<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/nlm-dtd/publishing/3.0/journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0" article-type="research-article"><?xmltex \bartext{Research article}?>
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">ACP</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">ACP</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Atmos. Chem. Phys.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1680-7324</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/acp-23-12557-2023</article-id><title-group><article-title>Short- and long-term stratospheric impact of smoke <?xmltex \hack{\break}?>from the 2019–2020
Australian wildfires</article-title><alt-title>Short- and long-term stratospheric impact</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Short- and long-term stratospheric impact}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{J.~Friberg et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes">
          <name><surname>Friberg</surname><given-names>Johan</given-names></name>
          <email>johan.friberg@nuclear.lu.se</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7971-4967</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no">
          <name><surname>Martinsson</surname><given-names>Bengt G.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2230-5932</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no">
          <name><surname>Sporre</surname><given-names>Moa K.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9240-5114</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><institution>Department of Physics, Lund University, Lund, 22100, Sweden</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Johan Friberg (johan.friberg@nuclear.lu.se)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>9</day><month>October</month><year>2023</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>23</volume>
      <issue>19</issue>
      <fpage>12557</fpage><lpage>12570</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>16</day><month>February</month><year>2023</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>21</day><month>February</month><year>2023</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>15</day><month>August</month><year>2023</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>22</day><month>August</month><year>2023</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2023 </copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2023</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.html">This article is available from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>

      <p id="d1e98">At the end of December 2019 and beginning of 2020,
massive firestorms in Australia formed pyrocumulonimbus clouds (pyroCbs) that
acted like enormous smokestacks, pumping smoke to the upper troposphere and
stratosphere. We study the smoke with data from four satellite-based
sensors: the aerosol observation platforms CALIOP (Cloud-Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization), OMPS-LP (Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite Limb Profiler), and OMPS-NM (Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite Nadir Mapper) and
water vapor retrievals from MLS (Microwave Limb Sounder). Smoke was lofted to the upper troposphere
and stratosphere during two events and spread almost exclusively within the
extratropics. Smoke from the first event, starting 29 December, was injected
directly into the stratosphere by pyroCbs, causing a rapid initial increase
in AOD (aerosol optical depth). CALIOP identifies a rapid decline in this stratospheric smoke
(half-life: 10 d), not captured in previous studies of the Australian
fires, indicating photochemical processing of organic aerosol. This decay
rate is in line with model predictions of mid-tropospheric organic aerosol
loss by photolytic removal and is in agreement with our estimates of decay
rates after the North American fires in August 2017. PyroCbs from the second
event, 4 January, injected small amounts of smoke directly into the
stratosphere. Large amounts of smoke were injected to the upper troposphere,
from where it ascended into the stratosphere during several weeks, forming a
second peak in the aerosol load. Hence, we find that pyroCbs can impact the
stratospheric aerosol load both via direct injection to the stratosphere
and through injection of smoke to the upper troposphere from where the smoke
ascends into the stratosphere. The stratospheric AOD from the second-event
fires decreased more slowly than the AOD from the first event, likely due to a
combination of photolytic loss starting already in the troposphere and
continued supply of smoke from the upper troposphere offsetting the loss
rate. Together these injections yielded a major increase in the aerosol load
for almost 1 year.</p>
  </abstract>
    
