<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "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"><?xmltex \makeatother\@nolinetrue\makeatletter?>
  <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-18-1395-2018</article-id><title-group><article-title>Emission or atmospheric processes? An attempt to attribute the source of
large bias of aerosols in eastern China simulated<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> by global climate models</article-title><alt-title>Aerosol bias in eastern China by GCMs</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Aerosol bias in eastern China by GCMs}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{T.~Fan et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Fan</surname><given-names>Tianyi</given-names></name>
          <email>fantianyi@bnu.edu.cn</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1026-5067</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff2 aff1">
          <name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>Xiaohong</given-names></name>
          <email>xliu6@uwyo.edu</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Ma</surname><given-names>Po-Lun</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3109-5316</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>Qiang</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff5">
          <name><surname>Li</surname><given-names>Zhanqing</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6737-382X</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff6">
          <name><surname>Jiang</surname><given-names>Yiquan</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6761-7281</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>Fang</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5395-601X</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Zhao</surname><given-names>Chuanfeng</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5196-3996</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Yang</surname><given-names>Xin</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5111-2959</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Wu</surname><given-names>Fang</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>Yuying</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9762-8563</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>College of Global Change and Earth System Science, State Key
Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology, and Joint Center
for Global Change and Green China Development, Beijing Normal University,
Beijing, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming, Laramie,
Wyoming, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Atmospheric Sciences and Global Change Division, Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Center for Earth System Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science &amp; ESSIC, University
of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff6"><label>6</label><institution>Institute for Climate and Global Change Research, School of
Atmospheric Sciences, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Tianyi Fan (fantianyi@bnu.edu.cn) and Xiaohong Liu (xliu6@uwyo.edu)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>1</day><month>February</month><year>2018</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>18</volume>
      <issue>2</issue>
      <fpage>1395</fpage><lpage>1417</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>8</day><month>September</month><year>2016</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>28</day><month>September</month><year>2016</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>17</day><month>December</month><year>2017</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>26</day><month>December</month><year>2017</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        
        
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/</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>
    <p id="d1e210">Global climate models often underestimate aerosol loadings in China, and
these biases can have significant implications for anthropogenic aerosol
radiative forcing and climate effects. The biases may be caused by either the
emission inventory or the treatment of aerosol processes in the models, or
both, but so far no consensus has been reached. In this study, a relatively
new emission inventory based on energy statistics and technology,
Multi-resolution Emission Inventory for China (MEIC), is used to drive the
Community Atmosphere Model version 5 (CAM5) to evaluate aerosol distribution
and radiative effects against observations in China. The model results are
compared with the model simulations with the widely used Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC AR5) emission
inventory. We find that the new MEIC emission improves the aerosol optical
depth (AOD) simulations in eastern China and explains 22–28 % of the AOD
low bias simulated with the AR5 emission. However, AOD is still biased low in
eastern China. Seasonal variation of the MEIC emission leads to a better
agreement with the observed seasonal variation of primary aerosols than the
AR5 emission, but the concentrations are still underestimated. This implies
that the atmospheric loadings of primary aerosols are closely related to the
emission, which may still be underestimated over eastern China. In contrast,
the seasonal variations of secondary aerosols depend more on aerosol
processes (e.g., gas- and aqueous-phase production from precursor gases) that
are associated with meteorological conditions and to a lesser extent on the
emission. It indicates that the emissions of precursor gases for the
secondary aerosols alone cannot explain the low bias in the model.
Aerosol secondary production processes in CAM5
should also be revisited. The simulation using MEIC estimates the
annual-average aerosol direct radiative effects (ADREs) at the top of the
atmosphere (TOA), at the surface, and in the atmosphere to be <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5.02,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>18.47, and 13.45 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively, over eastern China, which are
enhanced by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.91, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3.48, and 2.57 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> compared with the AR5
emission. The differences of ADREs by using MEIC and AR5 emissions are larger
than the decadal changes of the modeled ADREs, indicating the uncertainty of
the emission inventories. This study highlights the importance of improving
both the emission and aerosol secondary production processes in modeling the
atmospheric aerosols and their radiative effects. Yet, if the estimations of
MEIC emissions in trace gases do not suffer similar biases to those in the
AOD, our findings will help affirm a fundamental error in the conversion from
precursor gases to secondary aerosols as hinted in other recent studies
following different approaches.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<?pagebreak page1396?><sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e273">As indicated by previous studies, many global climate models (GCMs) suffer
from substantially low biases of aerosol loadings in East Asia, in
particular, the rapidly developing region of eastern China. Nearly all GCMs
that participate in the Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Model
Intercomparison Project (ACCMIP; Lamarque et al., 2013) have a low bias of the
aerosol optical depth (AOD) in East Asia by about <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>36 to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>58 %
compared with Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) observations (Shindell et
al., 2013). The AOD biases are substantially larger than those in North
America and Europe. The low biases of aerosol loadings can have significant
implications for anthropogenic aerosol radiative forcing and climate effects
(Boucher et al., 2013; Myhre et al., 2013). It also suggests that the aerosol
forcing and climate effects assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) could be much underestimated due to the large aerosol biases in
China (Liao et al., 2015).</p>
      <p id="d1e290">Anthropogenic emissions of aerosols and precursor gases are hypothesized to
be one of the leading reasons for the large simulation error (Liu et
al., 2012). China has been experiencing 3 decades of rapid economic
growth, resulting in emissions of atmospheric pollutants that are very
different from the past and other parts of the world (Streets et al., 2008;
Zhang et al., 2009; Klimont et al., 2009; Lu et al., 2011; Lei et al., 2011;
Wang et al., 2012). Nowadays China is a large contributor to global aerosol
emissions (Liao et al., 2015) and radiative forcing (Li et al., 2016).
However, the emission inventory in China remains highly uncertain due to
limited knowledge of the rapidly changing economy and the variety of
technologies in production, energy use, and emission control (Zhao et al.,
2011; Fu et al., 2012; F. Wang et al., 2014; Chang et al., 2015; Zhang et al.,
2015). When used as input to the model simulations, the emission inventories
can significantly affect the model output of aerosol concentrations and their
radiative effects. It is estimated that the uncertainties of simulated
surface concentrations of different aerosol species due to emission range
from 3.9 to 40.0 % over eastern China (Chang et al., 2015). Model
experiments show that moderate (20–30 %) adjustments of regional
emissions exert considerable influence on global AOD and aerosol radiative
forcing (Yu et al., 2013; He and Zhang, 2014). It is noteworthy that the
ACCMIP models, most of which underestimate the AOD in East Asia (Shindell et
al., 2013), have different treatments of aerosol processes but use the same
IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) emission inventory (Lamarque et al.,
2010). This implies that the IPCC AR5 emission inventory may underestimate
the emission in East Asia. Unique features of the anthropogenic emissions in
China include the elevated level of sulfate and black carbon (BC) emissions
in the winter heating season in northern China and high level of NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and
NH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions that are linked to the winter haze in recent years.</p>
      <p id="d1e311"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>On the other hand, the treatments of aerosol processes can also cause bias in
the model. In the real world, aerosols originate from direct emissions of
primary particles (e.g., sea salt, dust, primary organics, BC, and a small
fraction of sulfate) or secondary particles formed from precursor gases
(e.g., sulfate, nitrate, secondary organics). After emission, the precursor
gases experience gas- and aqueous-phase transformation to form the secondary
aerosols. A newly emitted or formed aerosol particle will go through a series
of atmospheric processes (e.g., condensational growth, coagulation with
another particle, transport, water uptake, wet scavenging/cloud processing,
and dry deposition) until it completes its life cycle in the atmosphere. The
inter-model diversity of global aerosol burden and optical properties largely
depend on the treatment of aerosol processes in each individual model and to
a lesser extent on the differences of the emissions among models (Textor et
al., 2007). Modifications of the gas-phase chemistry and inorganic aerosol
treatment in the Community Atmospheric Model version 5 (CAM5) improve the
model performance for aerosol mass and AOD (He and Zhang, 2014), but
substantial low biases still exist for East Asia. Most GCMs, including CAM5, do
not include the aqueous-phase chemistry on preexisting particles, which
proves to be important for the formation of the winter haze in northern
China (Wang et al., 2013; He et al., 2014; Huang et al., 2014; X. Y. Wang et al.
