The Influence of Australian Bushfire on the Upper Tropospheric CO and Hydrocarbon Distribution in the South Pacific
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine the long-term effect of Australian bushfires on the upper tropospheric composition in the South Pacific, we investigated the variation in CO and hydrocarbon species in the South Pacific according to the extent of Australian bushfires (2004–2020). We conducted analyses using satellite data on hydrocarbon and CO from the Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment Fourier Transform Spectrometer (ACE-FTS), and on fire (fire count, burned area, and fire radiative power) from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS). Additionally, we compared the effects of bushfires between Northern and Southeastern Australia (N_Aus and SE_Aus, respectively). Our analyses show that Australian bushfires in austral spring (September to November) result in the largest increase in CO and hydrocarbon species in the South Pacific and even in the west of South America, indicating the trans-Pacific transport of smoke plumes. In addition to HCN (a well-known wildfire indicator), CO and other hydrocarbon species (C2H2, C2H6, CH3OH, HCOOH) are also considerably increased by Australian bushfires. A unique finding in this study is that the hydrocarbon increase in the South Pacific mostly relates to the bushfires in N_Aus, implying that we need to be more vigilant of bushfires in N_Aus, although the severe Australian bushfire in 2019–2020 occurred in SE_Aus. Due to the surface conditions in springtime, bushfires on grassland in N_Aus during this time account for most Australian bushfires. All results show that satellite data enables us to assess the long-term effect of bushfires on the air composition over remote areas not having surface monitoring platforms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".