<funding-group>
<award-group id="gs1">
<funding-source>Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas</funding-source>
<award-id>2018-00973</award-id>
<award-id>2020-00997</award-id>
</award-group>
<award-group id="gs2">
<funding-source>Swedish National Space Agency</funding-source>
<award-id>2022-00157</award-id>
</award-group>
</funding-group>
</article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e110">The stratospheric aerosol scatters and absorbs solar radiation, cooling
Earth's surface. Submicron particles can remain suspended for months or
years in the stratosphere owing to their low settling rates, lack of
precipitation in the stratosphere, and stratospheric transport patterns
(Kremser et al., 2016). They follow the airstream and are removed from the
stratosphere mainly in the mid-latitudes and polar regions.</p>
      <p id="d1e113">The Brewer–Dobson (BD) circulation moves air from the tropics to the extratropics,
where it descends into the lowermost stratosphere (LMS) and eventually to
the upper troposphere. Residence times are years in its deep branch and
months in its shallow branch and LMS. These three layers hold <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> each of
the global stratospheric aerosol load in periods of stratospheric background
conditions (Andersson et al., 2015; Friberg et al., 2018). Variability in
the stratospheric aerosol load is driven mainly by volcanic injections of
particle-forming SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (Kremser et al., 2016; Solomon et al., 2011), but
wildfires have been shown to contribute substantially in recent years
(Peterson et al., 2021).</p>
      <p id="d1e137">Wildfires can form so-called pyrocumulonimbus clouds (pyroCbs) that act as
giant smokestacks, injecting smoke to high altitudes. This phenomenon was
revealed already more than 20 years ago, as some stratospheric aerosol
layers could<?pagebreak page12558?> not be connected to volcanism (Fromm et al., 2000;
Fromm and Servranckx, 2003). There have been many observations of
stratospheric wildfire smoke since then, but its impact on the stratospheric
aerosol load and climate has been considered low compared to volcanism
(Kremser et al., 2016; Thomason et al., 2018; Vernier et al., 2011).
However, recently two massive events have turned the attention to wildfire
smoke.</p>
      <p id="d1e140">Massive fires in western North America in August 2017 formed pyroCbs that had
a remarkable impact on the stratospheric aerosol load and were the largest
occurrence in the satellite records (Khaykin et al., 2018; Peterson et
al., 2018). Dense smoke layers rose to more than 23 km altitude due to
radiation heating of the BC-rich (black carbon) aerosol (Yu et al., 2019).
The smoke properties were investigated (Das et al., 2021; Haarig et al.,
2018; Martinsson et al., 2022), and its impact on the stratospheric aerosol
load just after the fires was estimated to be similar to recent volcanic
eruptions (Peterson et al., 2018).</p>
      <p id="d1e144">A similar event was observed during the gigantic fires in eastern Australia
in 2019–2020 (Kablick et al., 2020; Khaykin et al., 2020). The austral
spring and summer of 2019–2020 were exceptionally hot and dry, and the fire
season started earlier than normally. It was unprecedented both in the number and size of
fires, and more than 20 % of the Australian temperate forest was
lost (Abram et al., 2021; Boer et al., 2020). Smoke spread over most of
eastern Australia. A total of 20 pyroCbs injected smoke to the stratosphere during two
events, 29–31 December and 4 January (Peterson et al., 2021). Light absorption of the
BC-containing aerosol resulted in three vortex-like structures in the
stratosphere (Kablick et al., 2020; Khaykin et al., 2020; Lestrelin et
al., 2021; Peterson et al., 2021). Smoke layers were seen deep into the
stratosphere in the beginning of January, and one of them rose to more than
35 km altitude by radiation heating (Khaykin et al., 2020).</p>
      <p id="d1e147">Most smoke encounters in the stratosphere have been explained through upward
transport by pyrocumulonimbus clouds, but studies in recent years suggest
that further transport mechanisms cause cross-tropopause transport of smoke.
The North American wildfires in August 2017 showed that self-lofting by
radiative heating of the dense smoke layers caused smoke to rise from the
tropopause into the LMS (e.g., Khaykin et al., 2018; Peterson et al., 2018).
Ohneiser et al. (2021) suggested self-lofting of smoke from the
mid-troposphere as a cause of extensive aerosol layers in the Arctic
stratosphere at the end of 2019 and beginning of 2020. Whether those aerosol
layers consisted of sulfate or sulfate-covered smoke particles is under
debate (Boone et al., 2022; Knepp et al., 2022). Most recently, Ohneiser et
al. (2023) computed heating and lofting rates for light-absorbing smoke
layers throughout the troposphere and the lower stratosphere. Their studies
indicate that smoke layers can rise from the upper troposphere (UT) to the stratosphere via
radiation heating. Also, convection downwind fires and isentropic
cross-tropopause transport have been suggested as causes of the large
amount of stratospheric smoke after the Australian fires covered in our work
(Hirsch and Koren, 2021; Magaritz-Ronen and Raveh-Rubin, 2021).</p>
      <p id="d1e150">Recent findings show that 80 %–90 % of the stratospheric smoke AOD (aerosol optical depth) after the
2017 North American fires was lost in the first few months after injection,
indicating photochemical processing of organics in the smoke (Martinsson et
al., 2022), whereas the remaining aerosol stayed in the stratosphere for a
year (Martinsson et al., 2022). We present, for the first time, evidence
that this phenomenon occurred also in the Australian wildfire smoke layers.
Furthermore, we find that part of the smoke lingered in the troposphere for
more than 1 week while gradually entering the stratosphere.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Aerosol data</title>
      <p id="d1e168">The smoke was observed using lidar data from the NASA satellite-borne CALIOP
(Cloud-Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization) instrument. We used the latest version of the rawest product available
(v4.10, level 1B). Backscattering coefficients were computed by correcting
for light attenuation by air molecules (including ozone absorption) and for
particles in the stratosphere. The molecular part was estimated using
modeling data of the ozone and air densities provided in the CALIOP files
compiled by the NASA Langley Research Center (Friberg et al., 2018). The
wildfire smoke is optically dense and strongly attenuated the lidar signals.
The particle light attenuation was computed from the lidar signals
themselves in an iterative approach explained in Martinsson et al. (2022).
This procedure retrieves also the extinction-to-backscattering ratio, the
so-called lidar ratio, used to compute aerosol extinction coefficients from
the CALIOP lidar backscattering data. CALIOP has a polarization filter,
separating backscattered light into parallel and perpendicular polarization.
The ratio of the two forms the volume depolarization ratios used for ice
cloud screening of the entire dataset. The volume depolarization ratio
describes the properties of the complete volume of air, i.e., the aerosol
particles together with the air. To study the temporal evolution of the
smoke particles, we also compiled the particle depolarization
ratios for individual smoke layers (Martinsson et al., 2022), which
describe the properties of the particles themselves.</p>
      <p id="d1e171">Ice clouds were removed in the lowest 3 km of the stratosphere.
CALIOP data were averaged to 8 km horizontal resolution, and volume
depolarization ratios above 0.20 were classified as clouds. The process is
described in more detail in Martinsson et al. (2022).</p>
      <p id="d1e174">Further aerosol data were compiled from the limb-scatter-observing instrument
OMPS-LP (Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite Limb Profiler). We used level 2.0
version 5.10 light extinction data (Suomi-NPP OMPS LP L2 AER Daily<?pagebreak page12559?> Product,
version 2.0, Taha et al., 2021) of two wavelengths (745 and 997 nm). The
OMPS-LP wavelength (510 nm), most similar to the CALIOP wavelength (532 nm),
and used in Martinsson et al. (2022), is unfortunately not reliable in the
Southern Hemisphere (Taha et al., 2021). Data were filtered to minimize
influence of ice-clouds and polar stratospheric clouds, and flags were used
to prevent influence from erroneous data. A detailed description on this
approach can be found in Martinsson et al. (2022).</p>
      <p id="d1e177">Stratospheric AODs were computed by integration of the aerosol extinction
coefficients from the tropopause to 35 km altitude, as well as in selected
layers of the stratosphere, where the LMS was defined as the layer between
the tropopause and the 380 K isentrope. Tropopause heights from the MERRA-2 (Modern-Era Retrospective analysis for Research and Applications)
reanalysis were retrieved from the CALIOP and OMPS-LP files provided by
NASA.</p>
      <p id="d1e181">The UV aerosol index (UVAI) level 3 data (v2.1) from OMPS-NM (Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite Nadir Mapper) were used to
track horizontal smoke transport. The data product is compiled from
observations at 379 and 340 nm (Torres, 2019). It indicates presence of
UV-absorbing aerosol particles and increases with altitude, making it well
suited for tracking BC-containing wildfire smoke in the UT and stratosphere.
Data were screened based on NASA recommendations on data usage
(<uri>https://ozoneaq.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/NMTO3-L3_Product_Descriptions.pdf</uri>, last access: 6 October 2022). Horizontal UVAI distributions were
combined with vertical information from CALIOP to identify smoke transport
to the upper troposphere and stratosphere from different fire events.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Identifying smoke from different events</title>
      <p id="d1e195">Smoke from the different fire events was identified based on daily maps over
the UVAI, stratospheric wind directions, and altitude distributions from
CALIOP curtains. We tracked the motion day to day of the central parts of
the fire events (p. 1 in the Supplement), and used the information to classify the individual
smoke layers described above. OMPS-NM shows two separate major events of
increased ultra-violet (UV) aerosol index from the 2019–2020 Australian
wildfires, first observed on 29 December and 4 January as described in Peterson et
al. (2021). Some days the two events overlapped horizontally. In such case
additional information on altitude from CALIOP was used, because the smoke
from the two main events on any given day differed markedly in altitude
(Supplement). We will elaborate more on this in the Results section.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e200">CALIOP curtains from early overpasses of the region affected by
the first fire event that started on 29 December 2019. Left panels show
attenuated backscattering, mid-panels show the volume depolarization ratios, and
right panels show the attenuated color ratios. Strong attenuation of the lidar
beam is indicated by the dark-blue colors below smoke layer, as well as
by the higher color ratios at the bottom of the smoke layers.
The following meteorological parameters are marked with lines: pressure levels (purple),
potential temperatures (white), temperatures (orange), and tropopause
heights (grey). See the Supplement for further curtain plots. Please note that the date format used in Figs. 1 and 2 is year month day (yy-mm-dd).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/23/12557/2023/acp-23-12557-2023-f01.jpg"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e209">The depolarization ratios for smoke from the second fire were clearly
lower than those for smoke from the first fire, as seen in Figs. 1 and
2, as well as in the Supplement (Figs. S2–S49. This difference remains for
more than 1 month, i.e., smoke layers from the second fire continues to
have lower depolarization ratios than smoke from the first fire. This particle
optical property verifies that we have classified the smoke successfully.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e215">Same as Fig. 1 but for smoke layers from the second fire
event (4 January 2020).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/23/12557/2023/acp-23-12557-2023-f02.jpg"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e224">CALIOP provides vertical distributions of aerosol and clouds. Besides the
attenuated backscattering provided as curtain plots, information on particle
morphology (depolarization ratio, where zero corresponds to spherical
particles) and particle size (color ratio, i.e., ratio in attenuated
backscattering of wavelength 1064 to 532 nm). Figures 1 and 2 show these
three CALIOP features over the regions with increased UVAI from the first
days after the first and second fire event, respectively. Non-cloud features can
be identified by strong backscattering signal in connection with
depolarization ratios less than approximately 0.2 and color ratios well
below 1. For an example see the observation on 3 January 2020 at 10:07 UTC
(Fig. 1n–p), where a thin smoke layer in the tropopause region resides
over deep cloud layers. In optically thick smoke layers, there is a shift in
color ratio from a low value at the top to significantly higher values lower
down in the smoke layer. These increased values deep into the layers are
artifacts caused by stronger attenuation for the shorter wavelength. The
signal from the layers closest to the satellite (at the layer top) is less
affected by attenuation, whereas deeper into the layer the shortwave signal
(532 nm) becomes attenuated more than the longwave one (1064 nm) (Martinsson
et al., 2022).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Water vapor observations</title>
      <p id="d1e235">Satellite observations of water vapor from the Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS)
aboard the Aura satellite was used together with aerosol data. We use the
level 2 nighttime data version 5.0-1.0a data of individual smoke layers.
Data are provided at 12 levels per decade change as pressures of 1000–1 hPa. Low-altitude data were excluded to reduce impact of the strong gradient
in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mixing ratio across the tropopause. The highest peak pressure was 73 hPa (average of 38 hPa), which is lower than reported in our recent study
(Martinsson et al., 2022) due to the higher altitude of the tropopause caused by the
lower latitudes in the present study.</p>
      <p id="d1e251">MLS data were used in comparison with CALIOP data. A shift down of CALIPSO
orbit in September 2018 to the CloudSat level caused a variable horizontal
distance between CALIOP aerosol and MLS <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> observations. Measurements with
horizontal distances less than 330 km (average 180 km) were used, which led
to periodical loss of data. The data were screened using recommendations by
the MLS team (Livesey et al., 2022).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e269">Latitudinal and vertical distribution of smoke in December 2019–March 2020. CALIOP zonal mean aerosol backscattering coefficients during
the first 3 months after, as well as 1 month before, the first
stratospheric injection. This parameter can be viewed as an optical version
of aerosol concentration.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/23/12557/2023/acp-23-12557-2023-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e281">Latitude and time distribution of the stratospheric
aerosol load. Aerosol optical depth (AOD) in three stratospheric layers and
in all layers combined. The <bold>(a)</bold> upper layer and <bold>(b)</bold> mid-layer are the deep and
shallow branches of Brewer–Dobson circulation, and the <bold>(c)</bold> lowest layer is
the lowermost stratosphere. The orange dot shows the approximate latitude
and the time of the first fire.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=199.169291pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/23/12557/2023/acp-23-12557-2023-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page12560?><sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Results and discussions</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Smoke distribution in the stratosphere</title>
      <p id="d1e317">The CALIOP satellite instrument observed a dense smoke layer at 11–16 km
altitude located around the tropopause over the Tasman Sea (Fig. 1a–d),
causing a clear increase in the aerosol load in the LMS and shallow BD branch
already on New Year's Eve (Fig. 4). Large amounts of smoke were observed
in the following days. Strong smoke signals were seen spread within the
stratosphere of the southern mid-latitudes in the beginning of January (Figs. 3c
and 4b–d) and continued to be strong during the rest of the month.</p>
      <p id="d1e320">The aerosol load was low in the southern extratropical stratosphere before
the smoke injection by the Australian fires (Fig. 3a). Volcanic
perturbations were present at 20 km altitude in the tropics and in the
northern extratropics. These stem from eruptions in June and August 2019 by
the volcanic eruptions of Ulawun and Raikoke (Kloss et al., 2021), which had
