
estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a
measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon
cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ . For the last
decade available (2009–2018), EFF was 9.5±0.5 GtC yr −1 ,
ELUC 1.5±0.7 GtC yr −1 , GATM 4.9±0.02 GtC yr −1 ( 2.3±0.01 ppm yr −1 ), SOCEAN 2.5±0.6 GtC yr −1 , and SLAND 3.2±0.6 GtC yr −1 , with a budget
imbalance BIM of 0.4 GtC yr −1 indicating overestimated emissions
and/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2018 alone, the growth in EFF was
about 2.1 % and fossil emissions increased to 10.0±0.5 GtC yr −1 , reaching 10 GtC yr −1 for the first time in history,
ELUC was 1.5±0.7 GtC yr −1 , for total anthropogenic
CO2 emissions of 11.5±0.9 GtC yr −1 ( 42.5±3.3 GtCO2 ). Also for 2018, GATM was 5.1±0.2 GtC yr −1 ( 2.4±0.1 ppm yr −1 ), SOCEAN was 2.6±0.6 GtC yr −1 , and SLAND was 3.5±0.7 GtC yr −1 , with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 407.38±0.1 ppm averaged over 2018. For 2019, preliminary data for the first 6–10 months indicate a reduced growth in EFF of +0.6 % (range of
−0.2 % to 1.5 %) based on national emissions projections for China, the
USA, the EU, and India and projections of gross domestic product corrected
for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of
the world. Overall, the mean and trend in the five components of the global
carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2018, but
discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr −1 persist for the representation of
semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. A detailed comparison among
individual estimates and the introduction of a broad range of observations
shows (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land use change emissions
over the last decade, (2) a persistent low agreement between the different
methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern
extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent underestimation of the CO2
variability by ocean models outside the tropics. This living data update
documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global
carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle
compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quere et
al., 2018a, b, 2016, 2015a, b, 2014, 2013). The data generated by
this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2019 (Friedlingstein
et al., 2019).
981 citations
University of Exeter1, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry2, Tyndall Centre3, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory4, Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research5, University of Maryland, College Park6, CICERO Center for International Climate Research7, Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research8, University of Reading9, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences10, Goddard Space Flight Center11, Flanders Marine Institute12, Food and Agriculture Organization13, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research14, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration15, University of East Anglia16, Japan Meteorological Agency17, ETH Zurich18, National Institute for Environmental Studies19, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology20, Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement21, Tula Foundation22, Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research23, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology24, Wageningen University and Research Centre25, Tsinghua University26, University of Western Sydney27, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences28, University of Florida29, Center for Neuroscience and Regenerative Medicine30, Woods Hole Research Center31, Michigan State University32, Tianjin University33, Auburn University34, Jilin Medical University35, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology36, Imperial College London37, Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques38, University of Groningen39, Tohoku University40, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich41, Bank for International Settlements42, Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace43, Environment Canada44, North West Agriculture and Forestry University45, Northwest A&F University46, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory47, Stanford University48, Utrecht University49
TL;DR: Friedlingstein et al. as mentioned in this paper presented and synthesized datasets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties, including fossil CO2 emissions, land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models.
Abstract: Abstract. Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in a changing climate is critical to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe and synthesize datasets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFOS) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly, and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) is estimated with global ocean biogeochemistry models and observation-based data products. The terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) is estimated with dynamic global vegetation models. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the first time, an approach is shown to reconcile the difference in our ELUC estimate with the one from national greenhouse gas inventories, supporting the assessment of collective countries' climate progress. For the year 2020, EFOS declined by 5.4 % relative to 2019, with fossil emissions at 9.5 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 (9.3 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when the cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 0.9 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, for a total anthropogenic CO2 emission of 10.2 ± 0.8 GtC yr−1 (37.4 ± 2.9 GtCO2). Also, for 2020, GATM was 5.0 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.4 ± 0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 3.0 ± 0.4 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 2.9 ± 1 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of −0.8 GtC yr−1. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration averaged over 2020 reached 412.45 ± 0.1 ppm. Preliminary data for 2021 suggest a rebound in EFOS relative to 2020 of +4.8 % (4.2 % to 5.4 %) globally. Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2020, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of annual to semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. Comparison of estimates from multiple approaches and observations shows (1) a persistent large uncertainty in the estimate of land-use changes emissions, (2) a low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) a discrepancy between the different methods on the strength of the ocean sink over the last decade. This living data update documents changes in the methods and datasets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this dataset (Friedlingstein et al., 2020, 2019; Le Quéré et al., 2018b, a, 2016, 2015b, a, 2014, 2013). The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2021 (Friedlingstein et al., 2021).
343 citations
TL;DR: This work identifies, categorize and quantify the world’s ammonia emission hotspots using a high-resolution map of atmospheric ammonia obtained from almost a decade of daily IASI satellite observations and suggests that it is necessary to completely revisit the emission inventories of anthropogenic ammonia sources and to account for the rapid evolution of such sources over time.