2014; Y. S. Wang et al., 2014; Zheng et al, 2015; Chen et al., 2016; Dong et
al., 2016; Wang et al., 2016; Cheng et al., 2016). With all the
abovementioned uncertainties mingled in the GCMs, it is not clear whether the
emission or the aerosol processes are more responsible for the low biases of
AOD simulated by GCMs in eastern China.</p>
      <p id="d1e315">In this study we attempt to understand the attribution of the low biases of
AOD in eastern China simulated by GCMs. First, we examine the effect of
changing the anthropogenic emission of China in a global climate model (i.e.,
CAM5) on improving the aerosol simulation. CAM5 significantly underestimates
AOD in East Asia (Liu et al., 2012), and the normalized mean bias of AOD is
one of the largest among the ACCMIP models investigated in Shindell et
al. (2013). We compare the aerosol simulation in CAM5 using the default IPCC
AR5 emission inventory with the simulation using a new one that better
represents the magnitude and seasonal variation of the emissions. Second,
with the inclusion of seasonality in the new emission inventory, we attempt
to isolate the impacts of aerosol processes on the seasonal variation of
aerosol concentrations from the impact of emission. Aerosol processes that
depend on the meteorological factors (e.g., temperature, humidity, wind
speed) in the model are analyzed to explain the impact of emission on
the secondary aerosols versus the impact of emission on the primary aerosols.
Finally, we examine the impact of the uncertainty of the emission inventories
on the aerosol direct radiative effects (ADREs). The differences of ADREs due
to the use of the two emission inventories are calculated and compared<?pagebreak page1397?> with
the change of ADREs in the last decade due to the change of emission in
China.</p>
      <p id="d1e319">This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the model setup, the
emission inventories, and the observations. Section 3 shows the results of
aerosol properties and ADREs simulated by CAM5 using the new Multi-resolution Emission Inventory for China (MEIC) emission
compared to the AR5 emission and analyzes the impacts of emission and aerosol
processes. Section 4 discusses the uncertainty of the emission inventories by
comparing with the decadal changes of ADREs due to emission change.
Conclusions are provided in Sect. 5.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Method</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>Model setup and experiments</title>
      <p id="d1e333">We run CAM5 (Neale et al., 2010) with the three-mode Modal Aerosol Model
(MAM3), which prognoses aerosol mass/number size distribution and mixing
state in the Aitken, accumulation, and coarse modes (Liu et al., 2012). The
simulated primary aerosol species include BC, primary organic matter (POM),
sea salt, and dust, while the secondary aerosol species include sulfate and
secondary organic aerosol (SOA). The aerosol species are assumed to be
internally mixed within modes and externally mixed among modes. The physical,
chemical, and optical properties of aerosols are simulated in a physically
based manner. Aerosol processes include transport, gas- and aqueous-phase (in
cloud water only) chemical reactions for sulfur species, microphysics
(nucleation, condensational growth, and coagulation), dry deposition, wet
scavenging, and water uptake. Efficient secondary formation of aerosol in
Beijing, China, has been reported, characterized by frequent nucleation
events preceding the pollution episodes followed by rapid condensational
growth during the episodes (Qiu et al., 2013; Guo et al., 2014; Zhang et al.,
2015). For treatment of these processes in CAM5, a binary
H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>–H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>O homogeneous nucleation scheme (Vehkamaki et al.,
2002) is used, and a cluster activation scheme (Shito et al., 2006) is
applied in the planetary boundary layer. Condensation of H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
vapor and semi-volatile organics to the aerosol modes is treated dynamically
using the mass transfer expressions (Seinfeld and Pandis, 1998) that are
integrated over the size distribution of each mode (Binkowski and Shankar,
1995). Coagulation between Aitken and accumulation modes is considered. Water
uptake is based on the equilibrium Köhler theory (Ghan and Zaveri, 2007).
SOA formation is based on fixed mass yields, i.e., the percentage of
semi-volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that could form SOA, with one
additional step of complexity by explicitly simulating the emission and
condensation/evaporation of the condensable organic vapors (i.e., the lumped
semi-volatile organic gas species, SOAG) that are generated from VOCs. The
aerosol optical properties are parameterized by Ghan and Zaveri (2007). The
refractive indices for most aerosol components are taken from OPAC (Hess et
al., 1998), but for BC the value (1.95, 0.79i) from Bond and Bergstrom (2006)
is used. More details of the aerosol treatments can be found in Liu et
al. (2012).</p>
      <p id="d1e381">We conduct two CAM5 simulations with different anthropogenic emission
inventories in China for the year 2009. The first simulation uses the emission
inventory that follows the protocol of the IPCC AR5 experiments (the AR5
emission inventory hereinafter; see Lamarque et al., 2010). The second
simulation is driven by an improved technology-based inventory (MEIC) developed at Tsinghua University
(<uri>http://www.meicmodel.org/index.html</uri>). MEIC has the following
advantages: (1) adoption of a detailed technology-based approach,
(2) application of a dynamic methodology of rapid technology renewal,
(3) re-examination of China's energy statistics, and (4) monthly emissions to
represent species that have strong seasonal variations (Zhang et al., 2009).
The MEIC emission inventory is verified to produce consistent aerosol
precursor loadings with satellite observations (Li et al., 2010; Wang et al.,
2010, 2012; Zhang et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2016). It has been widely used to
study the trend of aerosol concentrations in China (Wang et al., 2013), the
Asian air pollution outflow (Zhang et al., 2008; Chen et al., 2009), the
relative contribution of emission and meteorology to the aerosol variability
(Xing et al., 2011), and the sensitivity of air quality to precursor
emissions (Liu et al., 2010).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><caption><p id="d1e389">Seasonal variations of SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, BC, POM,
and SOAG in the MEIC emission and the AR5 emission in China for the year
2009.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/1395/2018/acp-18-1395-2018-f01.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e410">Geographical locations of the AERONET sites and chemical
composition sites where the observational data are used in this study. The
provinces and regions mentioned in the context are marked. The red rectangle
denotes eastern China (22–44<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 100–124<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/1395/2018/acp-18-1395-2018-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?pagebreak page1398?><p id="d1e437">The AR5 emission inventory is currently the default for CAM5. The method of
mapping the MEIC emission inventory for CAM5 is described in the Supplement.
In addition to the differences in the annual mean emissions
in 2009 (Fig. S1 in the Supplement), there are large differences in the seasonal variations of
two emission inventories (Fig. 1). The AR5 anthropogenic emissions of
SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, BC, and POM do not have seasonal variations. With the inclusion of
emissions from biomass burning and shipping for 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>, BC, and POM, as
well as volcanic source for SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, the total BC, POM, and SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
emissions have seasonal variations in the AR5 emission inventory. However,
we should note that the seasonal variation in the AR5 emissions is rather
weak since anthropogenic emission dominates in eastern China. This could be
problematic since the severe winter haze events in northern China in recent
years are often linked to the higher anthropogenic emission in winter. The
MEIC emission is characterized by monthly variations for the emissions of
SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, BC, and POM that peak in winter. The emission of SOAG in both
inventories shows a consistent seasonal variation that peaks in summer
because the emissions of biogenic VOCs (isoprene and monoterpenes), which
peak in summer, dominate the total SOAG emission.</p>
      <p id="d1e485">We also carry out an additional CAM5 simulation using the decadal MEIC
emission from 2002 to 2012 to examine the changes of ADREs due to emission.