a low impact on the southern extratropics. In fact, the stratospheric aerosol
load was lower in the southern extratropics than anywhere else.</p>
      <p id="d1e323">The smoke spread latitudinally, almost exclusively to the south (Fig. 3).
Figure 4 illustrates the AOD in three stratospheric layers. Most of the
smoke stayed below the 470 K isentrope (the two lowest layers, Fig. 4b–c),
but a minor part of the smoke rose by radiation heating to the layer with
the deep BD branch (Fig. 4a), where it continued to rise. A clear AOD
increase was evident in the southern mid-latitudes and high latitudes persisting
throughout 2020.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e329">Wildfire impact on the stratospheric aerosol load in the
southern extratropics. <bold>(a)</bold> The aerosol optical depth (AOD) from CALIOP in
2013–2020 divided into 2-year steps, illustrating the impact of the
Australian wildfires in 2019–2020, together with that from the Calbuco
eruption in 2015–2016, and background levels from 2013–2014 and 2017–2018. <bold>(b)</bold> The stratospheric AOD from CALIOP during December 2019–July 2020 separated into the
three layers used in Fig. 4. Lines mark 8 d smoothed AOD data, and
symbols are daily means of the LMS (yellow), the shallow (brown) and upper
(pink) BD branches, and the total (TOT) stratospheric AOD (grey).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=384.112205pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/23/12557/2023/acp-23-12557-2023-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e347">Wildfire and volcanic impact on aerosol optical depths and
radiative forcing. The 1-year AOD increase in the extratropics
(20–80<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N/S) after the largest volcanic eruptions and wildfires
since 2006 compared to the Australian wildfires.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Date</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col2" nameend="col3" align="center">Location </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Event name</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1-year AOD increase</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1-year AOD increase</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Lat.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Long.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(CALIOP)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">(CALIOP) w.r.t. Aus. fires</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">7 August 2008</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">52<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">176<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Kasatochi</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.0059</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">63 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">12 June 2009</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">48<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">153<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Sarychev</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.0090</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">97 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">12 June 2011</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">13<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">42<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Nabro</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.0057</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">61 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">23 April 2015</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">41<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">73<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Calbuco</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.0080</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">86 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">12 August 2017</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">49<inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">120–125<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">N. Am. fires</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.0027</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">29 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">22 June 2019</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">48<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">153<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Raikoke</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.0104</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">110 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">29 December 2019–4 January 2020</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">34–38<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">147–151<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Aus. fires <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.0093</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">–</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><?xmltex \gdef\@currentlabel{1}?></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Wildfire smoke compared to volcanism</title>
      <p id="d1e711">We find that the injected wildfire smoke increased the stratospheric aerosol
load by volcanic proportions (Fig. 5a). The fires induced an AOD increase of more than 3 times higher in its first year than the North American fires in
2017 did and slightly higher than the Calbuco eruption in 2015 (Table 1).
That eruption yielded the largest volcanic impact in the Southern Hemisphere
since the Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991 (Friberg et al., 2018; Martinsson
et al., 2022; Rieger et al., 2015; Thomason et al., 2018). The impact of the
Australian fires was only matched in size by the large eruptions<?pagebreak page12561?> of Sarychev
(2009) and Raikoke (2019), which both occurred in the Northern Hemisphere
(Table 1).</p>
      <p id="d1e714">Stratospheric background aerosol consists mainly of sulfurous and
carbonaceous compounds (Martinsson et al., 2019). Volcanic aerosol contains
large amounts of sulfurous, carbonaceous and crustal components (Andersson
et al., 2013; Friberg et al., 2014; Martinsson et al., 2009), whereas smoke
mainly consists of organic compounds and BC (Garofalo et al., 2019). The
smoke had a rather different impact on the stratospheric aerosol load than
the volcanic particles from the Calbuco eruption (Fig. 5a). The rise
in AOD for several months after the volcanic injection stems from
prolonged particle formation from volcanic SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and particle growth.
Conversely, wildfire smoke particles are mixtures of primary BC particles
and organics that form within hours or days, explaining the initial rapid
rise in the AOD after the fires. In the<?pagebreak page12562?> CALIOP data, a second peak in AOD
arose a few weeks after the first. We will elaborate more on this unexpected
feature in the following sections.</p>
      <p id="d1e726">The AOD evolution showed similar patterns in the two lower layers (Fig. 5b). The first peak in AOD is seen early both in the mid-layer and lowest layer
similar to our observations of smoke from the North American fires
(Martinsson et al., 2022). The upper layer shows a slow rise in AOD, due to
the time required for smoke to rise from the mid-layer. This rise was also
observed by the limb-scattering instrument OMPS-LP (Khaykin et al., 2020). However, that AOD increase constitutes only a small portion of the total
stratospheric AOD from the fires (Fig. 5b).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e732">Wildfire impact on stratospheric AODs at three wavelengths
in the southern extratropics from CALIOP and OMPS-LP. The stratospheric
column above the 380 K isentrope at 20–80<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=184.942913pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/23/12557/2023/acp-23-12557-2023-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e750">The rapid rise in AOD after the fires is not seen in the OMPS-LP data
(Fig. 6). CALIOP data reveal that the smoke had twice the peak increase
over the background in AOD as the eruption of Calbuco did. Studies based on
OMPS-LP data (Khaykin et al., 2020) report almost indistinguishable peak
impact on the AOD from these two events. The OMPS-LP AODs after the fires
increased much more slowly than for CALIOP and did not capture the first
peak in the AOD in Fig. 5a. This discrepancy is explained by differences
in observation systems. OMPS-LP suffers from event termination already at
low light extinction, which inhibits quantification of dense aerosol layers
such as fresh wildfire smoke (Fromm et al., 2014; Lurton et al., 2018;
Martinsson et al., 2022). The line of sight is orders of magnitude longer
for the limb viewer OMPS-LP than for the nadir viewer CALIOP, causing the
difficulty of observing dense aerosol layers (Martinsson et al., 2022).
Hence, CALIOP suffers less from light attenuation, and the data can be
corrected for light attenuation from the smoke particles, enabling us to
compute the AOD of also the densest smoke layers (Martinsson et al., 2022).
After 1–2 months the limb viewer problem with event termination is
reduced, making a comparison of the different instruments feasible. The
evolution in stratospheric AOD for the two instruments are compared in
Fig. 6, illustrating the slower rise for OMPS-LP. As pointed out in the
Methods section, the OMPS-LP wavelength closest to CALIOP is not useful in
the Southern Hemisphere (Taha et al., 2021). The light at longer wavelengths
(OMPS-LP) is scattered less than at shorter wavelengths (CALIOP), resulting in lower
AODs<?pagebreak page12563?> for OMPS-LP. Similarly slow rise in the AOD from OMPS-LP was shown for
smoke from the 2017 North American fires (Martinsson et al., 2022). Our
present study shows another example of when space-borne lidar is required
for quantification of the stratospheric AOD when dense aerosol layers are
present.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e755">The smoke transport and smoke particle evolution in the
stratosphere. <bold>(a)</bold> Geographical transport of the smoke from the two injection
events. <bold>(b)</bold> Ascension of the smoke layers and <bold>(c)</bold> temporal evolution of the
particle depolarization ratios for the two injection events. All data taken
on individual smoke layers in the stratosphere. Circles mark data taken in
the dense, isolated smoke layer from the first-event fires, diamonds are other
data from the first fire, and triangles mark smoke data from the second-event fires.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/23/12557/2023/acp-23-12557-2023-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><title>Stratospheric smoke from two events</title>
      <p id="d1e781">We find that smoke was transported to the stratosphere from two fire events,
by tracking smoke back to fires in eastern Australia, combining CALIOP with
OMPS-NM (Fig. S1). The first-event pyroCbs started on 29 December (Peterson
et al., 2021), and the first CALIOP observations were 2 d later, on New
Year's Eve. Those injections positioned smoke directly around the
tropopause, i.e., partly in the stratosphere (Fig. 1a–d). One large, dense
smoke layer was transported east from the fire region and was stuck for
weeks over the southeastern Pacific (Figs. 7a and S1), where it formed a
vortex, isolating it from mixing with surrounding air (Kablick et al., 2020;
Khaykin et al., 2020). The isolation made it easier to track this smoke.
We find that the large, dense smoke layer rose by a mean velocity of 260 m d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for the first 50 d after the pyroCb injections (Fig. 7b),
similar to previously reported figures (Khaykin et al., 2020).</p>
      <p id="d1e796">We also identified several other smoke layers from the first event located at
lower-stratospheric altitude and not connected to the large, dense smoke
layer (Fig. S1). Horizontally, these were transported more rapidly and
could not be tracked during as many days due to mixing with the surrounding
air.</p>
      <p id="d1e799">The second fire event occurred on 4 January, but smoke from this event
showed only little immediate stratospheric influence (Figs. 2, S8–S16).
Also Peterson et al. (2021) reported much larger stratospheric impact from
the first fire, based on studies of the fires' immediate impact (2021).
Ten days after the pyroCb formations we start to see more stratospheric
influence (Fig. 7). CALIOP images reveal the addition of large, dense smoke
layers to the upper troposphere after 4 January (Fig. 2). We studied the
temporal evolution of the smoke layers' position relative to the
tropopause (Fig. 11). The smoke layers are clearly located below the
tropopause in the first days after the second fire with minor
overshooting parts (e.g., Fig. 2f and j). Over time, more and more smoke
appears in the stratosphere. Hence, the smoke was transported gradually
across the tropopause in the weeks following the fire injections to the
upper troposphere. We kept following this smoke in the stratosphere for 20 d. Interestingly, it rose at approximately the same rate as the large,
isolated smoke layer from the first event, 250 m d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 7b).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <label>3.4</label><title>Transformation of smoke</title>
      <p id="d1e822">By studying individual smoke layers, we find evidence of morphological
transformation of the smoke particles during the first month after pyroCb
injections. The CALIOP instrument is depolarization sensitive. Non-spherical
particles depolarize the scattered light, increasing the depolarized signal
retrieved by the sensor. We find a steady increase in the particle
depolarization ratio in stratospheric smoke from both the first and second event
(Fig. 7c). The trend lasts more than 30 d in the isolated layer from
the first event, after which the particle depolarization ratio becomes stable
at a value of 0.15. A similar trend was observed in the weeks following the
August 2017 fires in western North America (Martinsson et al., 2022),
whereas the opposite trend was observed when comparing fresh smoke with aged
smoke well mixed with the background aerosol (Baars et al., 2019). The
depolarization ratio of the aerosol from the second event deviates clearly from
that of the first event by being much lower. We will discuss this difference
further in a section below.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page12564?><sec id="Ch1.S3.SS5">
  <label>3.5</label><title>Separating data from the two events</title>
      <p id="d1e835">To study the individual stratospheric impact of the two events, we need to
separate data into two groups. Peterson et al. (2021) reported that pyroCbs
reached the stratosphere mainly during the first-event fires and to a lesser
extent during the second event. Figure 1 shows that smoke from the first event
reached the stratosphere shortly after the fires, whereas large amounts of
smoke from the second event reached the upper troposphere (Fig. 2). We do not
see evidence of large direct smoke injection to the stratosphere from the
second-event fires in the CALIOP data, neither in the nighttime nor in the
daytime data. Hence, most of the immediate stratospheric impact stems from
the first event.</p>
      <p id="d1e838">Smoke from the first event rose markedly in the stratosphere before smoke from
the second event entered the stratosphere (Figs. 7b and 8a–c). Also their
depolarization ratios differed markedly (Fig. 7c and Supplement). Clear
differences between the first and second injection events are evident in the
time–altitude distributions (Fig. 8) of the extinction coefficients,
scattering ratios, and depolarization ratios, remaining over the course of
more than 2 months. These parameters all show rising smoke in the weeks
after the first event with particle depolarization ratios that increase over
time (Fig. 8c). In mid-January, smoke with lower depolarization ratios
started to ascend into the stratosphere (Fig. 7c), connecting the smoke
below the minimum in Fig. 8c to the second event that ascended later into the
stratosphere. The minimum in Fig. 8, occurring in between the smoke
occurrences from the two injection events, illustrates the impact from a
rapid stratospheric injection from mainly the first fire event and slow
transport of smoke to the stratosphere from the second event. We use this
minimum to separate smoke data from the two fires (dashed lines in Fig. 8)
to form the AOD of the two events and investigate their individual impact on
the stratospheric AOD.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS6">
  <label>3.6</label><title>Evolution of the smoke</title>
      <p id="d1e849">The smoke AOD from the first event decreased rapidly over the first weeks,
followed by a slow decrease until spring (Fig. 9a). A similarly rapid decline
in smoke AOD and increasing particle depolarization ratio was seen for
stratospheric smoke in our earlier study on the western North American
wildfires in August 2017 (Martinsson et al., 2022). We have considered
transport out of the stratosphere, sedimentation, cloud formation, and
hygroscopic growth/shrinkage as explanations for the decline and found that
the loss of material from the particles by photolysis is a plausible
