Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 186

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Description and Verification of the NOAA Smoke Forecasting System: The 2007 Fire Season

Rolph, Glenn D., Draxler, Roland R., Stein, Ariel F., Taylor, Albion, Ruminski, Mark G., Kondragunta, Shobha, Zeng, Jian, Huang, Ho-Chun, Manikin, Geoffrey, McQueen, Jeffery T., Davidson, Paula M.·2009·Weather and Forecasting

Abstract

An overview of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) current operational Smoke Forecasting System (SFS) is presented. This system is intended as guidance to air quality forecasters and the public for fine particulate matter (≤2.5 μm) emitted from large wildfires and agricultural burning, which can elevate particulate concentrations to unhealthful levels. The SFS uses National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) Hazard Mapping System (HMS), which is based on satellite imagery, to establish the locations and extents of the fires. The particulate matter emission rate is computed using the emission processing portion of the U.S. Forest Service’s BlueSky Framework, which includes a fuel-type database, as well as consumption and emissions models. The Hybrid Single Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory (HYSPLIT) model is used to calculate the transport, dispersion, and deposition of the emitted particulate matter. The model evaluation is carried out by comparing predicted smoke levels with actual smoke detected from satellites by the HMS and the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) Aerosol/Smoke Product. This overlap is expressed as the figure of merit in space (FMS), the intersection over the union of the observed and calculated smoke plumes. Results are presented for the 2007 fire season (September 2006–November 2007). While the highest FMS scores for individual events approach 60%, average values for the 1 and 5 μg m−3 contours for the analysis period were 8.3% and 11.6%, respectively. FMS scores for the forecast period were lower by about 25% due, in part, to the inability to forecast new fires. The HMS plumes tend to be smaller than the corresponding predictions during the winter months, suggesting that excessive emissions predicted for the smaller fires resulted in an overprediction in the smoke area.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1175/2008waf2222165.1

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 186

Metadata

Authors
Rolph, G. D., Draxler, R. R., Stein, A. F., Taylor, A., Ruminski, M. G., Kondragunta, S., Zeng, J., Huang, H.-C., Manikin, G., McQueen, J. T., & Davidson, P. M.
Venue
Weather and Forecasting
Published
2009-04-01
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
361-378
ISSN
  • 0882-8156 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-0434
OpenAlex
W2121373541
Cited by
186
References
0
FWCI
1.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Description and Verification of the NOAA Smoke Forecasting System: The 2007 Fire Season. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1175/2008waf2222165.1
The paper
Rolph, G. D., Draxler, R. R., Stein, A. F., Taylor, A., Ruminski, M. G., Kondragunta, S., Zeng, J., Huang, H.-C., Manikin, G., McQueen, J. T., & Davidson, P. M. (2009). Description and Verification of the NOAA Smoke Forecasting System: The 2007 Fire Season. Weather and Forecasting. https://doi.org/10.1175/2008waf2222165.1

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.