We choose these 11 years because China's economy recovered from a depression
in 2002, and since then the SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emission started to grow
dramatically and decreased after 2006 due to the application of flue-gas
desulfurization devices. After 2012 the annual emission rates did not change
as dramatically as in the previous years.</p>
      <p id="d1e497">For the first two simulations, we run CAM5 for the year 2009 in a
“constrained-meteorology” mode where the model winds are nudged towards ERA-Interim (Dee
et al., 2011) on a 6 h relaxation timescale (Ma et al., 2013, 2014; Zhang et
al., 2014). Climatological sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are prescribed in
the two simulations. When simulating the decadal change from 2002 to 2012, we
use the reanalysis data in 2009 cyclically to nudge the model meteorological
fields. The constrained-meteorology technique facilitates the
model–observation comparison of aerosols and gas species. Temperature and
moisture are not nudged in this study. As evaluated in Zhang et al. (2014),
nudging temperature and moisture creates a large perturbation to the model
state, resulting in unrealistic behavior for cloud and convection
parameterizations because these parameterizations are calibrated based on the
free-running model climate. Because winds are constrained, the advection of
heat and moisture are constrained to some degree when the difference in local
temperature and moisture between two simulations is small, but local source
and sink terms for atmospheric temperature and moisture are computed
according to the model's fast processes (e.g., cloud processes) and land
processes (due to prescribed SST). The changes in atmospheric temperature and
moisture can in turn influence the gas- and aqueous-phase chemistry and
aerosol loadings. The changes in aerosol loading will affect temperature
through radiation. However, this local change in temperature is less than
1 K (see Sect. 8 in the Supplement).</p>
      <p id="d1e500">We estimate the ADREs due to instantaneous impact of aerosol scattering and
absorption on the Earth's energy budget. The ADREs are calculated by the
difference between the “clear-sky” radiative flux in the standard model
simulation and a diagnostic call to the model radiation code from the same
simulation but neglecting the aerosol scattering and absorption.</p>
      <p id="d1e503">The horizontal resolution is 0.9<inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.25<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, and
vertically there are 30 layers from the surface to 2.25 hPa, with the lowest
four layers inside the boundary layer. We focus our analysis of model results
over eastern China (22–44<inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 100–124<inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E; the red
rectangle in Fig. 2), where the strongest anthropogenic emissions are located.</p>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page1399?><sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>Observational data</title>
      <p id="d1e555">Satellite AOD retrievals from the Moderate Resolution Imaging
Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and Multi-angle Imaging Spectroradiometer (MISR) in
2009 are used to evaluate the model results. This study uses the monthly mean
AOD from MODIS Terra Collection 6 (MOD08_M3 product,
<uri>https://ladsweb.nascom.nasa.gov/</uri>). We use the combined AOD product from
the Dark Target (Levy et al., 2010) and the Deep Blue (Hsu et al., 2004)
algorithms. The MISR AOD retrievals are downloaded from the Atmospheric Science Data Center at NASA Langley Research Center (<uri>https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/project/misr/misr_table</uri>). We also compare our
simulations with ground-based AERONET AOD and single-scattering albedo (SSA)
retrievals at 12 sites in mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, and Korea
(shown in Fig. 2;
<uri>https://aeronet.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/webtool_aod_v3</uri>). Monthly-average
AOD and SSA in 2009 are calculated from the daily averages, with the months
that contain less than 3 daily values excluded.</p>
      <p id="d1e567">Observation data of chemical compositions near the surface in China are
collected from the literature (see Table S3 and the references in the
Supplement). The chemical compositions of particulate matter with diameters
smaller than 2.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m (PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) are analyzed for sulfate, organic
carbon (OC), BC, and SOA in these studies. The measured OC concentrations are
multiplied by a factor of 1.4 for calculation of the total organic mass
(i.e., POM) (Seinfeld and Pandis, 1998). Since the surface chemical
composition data that cover a full year in 2009 are very limited, to compared
at least one year's cycle of seasonal variation, we extend the range of time
selection so that the observations are allowed to continue from 2009 to 2010.
Many of the studies collected the samples continuously during April, July,
October, and January to represent the concentrations in spring, summer,
autumn, and winter. The observation in Xiamen was carried out for a full year
of sample collection. Since we do not find the SOA measurements in 2009, we
use the data in other years and are aware of the uncertainties due to the
time difference. The geographical locations of these observations are shown
in Fig. 2.</p>
      <p id="d1e586">The ADREs have been estimated based on ground-based and satellite
observations at different locations in China (Z. Li et al., 2016). Table S4
summarizes the observations used in this study.
Most of the data are from the Chinese Sun Hazemeter Network (CSHNET) (Xin et
al., 2007; Li et al., 2010). The ADREs are consistently defined as the
difference of the irradiance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA), at the
surface, and in the atmosphere with and without the presence of aerosols. The
ADREs are either calculated by radiative transfer models using the measured
or retrieved aerosol properties (AOD, SSA, phase function, Ångström
exponent, and size distribution) and surface reflectance (Xia et al., 2007a;
Li et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2011; Zhuang et al., 2014), or else derived from
the fitting equation of irradiance measurements as a function of AOD (Xia et
al., 2007b, c). Since the MEIC emission inventory is for anthropogenic
aerosols, we only compare with observations at locations away from deserts
that are less impacted by dust aerosol. For the same reason, the shortwave
radiation is discussed since anthropogenic aerosols are mostly fine
particles, the impact of which on
the longwave radiation can be ignored. All data analyses are performed after
cloud screening to ensure clear-sky conditions. Since the solar irradiance
depends on solar zenith angle (i.e., the time of the day), we compare with
the measurements that are averaged over 24 h. If both the TOA and the
surface ADREs are provided, we calculated the ADRE in the atmosphere by
subtracting the ADRE at TOA by the ADRE at the surface.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e592">AOD averaged over eastern China in 2009 simulated using the MEIC
and the AR5 emissions.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Species</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">MEIC AOD</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">AR5 AOD</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(MEIC-AR5)/</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(MEIC-AR5)/</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">AR5 AOD</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">AR5 emission</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Sulfate</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.085</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.059</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">44.3 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">12.6 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">BC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.030</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.021</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">42.6 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">13.4 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">POM</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.044</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.026</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">70.4 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">12.0 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">SOA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.031</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.026</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">17.4 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">46.9 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Dust</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.057</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.056</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.0 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Sea salt</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.006</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.005</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">4.2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.0 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">All aerosols</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.252</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.193</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">30.4 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><caption><p id="d1e780">Spatial distributions of annual-average AOD at 550 nm over China
in 2009 simulated by CAM5-MAM3 using <bold>(a)</bold> the MEIC emission and <bold>(b)</bold> the AR5
emission, observed by <bold>(c)</bold> MODIS and <bold>(d)</bold> MISR satellites, <bold>(e)</bold> MODIS AOD
scaled by one-half, and <bold>(f)</bold> MISR AOD scaled by two-thirds. The scaling
factors are approximately the ratios between the modeled AOD with the MEIC
emission and retrieved AODs averaged over eastern China.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/1395/2018/acp-18-1395-2018-f03.pdf"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page1400?><sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Results</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <title>Impact of emission on the modeling of AOD, SSA, and surface
concentration</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSSx1" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>Aerosol optical depth</title>
      <p id="d1e827">Figure 3 shows the spatial distributions of the annual-average AOD over
China simulated by CAM5-MAM3 using the MEIC and the AR5 emissions in 2009
compared with satellite retrievals. When comparing with the spatial distribution
of the emissions (Fig. S1), the AOD distribution basically agrees with the
emission patterns of sulfate, BC, POM, and dust aerosols, which contribute
about 85 % of the total AOD. With the AR5 emission, the modeled AOD
(0.19, including dust aerosol) averaged over eastern China is 58.0 %
lower than the MODIS AOD (0.46) and 51.9 % lower than the MISR AOD (0.40)
(see Table 1). The modeled AOD using the MEIC emission is 0.25, which is
30.4 % higher than the AOD with the AR5 emission. The impact of
anthropogenic emissions on the modeled dust AOD is small
(&lt; 1.0 % difference) due to slightly different removal rates of
dust resulting from the internal mixing with anthropogenic aerosols (e.g.,
sulfate). Using the MEIC emission improves the AOD simulations by
12.9 % relative to MODIS and 14.7 % relative to MISR compared with
the AR5 emission. This suggests that the emission uncertainty (bias) could
account for 22.2–28.4 % of the underestimation of AOD simulated by CAM5
with the AR5 emission in eastern China. Although the model bias is largely
reduced by using MEIC, the modeled AOD with the MEIC emission is still
45.1 % lower than the MODIS AOD and 37.2 % lower than the MISR AOD.