explanation for the decline (Martinsson et al., 2022). The long residence
time due to the practically absent wet deposition in the stratosphere makes
the effects of photolysis simpler to study compared with the troposphere.
The importance of photolysis as a removal mechanism of organic aerosol is
also supported by studies of photolysis in numerous laboratory<?pagebreak page12565?> experiments
(Molina et al., 2004; Sareen et al., 2013) and by modeling (Hodzic et al.,
2015; Zawadowicz et al., 2020).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e854">Separation of the smoke from the two events of the fires.
Stratospheric zonal mean (20–80<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S) <bold>(a)</bold> extinction coefficients,
<bold>(b)</bold>, scattering ratios (SRs), and <bold>(c)</bold> depolarization ratios where SR values are
higher than 5. The dashed and full lines represent the separation line of
smoke for the two fire events and the minimum altitude used to
compute the AODs for the two fire events. Please note that the date format used in Figs. 8, 10, and 11 is month day (mm/dd).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=184.942913pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/23/12557/2023/acp-23-12557-2023-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e881">The trend of decreasing stratospheric AOD after the first fire event together
with increasing particle depolarization ratio over time suggests that
photolytic loss depletes organic aerosol in the smoke. Thus, the BC fraction
in the smoke will increase over time and may eventually constitute most of
the smoke particles mass. We therefore interpret the morphological
transformation (depolarization ratio) and AOD decrease after the first event
as decay of organic aerosol in the stratosphere.</p>
      <p id="d1e885">The particle depolarization ratio is much lower for smoke from the second event
than from the first (Figs. 1, 2, 7c, and 8c). This difference may be
found in the history of these smoke layers. Depolarization ratios for
tropospheric smoke is lower than stratospheric (Haarig et al., 2018). The
low depolarization ratios for smoke from the second event indicate (chemical)
processing of the smoke in the troposphere. The presence of water in the smoke
particles can cause a collapse of the BC agglomerates to a more spherical
shape (Fan et al., 2016), which should result in lowering of the
depolarization ratios. This explains the low depolarization ratios for smoke
from the second-event fires, where smoke particles were exposed to the more
humid tropospheric conditions for 10 d or more before entering the
stratosphere. Different aging processes in the troposphere and stratosphere
could thus be the cause of differing particle depolarization ratios of smoke
from the two events, although differences in fire conditions cannot be ruled
out (Haarig et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2008).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9"><?xmltex \currentcnt{9}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 9</label><caption><p id="d1e890">Smoke decay in the stratosphere. <bold>(a)</bold> An 8 d running mean of
the background-subtracted stratospheric zonal mean AOD at 20–80<inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S
above 14 km altitude for the first and second events, respectively. <bold>(b)</bold> Daily means of background-subtracted AODs for the first event only and
<bold>(c)</bold> smoke data from individual smoke layers from the dense, isolated smoke
from the first event (scattering ratios, SRs, from CALIOP) normalized with
water vapor concentrations (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, from MLS). The exponential fits correspond
to a smoke half-life of <bold>(b)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <bold>(c)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> d.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=176.407087pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/23/12557/2023/acp-23-12557-2023-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS7">
  <label>3.7</label><title>Decay rate of smoke</title>
      <p id="d1e975">We present two estimates on the depletion rate of organics for smoke from
the first event. Our first estimate is computed directly from the zonal mean
smoke AOD (Fig. 9b), suggesting a smoke half-life of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> d.</p>
      <p id="d1e990">Our second estimate on the decay rate of the smoke from the first event is
based on the CALIOP observations of individual smoke layers marked as
circles in Fig. 7a. We normalized the smoke signal with the local water
vapor concentrations to investigate the evolution of the smoke layer
composition. Water data were derived from the satellite-borne<?pagebreak page12566?> microwave limb
sounder (MLS). MLS and CALIOP ran in different orbits during the smoke
observations, limiting the amount of collocated data to 10 occasions for
comparison, which were spread out in three groups over the first 50 d. We used an
exponential fit and computed a corresponding half-life of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> d
(Fig. 9c).</p>
      <p id="d1e1005">The two estimates of the decay rate (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> d)
presented here are identical to the half-life observed for the stratospheric
smoke after the 2017 North American fires (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> d; Martinsson et
al., 2022).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10"><?xmltex \currentcnt{10}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 10</label><caption><p id="d1e1047">Evolution of the UV aerosol index (UVAI) during the
first weeks after the fire events for <bold>(a)</bold> zonal means and <bold>(b)</bold> meridional
means. The locations and dates of the events are marked by orange dots. The
lower UVAI range in <bold>(a)</bold> stems from the method of area weighting data.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=184.942913pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/23/12557/2023/acp-23-12557-2023-f10.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS8">
  <label>3.8</label><title>Smoke transport into the stratosphere</title>
      <p id="d1e1073">Stratospheric smoke from the first event is shown on New Year's Eve (Fig. 1), 2 d after the first pyroCb formations from the event. Peterson et
al. (2021) coupled this transport to pyroCbs. Hirsch and Koren (2021) argued
that smoke injections to the stratosphere may have occurred in the first
week of January via cross-tropopause transport by convective clouds south of
the fire region (38<inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S), where the tropopause height is lower.
From the first event we do not see evidence of extensive cross-tropopause
transport beyond the initial pyroCb-caused smoke injections in the CALIOP
data (Fig. 8 and Supplement). Furthermore, the temporal evolution in the
UVAI (Fig. 10a) indicates that most of the smoke remained north of
40<inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S in the days following each fire event, when most of the UVAI
was generated.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11"><?xmltex \currentcnt{11}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 11</label><caption><p id="d1e1096">Ascension of second  event
smoke layers for <bold>(a)</bold> smoke layer position relative to the tropopause (TP)
and <bold>(b)</bold> smoke layer potential temperature. Circles mark the layer mid-points,
downward- and upward-pointing triangles mark the layer tops and bases, and
the grey solid line marks the tropopause. Data were retrieved from CALIOP
nighttime curtain plots (see Supplement for further details), where
layers with layer tops below 8 km were included in the graph. Dashed lines
show regression lines for layer tops (grey), mid-points (green), and bases
(yellow).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=199.169291pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/23/12557/2023/acp-23-12557-2023-f11.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1111">Magaritz-Ronen and Raveh-Rubin (2021) suggested that cyclones and
isentropic cross-tropopause transport caused smoke transport to the
stratosphere over the South Pacific Ocean in the first few days of January.
This is to some extent in agreement with the UVAI (Fig. 10), which
increased on 2–3 January at 140–180<inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W, 35–40<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, indicating
upwards transport of smoke. However, the depolarization ratios during the
first week of January do not indicate cloud formation connected to the smoke
layers. Furthermore, CALIOP observations show that large amounts of smoke
were present in the stratosphere several days before the suggested cyclonic
transport, indicating that pyroCbs were the primary cause of the direct
smoke transport to the stratosphere.</p>
      <p id="d1e1133">The second-event fires (4 January) positioned dense smoke layers in the mid-troposphere and
upper troposphere (Fig. 2). Figure 11 illustrates CALIOP observations of
an individual smoke layer's vertical position relative to the tropopause,
including layer tops, mid-points, and bases. These three parameters all show
a gradual transport of smoke from the troposphere to the stratosphere,
occurring over the course of 1–2 weeks. Such transport could be caused
either by self-lofting by radiation heating, by isentropic
cross-tropopause transport, or by a combination of the two phenomena. We
investigated potential self-lofting of smoke from the second event by
studying the potential temperature of the smoke layers at<?pagebreak page12567?> their top,
mid-point, and base (Fig. 11). The increasing potential temperature over
time indicates that they were subject to self-lofting by radiation heating,
thus following the rising trend in the stratosphere, as demonstrated in
Fig. 7b, also in the upper troposphere. The continued addition of smoke,
transported from the upper troposphere, most likely resulted in the second
peak in the AOD (Fig. 5). Hence, we explain the bimodality in AOD as the
combined effect of rapid decay of pyroCb-injected smoke, mostly from the first
event, and slower self-lofting of tropospheric smoke from the second event.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS9">
  <label>3.9</label><title>Long-term impact of smoke</title>
      <p id="d1e1144">The second AOD peak does not show as rapid of a decay as the first one (Fig. 9a), likely due to depletion of organics during its long residence in the
troposphere before the smoke from the second event entered the stratosphere.
The AOD evolution (Fig. 9a) suggests cross-tropopause transport over the
course of several weeks.</p>
      <p id="d1e1147">Our study indicates that smoke from the second event had a larger long-term
impact on the stratosphere compared with the first event. It constituted
80 %–90 % of the smoke signal 6 months after injection to the stratosphere
(Fig. 9a). Peterson et al. (2021) reported the opposite, namely that the
first event injected 2–8 times more smoke than the second event did. Their study
focused entirely on injections by pyroCbs. Our study indicates that
additional processes, acting on smoke layers deposited in the upper
troposphere by pyroCbs, were more important for the long-term stratospheric
aerosol load than the direct smoke injection by pyroCbs. This is in part
supported by Peterson et al. (2021), who reported more blowups and a larger
area burnt for the second event. Smoke from the second event was likely
already depleted by photolysis before entering the stratosphere and
therefore more resistant to depletion by photochemical processing. Hence,
the smoke from the second-event fires led to a more long-term impact on the
stratospheric AOD and more climate cooling.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>4</label><title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e1159">The Australian wildfires in December 2019–January 2020 caused the largest increase
in stratospheric aerosol load in the southern extratropics since the large
volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. The long-term stratospheric AOD
increase was more than 3 times that of the North American fires in August 2017, and since Mount Pinatubo it has only been matched by the Sarychev (2009) and Raikoke
(2019) eruptions.</p>
      <p id="d1e1162">The AOD showed a bimodal peak in the first weeks, likely caused by the
combined effect of multiple additions of smoke to the stratosphere together
with photolytic loss of organics in the smoke. Smoke was added to the
stratosphere from two events. The first event of the fires (starting 29 December)
formed pyroCbs that injected smoke directly into the stratosphere. PyroCbs
from the second event (4 January) injected less smoke to the stratosphere but
added large amounts of smoke to the upper troposphere. The stratospheric
aerosol load increased rapidly, forming the first peak 1.5 weeks
after the first pyroCb injections of smoke. The AOD then dropped rapidly,
likely due to aerosol depletion by photolytic loss. Upper-tropospheric smoke
from the second event was transported to the stratosphere gradually during the
course of 1–2 weeks, beginning more than a week after the fire, causing a
second peak in the AOD.</p>
      <?pagebreak page12568?><p id="d1e1165">We find evidence of photochemical depletion of organics in the smoke,
similar to our recent findings after the 2017 North American fires. The
half-life of smoke injected directly to the stratosphere was estimated from
the zonal mean AOD (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> d) as well as from compositional
observations (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> d). These estimates are almost identical to
our previous estimate of the smoke half-life from the North American fires
in 2017 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> d, Martinsson et al., 2022). This indicates that
organic depletion is a commonly occurring phenomenon in wildfire smoke.
Further, the rapid decay rate implies that photolytic loss is very important regarding the removal of organic aerosol in the atmosphere. The rapid
depletion of smoke from the first event leads to a small long-term impact on
the stratospheric aerosol load.</p>
      <p id="d1e1204">Smoke from the second event constituted most of the long-term impact on the
stratospheric aerosol load. This was also the stronger of the two events
according to the UVAI. Stratospheric smoke AOD from the second-event fires
decreased slowly, and its morphology indicates chemical processing in the
troposphere before entering the stratosphere. Particle properties (lower
particle depolarization ratios) for this smoke, compared with smoke from the
first-event fires, suggest that the BC agglomerates collapsed to a more
spherical state before entering the stratosphere. The particle residues
remained in the stratosphere for up to a year.</p>
      <p id="d1e1208">The smoke injections from the Australian fires were larger than reported in
previous work and caused the largest increase in the Southern Hemisphere
stratospheric aerosol load since the Mount Pinatubo eruption. We argue that
wildfire smoke has become an important part of the stratospheric aerosol,
with climate impact comparable to moderately sized volcanic eruptions.
Wildfires are in part natural and in part caused by humans. Future fires are
projected to become more intense and frequent due to climate change. Hence,
the climate impact of stratospheric wildfire smoke must not be neglected in
future climate projections.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e1216">CALIOP v4.10 and 4.11 lidar data are open-access products
(<uri>https://search.earthdata.nasa.gov/search?fp=CALIPSO</uri>, Hostetler et al.,
2006). OMPS-LP aerosol extinction coefficients (Taha et al., 2020) were
accessed via <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5067/CX2B9NW6FI27" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5067/CX2B9NW6FI27</ext-link>. The OMPS-NM v2.1 UV aerosol index (Torres, 2019)
was obtained from <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5067/40L92G8144IV" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5067/40L92G8144IV</ext-link> and
<uri>https://disc.gsfc.nasa.gov/datasets/OMPS_NPP_LP_L2_AER_DAILY_2/summary</uri>. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> data from
MLS were obtained from <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5067/Aura/MLS/DATA2508" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5067/Aura/MLS/DATA2508</ext-link> (Lambert et
al., 2020).</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e1248">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-12557-2023-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-12557-2023-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e1257">JF designed the study, performed most of the data analysis, and wrote most
of the paper. BGM undertook data analysis on individual smoke layers and
wrote part of the Methods section. MKS produced the Supplement. All
authors contributed to discussions and commented on the manuscript.</p>
  </notes><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e1264">The contact author has declared that none of the authors has any competing interests.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="disclaimer"><title>Disclaimer</title>