Abstract: Through its important role in the formation of particulate matter, atmospheric ammonia affects air quality and has implications for human health and life expectancy1,2. Excess ammonia in the environment also contributes to the acidification and eutrophication of ecosystems3,4,5 and to climate change6. Anthropogenic emissions dominate natural ones and mostly originate from agricultural, domestic and industrial activities7. However, the total ammonia budget and the attribution of emissions to specific sources remain highly uncertain across different spatial scales7,8,9. Here we identify, categorize and quantify the world’s ammonia emission hotspots using a high-resolution map of atmospheric ammonia obtained from almost a decade of daily IASI satellite observations. We report 248 hotspots with diameters smaller than 50 kilometres, which we associate with either a single point source or a cluster of agricultural and industrial point sources—with the exception of one hotspot, which can be traced back to a natural source. The state-of-the-art EDGAR emission inventory10 mostly agrees with satellite-derived emission fluxes within a factor of three for larger regions. However, it does not adequately represent the majority of point sources that we identified and underestimates the emissions of two-thirds of them by at least one order of magnitude. Industrial emitters in particular are often found to be displaced or missing. Our results suggest that it is necessary to completely revisit the emission inventories of anthropogenic ammonia sources and to account for the rapid evolution of such sources over time. This will lead to better health and environmental impact assessments of atmospheric ammonia and the implementation of suitable nitrogen management strategies.
291 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: An improved replacement detection algorithm is presented that offers increased sensitivity to smaller, cooler fires as well as a significantly lower false alarm rate.
1,553 citations
"The collection 6 MODIS active fire ..." refers background in this paper
...More detailed descriptions can be found in Giglio et al. (2003)....
[...]
...A detailed description of the test can be found in Section 2.2.7 of Giglio et al. (2003)....
[...]
...N A S A A uthor M anuscript N A S A A uthor M anuscript N A S A A uthor M anuscript ΔT > ΔT + 6 K (3) T4 > T4 + 3 δ4 (4) T11 > T11 + δ11 − 4 K (5) δ4′ > 5 K (6) A detailed description of each test may be found in Giglio et al. (2003)....
[...]
...When processing a potential fire pixel over land, unmasked water pixels within the background window can depress both T ̄4 and ΔT, potentially generating a false alarm (Giglio et al., 2003)....
[...]
...Note that our definition differs slightly from (Giglio et al., 2003) in that we have included a minor typographical correction in the bottom inequality....
[...]
TL;DR: The Fire Inventory from NCAR version 1.0 (FINNv1) provides daily, 1 km resolution, global estimates of the trace gas and particle emissions from open burning of biomass, which includes wildfire, agricultural fires, and prescribed burning and does not include biofuel use and trash burning as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: . The Fire INventory from NCAR version 1.0 (FINNv1) provides daily, 1 km resolution, global estimates of the trace gas and particle emissions from open burning of biomass, which includes wildfire, agricultural fires, and prescribed burning and does not include biofuel use and trash burning. Emission factors used in the calculations have been updated with recent data, particularly for the non-methane organic compounds (NMOC). The resulting global annual NMOC emission estimates are as much as a factor of 5 greater than some prior estimates. Chemical speciation profiles, necessary to allocate the total NMOC emission estimates to lumped species for use by chemical transport models, are provided for three widely used chemical mechanisms: SAPRC99, GEOS-CHEM, and MOZART-4. Using these profiles, FINNv1 also provides global estimates of key organic compounds, including formaldehyde and methanol. Uncertainties in the emissions estimates arise from several of the method steps. The use of fire hot spots, assumed area burned, land cover maps, biomass consumption estimates, and emission factors all introduce error into the model estimates. The uncertainty in the FINNv1 emission estimates are about a factor of two; but, the global estimates agree reasonably well with other global inventories of biomass burning emissions for CO, CO2, and other species with less variable emission factors. FINNv1 emission estimates have been developed specifically for modeling atmospheric chemistry and air quality in a consistent framework at scales from local to global. The product is unique because of the high temporal and spatial resolution, global coverage, and the number of species estimated. FINNv1 can be used for both hindcast and forecast or near-real time model applications and the results are being critically evaluated with models and observations whenever possible.
1,264 citations
"The collection 6 MODIS active fire ..." refers background in this paper
..., 2012; Wooster & Zhang, 2004), and in numerous operational applications (e.g. Kaiser et al., 2012; Longo et al., 2010; Reid et al., 2009; Ressl et al., 2009; Sofiev et al., 2009;Wiedinmyer et al., 2011)....
[...]
...…& Korontzi, 2007; Mollicone, Eva, & Achard, 2006; Peterson, Hyer, & Wang, 2014; Vadrevu et al., 2012; Wooster & Zhang, 2004), and in numerous operational applications (e.g. Kaiser et al., 2012; Longo et al., 2010; Reid et al., 2009; Ressl et al., 2009; Sofiev et al., 2009; Wiedinmyer et al., 2011)....
