Biomass burning CO emissions: exploring insights through TROPOMI-derived emissions and emission coefficients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emissions from biomass burning are a significant source of air pollution, which can adversely impact air quality and ecosystems thousands of kilometres downwind. These emissions can be estimated by a bottom-up approach that relies on fuel consumed and standardized emission factors. Emissions are also commonly derived with a top-down approach, using satellite-observed fire radiative power (FRP) as a proxy for fuel consumption. Biomass burning emissions can also be estimated directly from satellite trace gas observations, including carbon monoxide (CO). Here, we explore the potential of satellite-derived CO emission rates from biomass burning and provide new insights into the understanding of satellite-derived fire CO emissions globally, with respect to differences in regions and vegetation type. Specifically, we use the TROPOMI (Tropospheric Monitoring Instrument) high-spatial-resolution satellite datasets to derive burning CO emissions directly for individual fires between 2019 and 2021 globally. Using synthetic data (with known emissions), we show that the direct emission estimate methodology has a 34 % uncertainty for deriving CO emissions (and a total uncertainty of 44 % including wind and CO column uncertainty). From the TROPOMI-derived CO emissions, we derive biome-specific emission coefficients (emissions relative to FRP) by combining the direct emission estimates and the satellite-observed FRP from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MODIS). These emission coefficients are used to establish annual top-down CO emission inventories from biomass burning, showing that Southern Hemisphere Africa has the highest CO biomass burning emissions (over 25 % of global total of 300–390 Mt(CO) yr −1 between 2003–2021), and almost 25 % of global CO biomass burning emissions are from broadleaved evergreen tree fires. A comprehensive comparison between direct estimates, top-down and bottom-up approaches, provides insight into the strengths and weaknesses of each method: FINN2.5 has higher CO emissions, by a factor between 2 and 5, than all other inventories assessed in this study. Trends over the past 2 decades are examined for different regions around the globe, showing that global CO biomass burning emissions have, on the whole, decreased (by 5.1 to 8.7 Mt(CO) yr −1 ), where some regions experience increased and others decreased emissions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".