      <p id="d1e1270">Publisher’s note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e1276">This research has been supported by the Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas (grant nos. 2018-00973 and 2020-00997) and the Swedish National Space Agency (grant no. 2022-00157).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e1282">This paper was edited by Matthias Tesche and reviewed by Michael Fromm and one anonymous referee.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Abram, N. J., Henley, B. J., Gupta, A. sen, Lippmann, T. J. R., Clarke, H.,
Dowdy, A. J., Sharples, J. J., Nolan, R. H., Zhang, T., Wooster, M. J.,
Wurtzel, J. B., Meissner, K. J., Pitman, A. J., Ukkola, A. M., Murphy, B.
P., Tapper, N. J., and Boer, M. M.: Connections of climate change and
variability to large and extreme forest fires in southeast Australia,
Comm. Earth Environ., 2, 8, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-020-00065-8" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s43247-020-00065-8</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Andersson, S. M., Martinsson, B. G., Friberg, J., Brenninkmeijer, C. A. M., Rauthe-Schöch, A., Hermann, M., van Velthoven, P. F. J., and Zahn, A.: Composition and evolution of volcanic aerosol from eruptions of Kasatochi, Sarychev and Eyjafjallajökull in 2008–2010 based on CARIBIC observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 1781–1796, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-1781-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-1781-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Andersson, S. M., Martinsson, B. G., Vernier, J. P., Friberg, J.,
Brenninkmeijer, C. A. M., Hermann, M., van Velthoven, P. F. J., and Zahn,
A.: Significant radiative impact of volcanic aerosol in the lowermost
stratosphere,  Nat. Commun., 6, 1–8,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8692" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/ncomms8692</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Baars, H., Ansmann, A., Ohneiser, K., Haarig, M., Engelmann, R., Althausen, D., Hanssen, I., Gausa, M., Pietruczuk, A., Szkop, A., Stachlewska, I. S., Wang, D., Reichardt, J., Skupin, A., Mattis, I., Trickl, T., Vogelmann, H., Navas-Guzmán, F., Haefele, A., Acheson, K., Ruth, A. A., Tatarov, B., Müller, D., Hu, Q., Podvin, T., Goloub, P., Veselovskii, I., Pietras, C., Haeffelin, M., Fréville, P., Sicard, M., Comerón, A., Fernández García, A. J., Molero Menéndez, F., Córdoba-Jabonero, C., Guerrero-Rascado, J. L., Alados-Arboledas, L., Bortoli, D., Costa, M. J., Dionisi, D., Liberti, G. L., Wang, X., Sannino, A., Papagiannopoulos, N., Boselli, A., Mona, L., D'Amico, G., Romano, S., Perrone, M. R., Belegante, L., Nicolae, D., Grigorov, I., Gialitaki, A., Amiridis, V., Soupiona, O., Papayannis, A., Mamouri, R.-E., Nisantzi, A., Heese, B., Hofer, J., Schechner, Y. Y., Wandinger, U., and Pappalardo, G.: The unprecedented 2017–2018 stratospheric smoke event: decay phase and aerosol properties observed with the EARLINET, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 15183–15198, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-15183-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-19-15183-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page12569?><ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Boer, M. M., Resco de Dios, V., and Bradstock, R. A.: Unprecedented burn
area of Australian mega forest fires,  Nat. Clim. Change, 10, 171–172,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0716-1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41558-020-0716-1</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Boone, C. D., Bernath, P. F., Labelle, K., and Crouse, J.: Stratospheric
Aerosol Composition Observed by the Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment
Following the 2019 Raikoke Eruption, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,  127, e2022JD036600, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD036600" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2022JD036600</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Das, S., Colarco, P. R., Oman, L. D., Taha, G., and Torres, O.: The long-term transport and radiative impacts of the 2017 British Columbia pyrocumulonimbus smoke aerosols in the stratosphere, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 12069–12090, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-12069-2021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-21-12069-2021</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Fan, M., Chen, L., Li, S., Zou, M., Su, L., and Tao, J.: The effects of
morphology and water coating on the optical properties of soot aggregates,
Aerosol  Air Qual. Res.,  16, 1315–1326,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2015.04.0250" ext-link-type="DOI">10.4209/aaqr.2015.04.0250</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Friberg, J., Martinsson, B. G., Andersson, S. M., Brenninkmeijer, C. A. M.,
Hermann, M., van Velthoven, P. F. J., and Zahn, A.: Sources of increase in
lowermost stratospheric sulphurous and carbonaceous aerosol background
concentrations during 1999-2008 derived from CARIBIC flights, Tellus B, 66, 23428, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusb.v66.23428" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3402/tellusb.v66.23428</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Friberg, J., Martinsson, B. G., Andersson, S. M., and Sandvik, O. S.: Volcanic impact on the climate – the stratospheric aerosol load in the period 2006–2015, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 11149–11169, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-11149-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-18-11149-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Fromm, M., Alfred, J., Hoppel, K., Hornstein, J., Bevilacqua, R., Shettle,
E., Servranckx, R., Li, Z., and Stocks, B.: Observations of Boreal forest
fire smoke in the stratosphere by POAM III, SAGE II, and lidar in 1998,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 1407–1410,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/1999GL011200" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/1999GL011200</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Fromm, M. D. and Servranckx, R.: Transport of forest fire smoke above the
tropopause by supercell convection, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 1542,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GL016820" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002GL016820</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Fromm, M., Kablick, G., Nedoluha, G., Carboni, E., Grainger, R., Campbell,
J., and Lewis, J.: Correcting the record of volcanic stratospheric aerosol
impact: Nabro and Sarychev Peak, J. Geophys. Res., 119,
10343–10364,  <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD021507" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014JD021507</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Garofalo, L. A., Pothier, M. A., Levin, E. J. T., Campos, T., Kreidenweis,
S. M., and Farmer, D. K.: Emission and Evolution of Submicron Organic
Aerosol in Smoke from Wildfires in the Western United States, ACS Earth
Space Chem., 3, 1237-−1247, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acsearthspacechem.9b00125" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/acsearthspacechem.9b00125</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Haarig, M., Ansmann, A., Baars, H., Jimenez, C., Veselovskii, I., Engelmann, R., and Althausen, D.: Depolarization and lidar ratios at 355, 532, and 1064 nm and microphysical properties of aged tropospheric and stratospheric Canadian wildfire smoke, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 11847–11861, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-11847-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-18-11847-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hirsch, E. and Koren, I.: Record-breaking aerosol levels explained by
smoke injection into the stratosphere, Science, 371, 1269–1274,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe1415" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.abe1415</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hodzic, A., Madronich, S., Kasibhatla, P. S., Tyndall, G., Aumont, B., Jimenez, J. L., Lee-Taylor, J., and Orlando, J.: Organic photolysis reactions in tropospheric aerosols: effect on secondary organic aerosol formation and lifetime, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 9253–9269, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-9253-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-9253-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hostetler, C. A., Liu, Z., Reagan, J., Vaughan, M., Winker, D., Osborn, M., Hunt, W. H., Powell, K. A., and Trepte, C.: CALIOP algorithm theoretical basis document part 1: Calibration and level 1 data products, [data set], <uri>https://www-calipso.larc.nasa.gov/resources/pdfs/PC-SCI-201v1.0.pdf</uri> (last access: October 2022), 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kablick, G. P., Allen, D. R., Fromm, M. D., and Nedoluha, G. E.: Australian
PyroCb Smoke Generates Synoptic-Scale Stratospheric Anticyclones,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL08810,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL088101" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2020GL088101</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Khaykin, S., Legras, B., Bucci, S., Sellitto, P., Isaksen, L., Tencé,
F., Bekki, S., Bourassa, A., Rieger, L., Zawada, D., Jumelet, J., and Godin-Beekmann, S.: The 2019/20 Australian wildfires generated a persistent
smoke-charged vortex rising up to 35 km altitud, Commun. Earth  Environ., 1, 22,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-020-00022-5" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s43247-020-00022-5</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Khaykin, S. M., Godin-Beekmann, S., Hauchecorne, A., Pelon, J., Ravetta, F.,
and Keckhut, P.: Stratospheric Smoke With Unprecedentedly High Backscatter
Observed by Lidars Above Southern France, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
45, 1639–1646,  <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076763" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017GL076763</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kloss, C., Berthet, G., Sellitto, P., Ploeger, F., Taha, G., Tidiga, M., Eremenko, M., Bossolasco, A., Jégou, F., Renard, J.-B., and Legras, B.: Stratospheric aerosol layer perturbation caused by the 2019 Raikoke and Ulawun eruptions and their radiative forcing, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 535–560, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-535-2021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-21-535-2021</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Knepp, T. N., Thomason, L., Kovilakam, M., Tackett, J., Kar, J., Damadeo, R., and Flittner, D.: Identification of smoke and sulfuric acid aerosol in SAGE III/ISS extinction spectra, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 5235–5260, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-5235-2022" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-15-5235-2022</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kremser, S., Thomason, L. W., von Hobe, M., Hermann, M., Deshler, T.,
Timmreck, C., Toohey, M., Stenke, A., Schwarz, J. P., Weigel, R.,
Fueglistaler, S., Prata, F. J., Vernier, J. P., Schlager, H., Barnes, J. E.,
Antuña-Marrero, J. C., Fairlie, D., Palm, M., Mahieu, E., and
Meland, B.: Stratospheric aerosol – Observations, processes, and impact on
climate, Rev. Geophys., 54, 278–335,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015RG000511" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015RG000511</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lambert, A., Read, W., and Livesey, N.: MLS/Aura Level 2 Water Vapor (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)
Mixing Ratio V005, Greenbelt, MD, USA, Goddard Earth Sciences Data and
Information Services Center (GESDISC), [data set],
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5067/Aura/MLS/DATA2508" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5067/Aura/MLS/DATA2508</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lestrelin, H., Legras, B., Podglajen, A., and Salihoglu, M.: Smoke-charged vortices in the stratosphere generated by wildfires and their behaviour in both hemispheres: comparing Australia 2020 to Canada 2017, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 7113–7134, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-7113-2021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-21-7113-2021</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Livesey, N. J., Read, W. G., Wagner, P. A., Froidevaux, L., Santee, M. L.,
Schwartz, M. J., Lambert, A., Manney, G. L., Valle, L. F. M., Pumphrey, H.
C., Fuller, R. A., Jarnot, R. F., Knosp, B. W., and Lay, R. R.: EOS MLS
Version 5.0x Level 2 and 3 data quality and description document, Tech.
Rep., Jet Propulsion Laboratory D734 105336 Rev. A,
<uri>https://mls.jpl.nasa.gov/publications</uri> (last access: May 2021), 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page12570?><ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lurton, T., Jégou, F., Berthet, G., Renard, J.-B., Clarisse, L., Schmidt, A., Brogniez, C., and Roberts, T. J.: Model simulations of the chemical and aerosol microphysical evolution of the Sarychev Peak 2009 eruption cloud compared to in situ and satellite observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 3223–3247, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-3223-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-18-3223-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Magaritz-Ronen, L. and Raveh-Rubin, S.: Wildfire Smoke Highlights
Troposphere-to-Stratosphere Pathway, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2021GL095848,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL095848" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2021GL095848</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Martinsson, B. G., Brenninkmeijer, C. A. M., Cam, S. A., Hermann, M., Heue,
K. P., van Velthoven, P. F. J., and Zahn, A.: Influence of the 2008
Kasatochi volcanic eruption on sulfurous and carbonaceous aerosol
constituents in the lower stratosphere, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
36, 1–5,  <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL038735" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009GL038735</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Martinsson, B. G., Friberg, J., Sandvik, O. S., Hermann, M., van Velthoven,
P. F. J., and Zahn, A.: Formation and composition of the UTLS aerosol. Npj
Climate and Atmospheric Science.
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-019-0097-1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41612-019-0097-1</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Martinsson, B. G., Friberg, J., Sandvik, O. S., and Sporre, M. K.: Five-satellite-sensor study of the rapid decline of wildfire smoke in the stratosphere, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 3967–3984, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-3967-2022" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-22-3967-2022</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Molina, M. J., Ivanov, A. V., Trakhtenberg, S., and Molina, L. T.:
Atmospheric evolution of organic aerosol,  Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L22104,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL020910" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004GL020910</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ohneiser, K., Ansmann, A., Chudnovsky, A., Engelmann, R., Ritter, C., Veselovskii, I., Baars, H., Gebauer, H., Griesche, H., Radenz, M., Hofer, J., Althausen, D., Dahlke, S., and Maturilli, M.: The unexpected smoke layer in the High Arctic winter stratosphere during MOSAiC 2019–2020, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 15783–15808, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-15783-2021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-21-15783-2021</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ohneiser, K., Ansmann, A., Witthuhn, J., Deneke, H., Chudnovsky, A., Walter, G., and Senf, F.: Self-lofting of wildfire smoke in the troposphere and stratosphere: simulations and space lidar observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 2901–2925, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-2901-2023" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-23-2901-2023</ext-link>, 2023.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Peterson, D. A., Campbell, J. R., Hyer, E. J., Fromm, M. D., Kablick, G. P.,
Cossuth, J. H., and DeLand, M. T.: Wildfire-driven thunderstorms cause a
volcano-like stratospheric injection of smoke, Npj Clim. Atmos., 1, 30,
Sci.,   <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-018-0039-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41612-018-0039-3</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Peterson, D. A., Fromm, M. D., McRae, R. H. D., Campbell, J. R., Hyer, E.
J., Taha, G., Camacho, C. P., Kablick, G. P., Schmidt, C. C., and DeLand,
M. T.: Australia's Black Summer pyrocumulonimbus super outbreak reveals
potential for increasingly extreme stratospheric smoke events, Npj Clim. Atmos.
Sci., 4, 38
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-021-00192-9" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41612-021-00192-9</ext-link>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Rieger, L. A., Bourassa, A. E., and Degenstein, D. A.: Merging the OSIRIS
and SAGE II stratospheric aerosol records, J. Geophys. Res.,
120, 8890–8904,  <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023133" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015JD023133</ext-link>,
2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sareen, N., Moussa, S. G., and McNeill, V. F.: Photochemical aging of
light-absorbing secondary organic aerosol material, J. Phys. Chem. A.,   117, 2987–2996 <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/jp309413j" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/jp309413j</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Solomon, S., Daniel, J. S., Neely, R. R., Vernier, J.-P., Dutton, E. G.,
and Thomason, L. W.: The Persistently Variable “Background” Stratospheric
Aerosol Layer and Global Climate Change, Science, 333, 866–870,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1206027" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1206027</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Taha, G.:  OMPS-NPP L2 LP Aerosol Extinction Vertical Profile swath daily 3slit V2, Greenbelt, MD, USA, Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC), [data set], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5067/CX2B9NW6FI27" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5067/CX2B9NW6FI27</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Taha, G., Loughman, R., Zhu, T., Thomason, L., Kar, J., Rieger, L., and Bourassa, A.: OMPS LP Version 2.0 multi-wavelength aerosol extinction coefficient retrieval algorithm, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 1015–1036, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-1015-2021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-14-1015-2021</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Thomason, L. W., Ernest, N., Millán, L., Rieger, L., Bourassa, A., Vernier, J.-P., Manney, G., Luo, B., Arfeuille, F., and Peter, T.: A global space-based stratospheric aerosol climatology: 1979–2016, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 469–492, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-469-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/essd-10-469-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Torres, O.: OMPS-NPP L2 NM Aerosol Index swath orbital V2, Greenbelt, MD,
USA, Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC), [data set],
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5067/40L92G8144IV" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5067/40L92G8144IV</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Vernier, J. P., Thomason, L. W., Pommereau, J. P., Bourassa, A., Pelon, J.,
Garnier, A., Hauchecorne, A., Blanot, L., Trepte, C., Degenstein, D., and Vargas, F.: Major influence of tropical volcanic eruptions on the
stratospheric aerosol layer during the last decade, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 38, 1–8,  <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL047563" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011GL047563</ext-link>,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Yu, P., Toon, O. B., Bardeen, C. G., Zhu, Y., Rosenlof, K. H., Portmann, R.
W., Thornberry, T. D., Gao, R. S., Davis, S. M., Wolf, E. T., de Gouw, J.,
Peterson, D. A., Fromm, M. D., and Robock, A.: Black carbon lofts wildfire
smoke high into the stratosphere to form a persistent plume, Science, 365, 587–590,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax1748" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.aax1748</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zawadowicz, M. A., Lee, B. H., Shrivastava, M., Zelenyuk, A., Zaveri, R. A.,
Flynn, C., Thornton, J. A., and Shilling, J. E.: Photolysis Controls
Atmospheric Budgets of Biogenic Secondary Organic Aerosol, Environ.
Sci. Technol., 54, 3861-−3870,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b07051" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/acs.est.9b07051</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zhang, R., Khalizov, A. F., Pagels, J., Zhang, D., Xue, H., and McMurry, P.
H.: Variability in morphology, hygroscopicity, and optical properties of
soot aerosols during atmospheric processing,  P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 105, , 10291–10296
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0804860105" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/pnas.0804860105</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Short- and long-term stratospheric impact of smoke from the 2019–2020 Australian wildfires</article-title-html>
<abstract-html/>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
      