In spite of the underestimated magnitudes, both emission inventories
reasonably reproduce the spatial distribution of MODIS- and MISR-retrieved AOD
(Fig. 3e, f). The Jing-Jin-Ji region, Sichuan Basin, Shandong, Henan, Anhui,
Hunan, and Hubei provinces are characterized by higher AODs than other parts
of China, which is consistent with the higher anthropogenic emissions in
these regions.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><caption><p id="d1e832">The seasonal variation of longitudinal-average (100–124<inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E) AOD at 550 nm over eastern China simulated by CAM5-MAM3
using <bold>(a)</bold> the MEIC emission and <bold>(b)</bold> the AR5 emission, and observed by <bold>(c)</bold> MODIS
and <bold>(d)</bold> MISR satellites in 2009.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/1395/2018/acp-18-1395-2018-f04.pdf"/>

          </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e864">Monthly-average AOD simulated by CAM5-MAM3 using the MEIC
emission and the AR5 emission compared with the AERONET, MODIS, and MISR
observations at 12 AERONET sites in and around China. The error bars
represent 1 standard deviation of the daily AERONET observations within
the month.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/1395/2018/acp-18-1395-2018-f05.pdf"/>

          </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e876">The seasonal variation of SSAs simulated by CAM5-MAM3 using the
MEIC emission and the AR5 emission for the year 2009 and observed by AERONET
(red solid circles for the year 2009 and hollow circles for the year 2010) at 12
AERONET sites in and around China. Error bars stand for 1 standard
deviations of the observations.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/1395/2018/acp-18-1395-2018-f06.pdf"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e885">In terms of the seasonal variation, the model simulates AOD maximums between
35 and 40<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N in early summer (from May to July) with both emission
inventories (Fig. 4), which is mostly due to dust aerosol transported from
the west, while the satellite retrievals do not show such strong dust
emission and transport. The simulation with the MEIC emission captures two
observed AOD maximums in the spring (February to April) and in the autumn
(August to October) around 30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, where Sichuan Basin and central
China are located, but the magnitudes are lower than the observations
(Fig. 4). The simulation using the AR5 emission fails to capture the first
maximum and underestimates the second one even more than that with the MEIC
emission. By examining the model AOD components by species (Fig. S4), the
first maximum is mostly due to sulfate aerosol and to a lesser extent POM
aerosol, and the second maximum is mostly due to sulfate. The satellite
retrievals show a third summer maximum in June, which is not captured by the
model with<?pagebreak page1401?> either emission inventory. The time and location of this observed
AOD maximum comply with the SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emission in MEIC (Fig. S3). Therefore,
the observed maximum is probably due to efficient production of sulfuric
acid gas (H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at higher temperatures and consequently formation
of sulfate aerosol. Since the uncertainty of SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emission is relative
low (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>12 %; Zhang et al., 2009) and the concentration of SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is
reasonably simulated by CAM5 (He et al., 2015), model underestimation cannot
be explained by emission alone. Other causes (e.g., wet scavenging, missing
nitrate, particle size distribution, aerosol hygroscopic growth) in the
model may be more responsible. For example, the model bias could be due to
too much wet scavenging associated with the East Asian summer monsoon
precipitation, which pushes too far to the north in summer compared with the
Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) observations (Jiang et al.,
2015). CAM5-MAM3 does not include the treatment of nitrate aerosol, which
can be an important aerosol component in East Asia (Gao et al., 2014).</p>
      <p id="d1e962">More detailed comparisons with observations at 12 AERONET sites are given in
Fig. 5. The model simulations using both emission inventories generally
underestimate AOD compared with AERONET and satellite observations. The
magnitudes of the AODs simulated with the MEIC emission are higher than those
with the AR5 emission. The two simulations feature similar seasonal
variations, for example, summer maximums at the sites north of 35<inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N (Beijing;
Xianghe; Xinglong; and Semi-Arid Climate Observatory and Laboratory, or SACOL). This is because the
simulated AODs are dominated by sulfate and dust aerosols at these northern
sites and by sulfate aerosol at the southern sites (Taihu, Hong Kong,
etc.) in both simulations (see Figs. S5 and S6). Sulfate AOD peaks in summer
in both simulations. In addition to the maximum in spring, dust AODs at the
northern sites have two maximums in summer and autumn, which are suspicious
and need further examination. The observed seasonality of AOD at northern
sites features a maximum in July and a lower AOD in June, while the modeled
AOD peaks in June, which may be due to overestimated dust aerosol. The model
captures the seasonality of observed AOD in the downwind regions but
underestimates the magnitude of AOD by a factor of 2–3. AODs at the sites at
20–30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N (Taiwan and Hong Kong sites) are<?pagebreak page1402?> featured by the summer
minimums in both observations and model results due to the scavenging of
aerosols by the summer monsoon precipitation. The MEIC emission has a notable
impact on AOD at the Hong_Kong_PolyU site in all seasons and only has a small
impact in winter at Taiwan sites (NCU_Taiwan, EPA_Taiwan, and
Chen-Kung_Univ). The difference between the two emission inventories is not
evident at Osaka and Shirahama.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e985">The monthly-average surface concentrations of sulfate, POM, BC,
and SOA using the MEIC emission and the AR5 emission compared with
observations. The solid lines are linear regressions between the model
results and observations. The red dashed lines represent the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> lines. The regression functions and coefficients of determination
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are also shown.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/1395/2018/acp-18-1395-2018-f07.pdf"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e1043">The sensitivities of modeled AOD to the emission change between the two
inventories are quite different for each aerosol species due to different
aerosol refractive indexes (Table 1). Twelve percent of POM emission difference
results in 70.4 % of the AOD difference. In contrast, 46.9 % of the
SOAG emission difference leads to only 17.4 % of the AOD difference of
SOA.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSSx2" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>Single-scattering albedo </title>
      <p id="d1e1052">Figure 6 shows the modeled SSA using the MEIC and AR5 emissions and the
comparison with the observations by AERONET. The modeled SSA at Beijing,
Xianghe, and Xinglong agrees with the AERONET data in terms of the strong
seasonal variations of lower SSA in winter and higher SSA in summer,
indicating higher fractions of light-absorbing
aerosols in winter. However, the modeled SSA is
systematically lower than the AERONET data. This indicates the significant
underestimation of light-scattering aerosols (e.g., sulfate and POM). The SSA
simulated with the MEIC emission is lower than that using the AR5 emission by
up to 0.05 in winter, which is consistent with the higher BC emission in the
MEIC emission. The SSA simulated with the MEIC emission in Taihu is slightly
higher than that with the AR5 emission throughout the year, which is
consistent with the higher MEIC emission of sulfate. Outside mainland China
the modeled SSA agrees with AERONET data reasonably well at the Hong Kong,
Taiwan, and Japan sites, although underestimations can be found in some
months.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e1057">The seasonal variations of monthly-average surface concentrations of sulfate, POM, and BC modeled by
CAM5-MAM3 using the MEIC (black lines) and the AR5 emissions (red lines) for
the year 2009 compared with the observations (asterisks for 2009 and hollow
circles for 2010). Error bars stand for 1 standard deviation.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/1395/2018/acp-18-1395-2018-f08.pdf"/>

          </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSSx3" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>Aerosol surface concentrations </title>
      <p id="d1e1072">Figure 7 compares the modeled surface concentrations of sulfate, BC, POM, and
SOA with the observations of chemical compositions. The surface
concentrations of these aerosol<?pagebreak page1403?> species are generally underestimated in the
model with both emission inventories, which is consistent with the
underestimations of AODs. The concentrations of sulfate aerosol are
underestimated by about a factor of 3 (the linear-regression slope of 0.35)
using the MEIC emission but are improved compared with about a factor of 5
(the linear-regression slope of 0.18) using the AR5 emission. Since the
concentration of SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is reasonably well simulated by CAM5 over East Asia
(He et al., 2015), there could be a fundamental error in the model treatment
of the conversion from precursor gases to secondary aerosols. The POM and BC
surface concentrations are significantly improved by the MEIC emission due to
higher emission rates especially in winter. The root mean square errors
(RMSEs) using the MEIC emission are 10.01, 14.63, 3.32, and
6.58 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for sulfate, POM, BC, and SOA, respectively,
which are smaller than RMSEs of 13.38, 19.21, 3.97, and
8.38 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> using the AR5 emission. The coefficients of
determination (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> between model simulations and observations of all
these species are also improved. Considering that most observations are
carried out at single points and at altitudes close to the surface, the
underestimation could be partly due to the model's coarse horizontal and
vertical resolutions. The model with a coarse horizontal resolution does not
account for the subgrid variability of aerosols (Qian et al., 2010). With the
coarse vertical resolution, aerosol species are assumed to be well mixed in
the bottom model layer with a thickness of about 60 m, which may lead to low
biases compared with the observations.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F9" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e1138">From left to right columns: (1) SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
emission rates from the MEIC (black) and the AR5 (blue) emission
inventories, model simulations for the year 2009 of (2) gas-phase chemistry
production rates in the simulations by MEIC and AR5 and the surface
temperature (red), (3) aqueous-phase production rates and the relative