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, the authors provide a summary of the MODIS instrument performance and status, the data production system, the products, their status and availability for land studies, and a partnership between Science Team members and MODIS Science Data Support Team is producing data sets of unprecedented volume and number for the land research and applications.
1,082 citations
"The collection 6 MODIS active fire ..." refers background in this paper
...Introduction NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) active fire products (Justice et al., 2002) were the first in a family of remotely sensed fire data sets produced from a new generation of moderate resolution (~1 km), “fire-capable” sensors on-board terrestrial satellites....
[...]
...NASA's Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) active fire products (Justice et al., 2002) were the first in a family of remotely sensed fire data sets produced from a new generation of moderate resolution (~1 km), “fire-capable” sensors on-board terrestrial satellites....
[...]
...A key element of NASA's Earth Observing System (EOS) mission is the capability to periodically reprocess the raw instrument data archive, using updated calibration and geolocation information, as well as the derived products (Justice et al., 2002)....
[...]
...A key element of NASA’s Earth Observing System (EOS) mission is the capability to periodically reprocess the raw instrument data archive, using updated calibration and geolocation information, as well as the derived products (Justice et al., 2002)....
[...]
TL;DR: The first results of the MODIS vegetation continuous field algorithm's global percent tree cover are presented in this article, where a supervised regression tree algorithm is used to estimate tree cover per 500m MODIS pixel.
Abstract: The first results of the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) vegetation continuous field algorithm's global percent tree cover are presented. Percent tree cover per 500-m MODIS pixel is estimated using a supervised regression tree algorithm. Data derived from the MODIS visible bands contribute the most to discriminating tree cover. The results show that MODIS data yield greater spatial detail in the characterization of tree cover compared to past efforts using AVHRR data. This finer-scale depiction should allow for using successive tree cover maps in change detection studies at the global scale. Initial validation efforts show a reasonable relationship between the MODIS-estimated tree cover and tree cover from validation sites.
1,024 citations
"The collection 6 MODIS active fire ..." refers methods in this paper
...Complementing the data described above, we obtained the corresponding Terra MODIS MOD03 geolocation product from the Land and Atmosphere Archive and Distribution System (LAADS), and the Hansen et al. (2003) MOD44B annual Vegetation Continuous Fields (VCF) gridded product from the LPDAAC....
[...]
TL;DR: The Global Fire Assimilation System (GFASv1.0) as mentioned in this paper calculates biomass burning emissions by assimilating Fire Radiative Power (FRP) observations from the MODIS instruments onboard the Terra and Aqua satellites.
Abstract: . The Global Fire Assimilation System (GFASv1.0) calculates biomass burning emissions by assimilating Fire Radiative Power (FRP) observations from the MODIS instruments onboard the Terra and Aqua satellites. It corrects for gaps in the observations, which are mostly due to cloud cover, and filters spurious FRP observations of volcanoes, gas flares and other industrial activity. The combustion rate is subsequently calculated with land cover-specific conversion factors. Emission factors for 40 gas-phase and aerosol trace species have been compiled from a literature survey. The corresponding daily emissions have been calculated on a global 0.5° × 0.5° grid from 2003 to the present. General consistency with the Global Fire Emission Database version 3.1 (GFED3.1) within its accuracy is achieved while maintaining the advantages of an FRP-based approach: GFASv1.0 makes use of the quantitative information on the combustion rate that is contained in the FRP observations, and it detects fires in real time at high spatial and temporal resolution. GFASv1.0 indicates omission errors in GFED3.1 due to undetected small fires. It also exhibits slightly longer fire seasons in South America and North Africa and a slightly shorter fire season in Southeast Asia. GFASv1.0 has already been used for atmospheric reactive gas simulations in an independent study, which found good agreement with atmospheric observations. We have performed simulations of the atmospheric aerosol distribution with and without the assimilation of MODIS aerosol optical depth (AOD). They indicate that the emissions of particulate matter need to be boosted by a factor of 2–4 to reproduce the global distribution of organic matter and black carbon. This discrepancy is also evident in the comparison of previously published top-down and bottom-up estimates. For the time being, a global enhancement of the particulate matter emissions by 3.4 is recommended. Validation with independent AOD and PM10 observations recorded during the Russian fires in summer 2010 show that the global Monitoring Atmospheric Composition and Change (MACC) aerosol model with GFASv1.0 aerosol emissions captures the smoke plume evolution well when organic matter and black carbon are enhanced by the recommended factor. In conjunction with the assimilation of MODIS AOD, the use of GFASv1.0 with enhanced emission factors quantitatively improves the forecast of the aerosol load near the surface sufficiently to allow air quality warnings with a lead time of up to four days.
940 citations
Additional excerpts
...…& Korontzi, 2007; Mollicone, Eva, & Achard, 2006; Peterson, Hyer, & Wang, 2014; Vadrevu et al., 2012; Wooster & Zhang, 2004), and in numerous operational applications (e.g. Kaiser et al., 2012; Longo et al., 2010; Reid et al., 2009; Ressl et al., 2009; Sofiev et al., 2009; Wiedinmyer et al., 2011)....
[...]