Abram, N. J., Henley, B. J., Gupta, A. sen, Lippmann, T. J. R., Clarke, H.,
Dowdy, A. J., Sharples, J. J., Nolan, R. H., Zhang, T., Wooster, M. J.,
Wurtzel, J. B., Meissner, K. J., Pitman, A. J., Ukkola, A. M., Murphy, B.
P., Tapper, N. J., and Boer, M. M.: Connections of climate change and
variability to large and extreme forest fires in southeast Australia,
Comm. Earth Environ., 2, 8, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-020-00065-8" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-020-00065-8</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
      
Andersson, S. M., Martinsson, B. G., Friberg, J., Brenninkmeijer, C. A. M., Rauthe-Schöch, A., Hermann, M., van Velthoven, P. F. J., and Zahn, A.: Composition and evolution of volcanic aerosol from eruptions of Kasatochi, Sarychev and Eyjafjallajökull in 2008–2010 based on CARIBIC observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 1781–1796, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-1781-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-1781-2013</a>, 2013.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
      
Andersson, S. M., Martinsson, B. G., Vernier, J. P., Friberg, J.,
Brenninkmeijer, C. A. M., Hermann, M., van Velthoven, P. F. J., and Zahn,
A.: Significant radiative impact of volcanic aerosol in the lowermost
stratosphere,  Nat. Commun., 6, 1–8,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8692" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8692</a>, 2015.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
      