humidity at the surface (yellow), (4) dry-deposition rates and the 10 m wind
speed (purple), and (5) wet-scavenging rates and the precipitation rate
(green).</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=469.470472pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/1395/2018/acp-18-1395-2018-f09.pdf"/>

          </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <title>Distinct impact of emission and atmospheric processes on aerosol
seasonal variations</title>
      <?pagebreak page1406?><p id="d1e1163">Observed surface concentrations at 10 locations in China show that the
primary and secondary aerosols have distinct seasonal variations (Fig. 8).
The observed surface concentrations of primary aerosols (BC and POM) at all
locations show maximums in winter, suggesting that their seasonal variations
are mainly controlled by the emission. The MEIC emission significantly
improves the modeled seasonal variations compared with the AR5 emission that
has no seasonal variations of POM and BC emissions. In contrast, the
observed concentrations of sulfate in northern China (Chengde, Shangdianzi,
Beijing, Tianjin, Shijiazhuang, Zhengzhou) are characterized by summer
maximums. This is due to a higher photochemical production rate in summer
(Wen et al., 2015). The modeled concentrations of sulfate also show their
maximum in summer. This feature is commonly seen for many climate models.
The concentrations of sulfate in the southern cities (Xiamen and Guangzhou)
do not have summer maximums due to the Asian summer monsoon with strong
winds and precipitation.</p>
      <p id="d1e1166">We examine the processes that determine the concentrations of sulfate in the
model, including gas-phase and aqueous-phase production, dry and wet
scavenging, and the controlling meteorological variables (Fig. 9).
The MEIC emission of SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> peaks in winter in northern China due to
heating in the domestic section, whereas the AR5 emission does not have
seasonal variations (Fig. S7). Obviously, the surface concentrations of
sulfate aerosol cannot be explained by emission alone, and the atmospheric
processes are more likely responsible for the seasonality. We find that the
simulated seasonal variations of surface concentrations of sulfate aerosol
are controlled by the gas-phase and aqueous-phase production processes and
to a lesser extent by the emission of SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. The gas-phase chemistry is
most active in summer due to the temperature dependence of the oxidation
rate of SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> by OH. Also the oxidation rate depends on the concentration
of the OH radical, which is highest due to efficient photochemical reactions in
summer. The aqueous-phase formation of sulfate aerosol also peaks in summer
due to higher relative humidity and thus more cloud water. Although the MEIC
SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions peak in winter, both the gas-phase and aqueous-phase
oxidations are less efficient in winter, which results in lower
concentrations of sulfate aerosol than in summer.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10"><caption><p id="d1e1207">The seasonal variations of the longitudinal averages (100–124<inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E) of <bold>(a)</bold> burden of BC and
<bold>(b)</bold> emission rate of BC using the MEIC emission, and <bold>(c)</bold>
burden of BC and <bold>(d)</bold> emission rate of BC using the AR5 emission
inventory over eastern China in 2009.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/1395/2018/acp-18-1395-2018-f10.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e1240">The seasonal variations of longitudinal-average (100–124<inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E) differences of <bold>(a)</bold> BC burden, <bold>(b)</bold> BC emission, <bold>(c)</bold>
sulfate aerosol burden, and <bold>(d)</bold> SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emission between the CAM5
simulations using the MEIC emission and the AR5 emission with identical
meteorological variables of <bold>(e)</bold> temperature, <bold>(f)</bold> relative humidity at
the surface, <bold>(g)</bold> precipitation, and <bold>(h)</bold> horizontal wind speed over eastern China
in 2009.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/1395/2018/acp-18-1395-2018-f11.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1292">We notice that some other observations show different seasonality of sulfate
aerosol from the model results. For example, observations from the China Meteorological Administration Atmosphere Watch Network (CAWNET; Zhang
et al., 2012) show that concentrations of sulfate aerosol in the northern
Chinese cities (e.g., Gucheng and Zhengzhou in Fig. S8) peak in winter as
opposed to summer in spite of a minor maximum in summer. The observed
seasonal variations at two pairs of nearby sites from CAWNET and our study
(Gucheng 2006–2007 versus Beijing 2009–2010, Zhengzhou 2006–2007 versus
2009–2010) are different from each other. This may reflect that the relative
contributions of the emissions and the atmospheric processes in determining
the concentration of sulfate change with years and locations. It is also
possible that some mechanisms of sulfate aerosol formation for these CAWNET
sites, which are especially important in winter, are not properly modeled or
are missing in the model. For example, the aqueous-phase oxidation of SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> in
preexisting aerosols is not modeled, which is important in explaining the
winter haze in China (Wang et al., 2016; Cheng et al., 2016).</p>
      <p id="d1e1304">Having the same constrained meteorology for the two simulations with
different emission inventories provides us with an opportunity to examine the
impact of emission versus atmospheric processes on the seasonality of
aerosols. The longitudinal-average BC burden in the simulation with the MEIC
emission shows a strong seasonal variation between 25 and 40<inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N with
a higher burden in winter (Fig. 10a), which corresponds with the seasonal
variation of BC emission (Fig. 10b). Since there is no seasonal variation for
BC aerosol in the AR5 emission (Fig. 10d), the seasonal variation of BC
concentrations can only be due to the impact of atmospheric processes in the
AR5 emission run (Fig. 10c). The winter peak is also seen for the AR5 run
most likely due to stagnant wind fields for dispersion in winter. The summer
minimums are due to wet scavenging by the monsoon precipitation. Figure 10
indicates that seasonal variations of both the emission and atmospheric
processes play important roles in determining the seasonal variation of BC
concentrations.</p>
      <?pagebreak page1407?><p id="d1e1316"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>The distinct impacts of emissions and atmospheric processes that are
associated with meteorological factors on the seasonal variations of primary
(e.g., BC) and secondary aerosols (e.g., sulfate) are further demonstrated in
Fig. 11. The seasonal variation of differences in the longitudinal-average
burden of BC between the two emission runs closely resembles the pattern of
differences in the emission of BC (Fig. 11a, b). However, the dependence of
seasonal variation of the burden of sulfate on the emission of SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is less
evident (Fig. 11c, d). The difference of SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emission between the two
inventories at 30–45<inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N is amplified by the production and
condensation of H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> gas, which are favored at higher temperatures
in summer. This larger difference of the sulfate burden between the two emission
runs is obviously aligned with higher temperatures between 30 and
45<inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N in summer (May to July) (Fig. 11e). In contrast, although
there is a comparable difference in the SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emission between 35 and
40<inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N in cold seasons (November to March), the difference of the sulfate
burden is not as evident due to the fact that low temperatures inhibit the
production of sulfate. Wet scavenging by clouds and precipitation helps to
reduce the concentrations and their absolute differences in southern China
during spring and summer (Fig. 11f, g). Higher wind speeds north of
35<inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N in winter (Fig. 11h) for aerosol dispersion help to explain
the small difference of the sulfate burden in spite of the evident difference of
SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emission there. The stagnant wind field that propagates from 22 to
35<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N in spring and from 35 to 22<inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N in autumn makes the
impact of the difference in emissions on the large differences of BC and sulfate
burdens between the two simulations prominent in the corresponding seasons
and regions. Due to the complex atmospheric processes, the spatiotemporal
patterns of secondary aerosol burdens less closely follow their precursor
gas emissions than primary aerosols.</p>
      <p id="d1e1430">In this study, changes in the aerosol radiative forcing will alter
atmospheric temperature and moisture in the model and can, in turn,
influence gas- and aqueous-phase chemistry and aerosols. However, differences
in temperature (&lt; 1 K) and moisture (&lt; 3 %) are small
enough compared to seasonal variations and therefore do not affect our
finding on the impacts of emissions and atmospheric processes on the aerosol
burden. More discussion on the effect on aerosol–meteorological interactions
is provided in Sect. 8 of the Supplement.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e1437">Aerosol direct radiative effects (ADREs) and the normalized
radiative effect (NRE) averaged over eastern China in 2009 simulated using
