Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 323

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 109 of the 109 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Exploiting simultaneous observational constraints on mass and absorption to estimate the global direct radiative forcing of black carbon and brown carbon

Open access
Wang, X., Heald, C. L., Ridley, D. A., Schwarz, J. P., Spackman, J. R., Perring, A. E., Coe, H., Liu, D., Clarke, A. D.·2014·Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

Abstract

Abstract. Atmospheric black carbon (BC) is a leading climate warming agent, yet uncertainties on the global direct radiative forcing (DRF) remain large. Here we expand a global model simulation (GEOS-Chem) of BC to include the absorption enhancement associated with BC coating and separately treat both the aging and physical properties of fossil-fuel and biomass-burning BC. In addition we develop a global simulation of brown carbon (BrC) from both secondary (aromatic) and primary (biomass burning and biofuel) sources. The global mean lifetime of BC in this simulation (4.4 days) is substantially lower compared to the AeroCom I model means (7.3 days), and as a result, this model captures both the mass concentrations measured in near-source airborne field campaigns (ARCTAS, EUCAARI) and surface sites within 30%, and in remote regions (HIPPO) within a factor of 2. We show that the new BC optical properties together with the inclusion of BrC reduces the model bias in absorption aerosol optical depth (AAOD) at multiple wavelengths by more than 50% at AERONET sites worldwide. However our improved model still underestimates AAOD by a factor of 1.4 to 2.8 regionally, with the largest underestimates in regions influenced by fire. Using the RRTMG model integrated with GEOS-Chem we estimate that the all-sky top-of-atmosphere DRF of BC is +0.13 Wm−2 (0.08 Wm−2 from anthropogenic sources and 0.05 Wm−2 from biomass burning). If we scale our model to match AERONET AAOD observations we estimate the DRF of BC is +0.21 Wm−2, with an additional +0.11 Wm−2 of warming from BrC. Uncertainties in size, optical properties, observations, and emissions suggest an overall uncertainty in BC DRF of −80%/+140%. Our estimates are at the lower end of the 0.2–1.0 Wm−2 range from previous studies, and substantially less than the +0.6 Wm−2 DRF estimated in the IPCC 5th Assessment Report. We suggest that the DRF of BC has previously been overestimated due to the overestimation of the BC lifetime (including the effect on the vertical profile) and the incorrect attribution of BrC absorption to BC.

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 · 10.5194/acp-14-10989-2014

Cites

109 of 109 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 109 references

Cited by

See all 323

Metadata

Authors
Wang, X., Heald, C. L., Ridley, D. A., Schwarz, J. P., Spackman, J. R., Perring, A. E., Coe, H., Liu, D., & Clarke, A. D.
Venue
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Published
2014-10-20
Volume
14
Issue
20
Pages
10989-11010
ISSN
  • 1680-7316 (ISSN-L)
  • 1680-7324
OpenAlex
W2144077151
Cited by
323
References
109
FWCI
11.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Exploiting simultaneous observational constraints on mass and absorption to estimate the global direct radiative forcing of black carbon and brown carbon. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5194/acp-14-10989-2014
The paper
Wang, X., Heald, C. L., Ridley, D. A., Schwarz, J. P., Spackman, J. R., Perring, A. E., Coe, H., Liu, D., & Clarke, A. D. (2014). Exploiting simultaneous observational constraints on mass and absorption to estimate the global direct radiative forcing of black carbon and brown carbon. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-10989-2014

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.