Baars, H., Ansmann, A., Ohneiser, K., Haarig, M., Engelmann, R., Althausen, D., Hanssen, I., Gausa, M., Pietruczuk, A., Szkop, A., Stachlewska, I. S., Wang, D., Reichardt, J., Skupin, A., Mattis, I., Trickl, T., Vogelmann, H., Navas-Guzmán, F., Haefele, A., Acheson, K., Ruth, A. A., Tatarov, B., Müller, D., Hu, Q., Podvin, T., Goloub, P., Veselovskii, I., Pietras, C., Haeffelin, M., Fréville, P., Sicard, M., Comerón, A., Fernández García, A. J., Molero Menéndez, F., Córdoba-Jabonero, C., Guerrero-Rascado, J. L., Alados-Arboledas, L., Bortoli, D., Costa, M. J., Dionisi, D., Liberti, G. L., Wang, X., Sannino, A., Papagiannopoulos, N., Boselli, A., Mona, L., D'Amico, G., Romano, S., Perrone, M. R., Belegante, L., Nicolae, D., Grigorov, I., Gialitaki, A., Amiridis, V., Soupiona, O., Papayannis, A., Mamouri, R.-E., Nisantzi, A., Heese, B., Hofer, J., Schechner, Y. Y., Wandinger, U., and Pappalardo, G.: The unprecedented 2017–2018 stratospheric smoke event: decay phase and aerosol properties observed with the EARLINET, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 15183–15198, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-15183-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-15183-2019</a>, 2019.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
      
Boer, M. M., Resco de Dios, V., and Bradstock, R. A.: Unprecedented burn
area of Australian mega forest fires,  Nat. Clim. Change, 10, 171–172,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0716-1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0716-1</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
      
Boone, C. D., Bernath, P. F., Labelle, K., and Crouse, J.: Stratospheric
Aerosol Composition Observed by the Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment
Following the 2019 Raikoke Eruption, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,  127, e2022JD036600, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD036600" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD036600</a>, 2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
      
Das, S., Colarco, P. R., Oman, L. D., Taha, G., and Torres, O.: The long-term transport and radiative impacts of the 2017 British Columbia pyrocumulonimbus smoke aerosols in the stratosphere, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 12069–12090, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-12069-2021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-12069-2021</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
      
Fan, M., Chen, L., Li, S., Zou, M., Su, L., and Tao, J.: The effects of
morphology and water coating on the optical properties of soot aggregates,
Aerosol  Air Qual. Res.,  16, 1315–1326,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2015.04.0250" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2015.04.0250</a>, 2016.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
      
Friberg, J., Martinsson, B. G., Andersson, S. M., Brenninkmeijer, C. A. M.,
Hermann, M., van Velthoven, P. F. J., and Zahn, A.: Sources of increase in
lowermost stratospheric sulphurous and carbonaceous aerosol background
concentrations during 1999-2008 derived from CARIBIC flights, Tellus B, 66, 23428, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusb.v66.23428" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusb.v66.23428</a>, 2014.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
      
Friberg, J., Martinsson, B. G., Andersson, S. M., and Sandvik, O. S.: Volcanic impact on the climate – the stratospheric aerosol load in the period 2006–2015, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 11149–11169, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-11149-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-11149-2018</a>, 2018.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
      
Fromm, M., Alfred, J., Hoppel, K., Hornstein, J., Bevilacqua, R., Shettle,
E., Servranckx, R., Li, Z., and Stocks, B.: Observations of Boreal forest
fire smoke in the stratosphere by POAM III, SAGE II, and lidar in 1998,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 1407–1410,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/1999GL011200" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/1999GL011200</a>, 2000.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
      
Fromm, M. D. and Servranckx, R.: Transport of forest fire smoke above the
tropopause by supercell convection, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 1542,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GL016820" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GL016820</a>, 2003.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
      
Fromm, M., Kablick, G., Nedoluha, G., Carboni, E., Grainger, R., Campbell,
J., and Lewis, J.: Correcting the record of volcanic stratospheric aerosol
impact: Nabro and Sarychev Peak, J. Geophys. Res., 119,
10343–10364,  <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD021507" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD021507</a>, 2014.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
      
Garofalo, L. A., Pothier, M. A., Levin, E. J. T., Campos, T., Kreidenweis,
S. M., and Farmer, D. K.: Emission and Evolution of Submicron Organic
Aerosol in Smoke from Wildfires in the Western United States, ACS Earth
Space Chem., 3, 1237-−1247, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acsearthspacechem.9b00125" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/acsearthspacechem.9b00125</a>, 2019.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
      
Haarig, M., Ansmann, A., Baars, H., Jimenez, C., Veselovskii, I., Engelmann, R., and Althausen, D.: Depolarization and lidar ratios at 355, 532, and 1064&thinsp;nm and microphysical properties of aged tropospheric and stratospheric Canadian wildfire smoke, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 11847–11861, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-11847-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-11847-2018</a>, 2018.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
      
Hirsch, E. and Koren, I.: Record-breaking aerosol levels explained by
smoke injection into the stratosphere, Science, 371, 1269–1274,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe1415" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe1415</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
      
Hodzic, A., Madronich, S., Kasibhatla, P. S., Tyndall, G., Aumont, B., Jimenez, J. L., Lee-Taylor, J., and Orlando, J.: Organic photolysis reactions in tropospheric aerosols: effect on secondary organic aerosol formation and lifetime, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 9253–9269, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-9253-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-9253-2015</a>, 2015.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
      
Hostetler, C. A., Liu, Z., Reagan, J., Vaughan, M., Winker, D., Osborn, M., Hunt, W. H., Powell, K. A., and Trepte, C.: CALIOP algorithm theoretical basis document part 1: Calibration and level 1 data products, [data set], <a href="https://www-calipso.larc.nasa.gov/resources/pdfs/PC-SCI-201v1.0.pdf" target="_blank"/> (last access: October 2022), 2006.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
      
Kablick, G. P., Allen, D. R., Fromm, M. D., and Nedoluha, G. E.: Australian
PyroCb Smoke Generates Synoptic-Scale Stratospheric Anticyclones,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL08810,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL088101" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL088101</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
      