the MEIC and the AR5 emissions.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="8">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Species</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">MEIC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">AR5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(MEIC-AR5)/</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">MEIC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">AR5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">Schulz et al. (2006)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">ADRE,</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">ADRE,</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">AR5 ADRE,</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">NRE,</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">NRE,</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">NRE,</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Wm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">%</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">aer</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">aer</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">aer</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">TOA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">All aerosols</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5.02</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4.11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">22.3 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>20.83</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>22.05</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Sulfate</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.62</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.96</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">33.6 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>31.77</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>33.91</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>19</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>32 to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">BC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.51</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.81</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">39.1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">100.52</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">99.64</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">153</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">(28 to 270)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">POM</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.38</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.94</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">47.2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>33.84</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>36.70</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>19</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>38 to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Surface</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">All aerosols</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>18.47</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>14.99</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">23.3 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>72.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>76.06</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Sulfate</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3.40</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.58</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">31.7 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>40.36</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>43.78</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">BC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5.73</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4.40</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">30.4 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>204.98</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>211.71</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">POM</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.72</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.78</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">52.5 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>63.73</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>68.04</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Atmosphere</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">All aerosols</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">13.45</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">10.88</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">23.6 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">51.67</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">54.01</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Sulfate</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.79</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.62</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">26.0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">8.58</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">9.87</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">BC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">8.25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">6.21</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">32.9 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">305.50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">311.35</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">POM</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.33</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.84</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">58.4 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">29.89</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">31.35</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F12" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e2228">Spatial distributions of the annual-average aerosol direct
radiative effects (ADREs) at TOA, at the surface (SFC), and in the atmosphere (ATM)
using the MEIC and the AR5 emissions and their differences in year 2009.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=412.564961pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/1395/2018/acp-18-1395-2018-f12.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F13" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e2239">Spatial distributions of ADREs of BC in summer (June, July,
August) and winter (December, January, February) at the surface (SFC) in
year 2009.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/1395/2018/acp-18-1395-2018-f13.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F14" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e2250">Same as Fig. 13 but for the ADREs of BC in the atmosphere
(ATM).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/1395/2018/acp-18-1395-2018-f14.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <title>Impact of emission on the modeling of ADREs</title>
      <?pagebreak page1409?><p id="d1e2265">Figure 12 shows the spatial distribution of annual-average shortwave ADREs
in China simulated using the MEIC and the AR5 emissions due to all aerosol
species at TOA, at the surface, and in the atmosphere. The TOA radiative cooling
effect is evident in eastern China due to anthropogenic aerosols. In some
parts of the southwestern China the ADRE at TOA is positive due to strong BC
absorption in the atmosphere. The most pronounced surface cooling and
atmospheric warming are located in northern China and the Sichuan Basin,
which is consistent with the spatial patterns of the emissions. At these
locations the surface and atmospheric differences of the ADREs between the
two simulations are also significant.</p>
      <p id="d1e2268">As shown in Table 2 the annual-average cooling effect at TOA is reduced
(more negatively) by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.91 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (22.3 %) by all aerosols using
the MEIC emission (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5.02 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> compared with that using the AR5
emission (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4.11 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. At the surface there is a strong cooling
effect of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>18.47 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> using the MEIC emission, which is reduced
(more negative) by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3.48 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (23.3 %) compared with that using
the AR5 emission (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>14.99 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The atmospheric warming effect of
all aerosols using the MEIC emission is estimated to be 13.45 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>,
which is 2.57 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (23.6 %) stronger than the estimation made by
the AR5 emission (10.88 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over eastern China.</p>
      <?pagebreak page1410?><p id="d1e2435">Table 2 also shows the annual-average ADREs over eastern China by
individual aerosol species. The ADREs of SOA are not shown due to its large
emission uncertainty. Due to larger AODs simulated with the MEIC emission,
the ADREs of each aerosol species are larger than the ADREs using the AR5
emission by 33.6 to 47.2 % at TOA. Tables 1 and 2 show that over eastern
China a 12.0–46.9 % difference of the anthropogenic emission rates of
various aerosol species results in a 30.4 % difference of the total AOD of
all species (including anthropogenic and natural aerosols) and 22.3, 23.3,
and 23.6 % differences of the ADREs at TOA, the surface, and in the
atmosphere, respectively. The impacts of the emission on AOD and ADREs are
significant.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F15" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e2440">ADREs at TOA, at the surface, and in the atmosphere modeled by CAM5-MAM3 using
the MEIC (black dots and triangles) and the AR5 (blue dots and triangles)
emissions in year 2009 compared with ADRE observations from CSHNET (dots) in
year 2005 and other observations (triangles) in China for various time
period ranging from 2005 to 2012 (Table S4) at corresponding locations. The
linear-regression lines between the model and the observation are also
shown.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/1395/2018/acp-18-1395-2018-f15.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e2450">The normalized radiative effect (NRE) represents the radiative effect
efficiency per unit aerosol optical depth (Schulz et al., 2006). The
light-scattering aerosols (sulfate and POM) have very similar negative NREs
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>31.77 and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>33.84 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">aer</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with the MEIC
emission, respectively). The light absorbing BC aerosol shows a much higher
positive NRE (100.52 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">aer</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is
comparable to the mean NREs of the AeroCom models (153 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">aer</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> considering the wide range of the estimates among
the models (28 to 270 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">aer</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Schulz et al.,
2006). The NREs of BC are much higher than the other aerosol species,
especially the warming in the atmosphere (305.50 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">aer</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This indicates that the ADREs are much more
sensitive to the BC aerosol burden than the other aerosol species and
highlights the importance of the BC emission and concentration to correctly
represent the ADREs in the model. BC also makes the largest contribution to
the ADRE in the atmosphere and at the surface. We note that the ADREs of
light-scattering aerosols (sulfate and POM) in the atmosphere are also
warming effects. The explanation is that coating of these scattering aerosols
on BC increases the absorption capability of the internally mixed aerosol
particles (i.e., particles in the same aerosol mode with BC) (Chung et al.,
2012).</p>
      <p id="d1e2591">The modeled spatial distributions of ADREs of BC in summer and winter at the
surface and in the atmosphere are shown in Figs. 13 and 14, respectively.