Khaykin, S., Legras, B., Bucci, S., Sellitto, P., Isaksen, L., Tencé,
F., Bekki, S., Bourassa, A., Rieger, L., Zawada, D., Jumelet, J., and Godin-Beekmann, S.: The 2019/20 Australian wildfires generated a persistent
smoke-charged vortex rising up to 35&thinsp;km altitud, Commun. Earth  Environ., 1, 22,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-020-00022-5" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-020-00022-5</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
      
Khaykin, S. M., Godin-Beekmann, S., Hauchecorne, A., Pelon, J., Ravetta, F.,
and Keckhut, P.: Stratospheric Smoke With Unprecedentedly High Backscatter
Observed by Lidars Above Southern France, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
45, 1639–1646,  <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076763" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076763</a>, 2018.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
      
Kloss, C., Berthet, G., Sellitto, P., Ploeger, F., Taha, G., Tidiga, M., Eremenko, M., Bossolasco, A., Jégou, F., Renard, J.-B., and Legras, B.: Stratospheric aerosol layer perturbation caused by the 2019 Raikoke and Ulawun eruptions and their radiative forcing, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 535–560, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-535-2021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-535-2021</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
      
Knepp, T. N., Thomason, L., Kovilakam, M., Tackett, J., Kar, J., Damadeo, R., and Flittner, D.: Identification of smoke and sulfuric acid aerosol in SAGE III/ISS extinction spectra, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 5235–5260, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-5235-2022" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-5235-2022</a>, 2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
      
Kremser, S., Thomason, L. W., von Hobe, M., Hermann, M., Deshler, T.,
Timmreck, C., Toohey, M., Stenke, A., Schwarz, J. P., Weigel, R.,
Fueglistaler, S., Prata, F. J., Vernier, J. P., Schlager, H., Barnes, J. E.,
Antuña-Marrero, J. C., Fairlie, D., Palm, M., Mahieu, E., and
Meland, B.: Stratospheric aerosol – Observations, processes, and impact on
climate, Rev. Geophys., 54, 278–335,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015RG000511" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015RG000511</a>, 2016.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
      
Lambert, A., Read, W., and Livesey, N.: MLS/Aura Level 2 Water Vapor (H<sub>2</sub>O)
Mixing Ratio V005, Greenbelt, MD, USA, Goddard Earth Sciences Data and
Information Services Center (GESDISC), [data set],
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5067/Aura/MLS/DATA2508" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5067/Aura/MLS/DATA2508</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
      
Lestrelin, H., Legras, B., Podglajen, A., and Salihoglu, M.: Smoke-charged vortices in the stratosphere generated by wildfires and their behaviour in both hemispheres: comparing Australia 2020 to Canada 2017, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 7113–7134, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-7113-2021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-7113-2021</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
      
Livesey, N. J., Read, W. G., Wagner, P. A., Froidevaux, L., Santee, M. L.,
Schwartz, M. J., Lambert, A., Manney, G. L., Valle, L. F. M., Pumphrey, H.
C., Fuller, R. A., Jarnot, R. F., Knosp, B. W., and Lay, R. R.: EOS MLS
Version 5.0x Level 2 and 3 data quality and description document, Tech.
Rep., Jet Propulsion Laboratory D734 105336 Rev. A,
<a href="https://mls.jpl.nasa.gov/publications" target="_blank"/> (last access: May 2021), 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
      
Lurton, T., Jégou, F., Berthet, G., Renard, J.-B., Clarisse, L., Schmidt, A., Brogniez, C., and Roberts, T. J.: Model simulations of the chemical and aerosol microphysical evolution of the Sarychev Peak 2009 eruption cloud compared to in situ and satellite observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 3223–3247, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-3223-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-3223-2018</a>, 2018.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
      
Magaritz-Ronen, L. and Raveh-Rubin, S.: Wildfire Smoke Highlights
Troposphere-to-Stratosphere Pathway, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2021GL095848,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL095848" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL095848</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
      
Martinsson, B. G., Brenninkmeijer, C. A. M., Cam, S. A., Hermann, M., Heue,
K. P., van Velthoven, P. F. J., and Zahn, A.: Influence of the 2008
Kasatochi volcanic eruption on sulfurous and carbonaceous aerosol
constituents in the lower stratosphere, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
36, 1–5,  <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL038735" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL038735</a>, 2009.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
      
Martinsson, B. G., Friberg, J., Sandvik, O. S., Hermann, M., van Velthoven,
P. F. J., and Zahn, A.: Formation and composition of the UTLS aerosol. Npj
Climate and Atmospheric Science.
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-019-0097-1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-019-0097-1</a>, 2019.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
      
Martinsson, B. G., Friberg, J., Sandvik, O. S., and Sporre, M. K.: Five-satellite-sensor study of the rapid decline of wildfire smoke in the stratosphere, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 3967–3984, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-3967-2022" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-3967-2022</a>, 2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
      
Molina, M. J., Ivanov, A. V., Trakhtenberg, S., and Molina, L. T.:
Atmospheric evolution of organic aerosol,  Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L22104,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL020910" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL020910</a>, 2004.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
      
Ohneiser, K., Ansmann, A., Chudnovsky, A., Engelmann, R., Ritter, C., Veselovskii, I., Baars, H., Gebauer, H., Griesche, H., Radenz, M., Hofer, J., Althausen, D., Dahlke, S., and Maturilli, M.: The unexpected smoke layer in the High Arctic winter stratosphere during MOSAiC 2019–2020, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 15783–15808, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-15783-2021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-15783-2021</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
      
Ohneiser, K., Ansmann, A., Witthuhn, J., Deneke, H., Chudnovsky, A., Walter, G., and Senf, F.: Self-lofting of wildfire smoke in the troposphere and stratosphere: simulations and space lidar observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 2901–2925, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-2901-2023" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-2901-2023</a>, 2023.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
      
Peterson, D. A., Campbell, J. R., Hyer, E. J., Fromm, M. D., Kablick, G. P.,
Cossuth, J. H., and DeLand, M. T.: Wildfire-driven thunderstorms cause a
volcano-like stratospheric injection of smoke, Npj Clim. Atmos., 1, 30,
Sci.,   <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-018-0039-3" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-018-0039-3</a>, 2018.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
      
Peterson, D. A., Fromm, M. D., McRae, R. H. D., Campbell, J. R., Hyer, E.
J., Taha, G., Camacho, C. P., Kablick, G. P., Schmidt, C. C., and DeLand,
M. T.: Australia's Black Summer pyrocumulonimbus super outbreak reveals
potential for increasingly extreme stratospheric smoke events, Npj Clim. Atmos.
Sci., 4, 38
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-021-00192-9" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-021-00192-9</a>, 2021.


    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
      
Rieger, L. A., Bourassa, A. E., and Degenstein, D. A.: Merging the OSIRIS
and SAGE II stratospheric aerosol records, J. Geophys. Res.,
120, 8890–8904,  <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023133" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023133</a>,
2015.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
      
Sareen, N., Moussa, S. G., and McNeill, V. F.: Photochemical aging of
light-absorbing secondary organic aerosol material, J. Phys. Chem. A.,   117, 2987–2996 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/jp309413j" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/jp309413j</a>, 2013.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
      
Solomon, S., Daniel, J. S., Neely, R. R., Vernier, J.-P., Dutton, E. G.,
and Thomason, L. W.: The Persistently Variable “Background” Stratospheric
Aerosol Layer and Global Climate Change, Science, 333, 866–870,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1206027" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1206027</a>, 2011.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
      
Taha, G.:  OMPS-NPP L2 LP Aerosol Extinction Vertical Profile swath daily 3slit V2, Greenbelt, MD, USA, Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC), [data set], <a href="https://doi.org/10.5067/CX2B9NW6FI27" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5067/CX2B9NW6FI27</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
      
Taha, G., Loughman, R., Zhu, T., Thomason, L., Kar, J., Rieger, L., and Bourassa, A.: OMPS LP Version 2.0 multi-wavelength aerosol extinction coefficient retrieval algorithm, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 1015–1036, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-1015-2021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-1015-2021</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
      
Thomason, L. W., Ernest, N., Millán, L., Rieger, L., Bourassa, A., Vernier, J.-P., Manney, G., Luo, B., Arfeuille, F., and Peter, T.: A global space-based stratospheric aerosol climatology: 1979–2016, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 469–492, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-469-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-469-2018</a>, 2018.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
      
Torres, O.: OMPS-NPP L2 NM Aerosol Index swath orbital V2, Greenbelt, MD,
USA, Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC), [data set],
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5067/40L92G8144IV" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5067/40L92G8144IV</a>, 2019.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
      
Vernier, J. P., Thomason, L. W., Pommereau, J. P., Bourassa, A., Pelon, J.,
Garnier, A., Hauchecorne, A., Blanot, L., Trepte, C., Degenstein, D., and Vargas, F.: Major influence of tropical volcanic eruptions on the
stratospheric aerosol layer during the last decade, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 38, 1–8,  <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL047563" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL047563</a>,
2011.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
      
Yu, P., Toon, O. B., Bardeen, C. G., Zhu, Y., Rosenlof, K. H., Portmann, R.
W., Thornberry, T. D., Gao, R. S., Davis, S. M., Wolf, E. T., de Gouw, J.,
Peterson, D. A., Fromm, M. D., and Robock, A.: Black carbon lofts wildfire
smoke high into the stratosphere to form a persistent plume, Science, 365, 587–590,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax1748" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax1748</a>, 2019.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
      
Zawadowicz, M. A., Lee, B. H., Shrivastava, M., Zelenyuk, A., Zaveri, R. A.,
Flynn, C., Thornton, J. A., and Shilling, J. E.: Photolysis Controls
Atmospheric Budgets of Biogenic Secondary Organic Aerosol, Environ.
Sci. Technol., 54, 3861-−3870,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b07051" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b07051</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
      
Zhang, R., Khalizov, A. F., Pagels, J., Zhang, D., Xue, H., and McMurry, P.
H.: Variability in morphology, hygroscopicity, and optical properties of
soot aerosols during atmospheric processing,  P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 105, , 10291–10296
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0804860105" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0804860105</a>, 2008.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