With the AR5 emission, the average ADREs over eastern China in winter
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4.40 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at the surface and 6.11 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in the atmosphere) are
close to the ADREs in summer (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4.40 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at the surface and
6.28 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in the atmosphere). Due to the higher MEIC BC emission in
winter, the cooling effect of BC at the surface is much more significant when
using the MEIC emission (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7.35 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> than the AR5 emission averaged
over eastern China (Fig. 13). Likewise the warming effect of BC in the
atmosphere with the MEIC emission (10.50 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is nearly twice as
much as that using the AR5 emission (Fig. 14). Driven by the same constrained
meteorology, the MEIC emission results in much stronger seasonal variation of
ADREs of BC than the AR5 emission.</p>
      <p id="d1e2694">Figure 15 shows the comparison between the measured and modeled ADREs at TOA,
at the surface, and in the atmosphere over China. Observations from 25 nationwide
stations shows that clear-sky ADREs are characterized by a strong radiative
heating in the atmosphere, which implies a substantial warming in the
atmosphere and cooling at the surface (Li et al., 2007, 2010). Model
simulations show small ADREs (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at TOA with
both the MEIC and AR5 emission inventories, while the measurements give a
larger range of ADREs at TOA (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>14 to 2 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. At the
surface and in the atmosphere, the modeled ADREs using the MEIC emission
inventory at most locations are within a factor of 2 of the
observations. The MEIC emission inventory produces better agreement with the
observations than the AR5 emission inventory.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F16"><caption><p id="d1e2765">The change of ADREs at TOA, at the surface, and in the atmosphere
relative to year 2002 due to the emission change from 2002 to 2012 in
eastern China estimated by the MEIC development team.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/1395/2018/acp-18-1395-2018-f16.pdf"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <title>Decadal trend of ADRE</title>
      <p id="d1e2781">The uncertainty of aerosol emissions used in climate models could affect the
historical and future aerosol effects simulated by the models. Here in this
section, we assess the changes in ADREs as the change in the emission in the
past decade and compare them with the difference that results from the use
of the two emission inventories.</p>
      <p id="d1e2784">The magnitude and structure of aerosol and precursor gas emissions in China
have significantly changed during the last decade (B. Zhao et al., 2013; Lu
et al., 2011; Kang et al., 2016). The emission trend used in this study is
estimated by the MEIC development team based on their knowledge on the
evolution of economic activity and technology in China (see Fig. S9). Figure 16
shows that the decadal trend of ADRE agrees with the trend of emissions
(Fig. S9). The warming in the atmosphere and the cooling at the surface were
both enhanced with the increase of emissions of SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, BC, and POM from
2003 to 2006. The ADRE at TOA only decreased slightly, indicating more energy
lost from the atmosphere–earth system. From 2006 to 2009, the changes of
ADREs were not significant due to the stabilized emission of BC. Since 2010,
the warming in the atmosphere and the cooling at the surface both increased
due to the increased emission of SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and BC. The changes of ADREs at
the surface and in the atmosphere from 2002 to 2003 may reflect the complicated
interactions between sulfate and BC/POM in eastern China, enhancing the
BC/POM wet scavenging due to sulfate coating.</p>
      <p id="d1e2805">The ranges of the decadal changes of ADREs at TOA (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.45 to
0.07 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, at the surface (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.99 to 0.19 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and in the
atmosphere (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.20 to 0.60 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are smaller than the differences of
ADREs between MEIC and AR5 emissions in 2009, which are <inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.91, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3.48, and
2.57 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively. This highlights the uncertainty of the emission inventories
and the need to constrain the emission inventories of aerosols and
precursor gases by in situ and satellite observations.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page1411?><sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Summary and conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e2909">Anthropogenic aerosols in East Asia have substantial effects on regional air
quality and climate. However, global climate models generally have low
biases in anthropogenic aerosol burdens in this region (Shindell et al.,
2013), and thus the aerosol radiative effects may be underestimated. The
reasons behind the low biases are unclear but may include the bias in
aerosol emissions, the lack of some aerosol processes, coarse model
resolutions, etc. In this study, we simulated the aerosol concentrations,
optical depth, and radiative effects in eastern China using
CAM5 with MAM3. A technology-based emission inventory, Multi-resolution
Emission Inventory for China (MEIC), was implemented into CAM5-MAM3, and
results were compared with the simulation using the default IPCC AR5
emission inventory.</p>
      <p id="d1e2912">We found that the MEIC emission improves the annual mean AOD simulations in
eastern China by 12.9 % compared with the MODIS observations and 14.7 %
compared with the MISR observations, which explains 22.2–28.4 % of the
AOD underestimation simulated with the AR5 emission. The MEIC emission
generally reproduces the AOD spatial distribution, although AOD is still
underestimated compared with the MODIS and MISR satellite retrievals.</p>
      <p id="d1e2915">CAM5 with the MEIC emission captures the AOD maximums around 30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N in
spring and autumn better than CAM5 with the AR5 emission. However, both
emission runs underestimate the AOD maximum around 30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N in summer,
which coincides with the modeled summer monsoon precipitation that pushes
too far to the north. Wet scavenging by summer monsoon precipitation should
be reasonably represented since it significantly affects the model AODs. The
modeling of dust aerosol is also of particular importance in northern China.</p>
      <p id="d1e2936">The simulated surface concentrations of both primary and secondary aerosols
are improved by using the MEIC emission compared with those modeled by the AR5
emission. The MEIC emission leads to better agreement with the observed
seasonal variations of the primary aerosols (i.e., POM and BC) than the AR5
emission in term of seasonal variation, but the concentrations are still
underestimated. This implies that the atmospheric loadings of primary
aerosols are closely related to the emission, which may still be
underestimated over eastern China. In contrast, the seasonal variations of
secondary aerosols (i.e., sulfate) depend more on the aerosol processes
(e.g., gas- and aqueous-phase chemistry) associated with the meteorological
factors (e.g., temperature,<?pagebreak page1412?> relative humidity, winds) and to a lesser extent on
the emission. Analysis of the aerosol processes in the model shows the
gas-phase and in-cloud aqueous-phase formation of sulfate aerosol peaks in summer
due to higher temperature, photolysis rate, and relative humidity. Therefore,
it is suggested that the emissions of secondary aerosols alone cannot explain
all the low biases in the model over eastern China. Aerosol processes in CAM5
should be revisited. For example, we notice that some other observations
(e.g., CAWNET) show winter peaks of the sulfate concentration in northern
China in different years and locations, which may reflect that some
mechanisms, such as production through heterogeneous reactions of SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> on
preexisting aerosols, are important for these observation sites and should
be included in the model. Observations and regional air quality modeling with
more complex chemistry reveal the importance of sulfate production on
mineral dust through gas-phase uptake or heterogeneous reactions in
increasing the PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations and the mass fractions of secondary
inorganic aerosols (Wang et al., 2014; Huang et al., 2014; Zheng et al.,
2015; Dong et al., 2016). The coexistence of NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> promotes
heterogeneous production of sulfate aerosol under high-relative-humidity conditions (He
et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2014). The aqueous-phase
oxidation of SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> by NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (Wang et al., 2016; Cheng et al., 2016) or
O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (Palout et al., 2016) is efficient at forming sulfate aerosol under
high-relative-humidity and NH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> neutralization conditions. Nitrate aerosol is
not modeled in CAM5 and could be an important contributor to AOD in eastern
China. It is also possible that the default accommodation coefficient of
H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> gas is set too high in CAM5-MAM3, which results in
too efficient condensation and insufficient nucleation of H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> to
form sulfate aerosol (He and Zhang, 2014).</p>
      <p id="d1e3050">Different emissions have substantial effects on ADREs. By using the MEIC
emission, the annual-average ADREs at TOA and at the surface over eastern
China are reduced (more negative) by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.91 and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3.48 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>,
respectively, while the warming in the atmosphere is increased by
2.57 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The ADREs using the MEIC emission are enhanced by 22.3, 23.3, and
23.6 % at TOA, at the surface, and in the atmosphere, respectively. The ADRE is more
sensitive to BC aerosol burden than the other aerosol species. Due to the
higher MEIC BC emission in winter, the warming effect of BC in the atmosphere
and the cooling effect at the surface are much higher than those using the
AR5 emission. This implies that enhanced BC loading in winter will lead to
strong atmospheric inversion (Wang et al., 2015; Ding et al., 2016). In
summary, a 12.0–46.9 % difference of the emission rates of different
aerosol species results in a 30.4 % difference of the total AOD and about
a 22 % difference of the ADREs averaged over eastern China. The impacts
of the emission on AOD and ADREs are significant.</p>
      <p id="d1e3091">By examining the change of ADRE from 2002 to 2012 using the estimation of
emissions made by the MEIC development team, we find that the decadal
changes of ADREs are smaller than the differences of ADREs simulated by the
two emission inventories at TOA, at the surface, and in the atmosphere over eastern
China. This indicates that there is an urgent need to constrain the emission
inventories of aerosols and precursor gases by in situ and satellite
observations.</p>
      <p id="d1e3094">This research highlights the critical importance of improving emissions of
aerosols and precursor gases as well as the aerosol processes for the
modeling of aerosols and aerosol radiative effects in eastern China, although
any improvement in our understanding of the underlying processes would be
equally valuable anywhere else. We note that modeled AOD and surface
concentrations are still underestimated in CAM5 even with the MEIC emission.
Yet, if the estimations of MEIC emissions in trace gases do not suffer
similar biases to those in the AOD, our findings will help affirm a fundamental
error in the conversion from precursor gases to secondary aerosols as hinted
in other recent studies following different approaches. The recently released
Community Emission Data System (CEDS) is intended for
use in CMIP6 (Hoesly et al., 2017). The CEDS emission for eastern China is
comparable with MEIC (see Sect. 3 in the Supplement) since CEDS is scaled to
country-level inventories, i.e., MEIC for China (Li et al., 2017). Without
improvements in the aerosol process, the similar low bias over eastern China
in CMIP5 GCMs is expected in CMIP6. There also exist aspects other than
aerosol process that potentially lead to the low bias. The CAM5 model with a
horizontal resolution of 0.9<inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.25<inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> may miss the
subgrid aerosol variability (Qian et al., 2010) and not be able to
capture the collocation between aerosols and clouds important for aerosol wet
scavenging (Ma et al., 2014). CAM5-MAM3 may also miss some important aerosol
species (e.g., nitrate) which can have similar mass burdens to those of sulfate in
eastern China (Gao et al., 2014). Current work is underway to increase
the model resolution and to implement nitrate aerosol in CAM5-MAM3. The
impacts of these new developments on aerosols in East Asia will then be
reevaluated.</p>
      <p id="d1e3122">In this study, as the first step the impacts of a new emission inventory on
the simulations of AOD, aerosol concentrations, and ADREs in east China are
examined. Future studies of impacts on clouds, precipitation, and atmospheric
circulation in east China and elsewhere will be conducted. Using a global
climate model with interactions between aerosols, cloud, precipitation, and
meteorology, we will be able to study the potential impacts of climate
changes on pollution conditions in China. A predominant climatic phenomenon
in China is the East Asian monsoon, and thus the impacts of monsoon variability
on air pollution have gained a lot of attention (Wu et al., 2016). Long-term
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 30 years) simulation will be needed to study the impact of aerosol on climate
change in China.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability">

      <p id="d1e3136">The permanent URL for downloading the MEIC emission dataset is <uri>http://www.meicmodel.org/index.html</uri>.
MODIS AOD retrievals are available at the Level-1 and<?pagebreak page1413?> Atmosphere Archive and Distribution (LAADS) Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC)
(<uri>https://ladsweb.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/</uri>). The AERONET observations can be downloaded
using the AERONET Data Download Tool (<uri>https://aeronet.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/webtool_aod_v3</uri>).
The CAM5 model code is available at <uri>http://www2.cesm.ucar.edu/</uri>.
The MISR AOD retrievals can be downloaded from the Atmospheric Science Data
Center at NASA Langley Research Center (<uri>https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/project/misr/misr_table</uri>). Ground
observations for chemical species are collected from the
literature.</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e3154">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-1395-2018-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-1395-2018-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="competinginterests">

      <p id="d1e3163">The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="sistatement">

      <p id="d1e3169">This article is part of the special issue “Regional transport
and transformation of air pollution in eastern China”. It is not affiliated
with a conference.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e3175">The authors would like to acknowledge the use of
computational resources (ark:/85065/d7wd3xhc) at the NCAR-Wyoming
Supercomputing Center provided by the National Science Foundation and the
State of Wyoming, and supported by NCAR's Computational and Information
Systems Laboratory. This work was supported by National Natural Science
Foundation of China (grant no. 41705125) and by the Ministry of Science and
Technology of China (grant no. 2013CB955804). Both Tianyi Fan and Chuanfeng Zhao were
supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
(grant no. 310400090, 312231103). Po-Lun Ma acknowledges internal support from the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory, which is operated for the US Department of Energy
by Battelle Memorial Institute under contract DE-AC05-76RL01830. We thank the
AERONET PI investigators and their staff for establishing and maintaining the
12 sites used in this investigation.
<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Edited by: Tong Zhu<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Reviewed by: five anonymous referees</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Binkowski, F. S. and Shankar, U.: The Regional Particulate Matter Model, 1.
Model description and preliminary results, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 100,
26191–26209, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Bond, T. C. and Bergstrom, R. W.: Light Absorption by Carbonaceous
Particles: An Investigative Review, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 40, 27–67, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Boucher, O., Randall, D., Artaxo, P., Bretherton, C., Feingold, G., Forster, P.
Kerminen, V.-M., Kondo, Y., Liao, H., Lohmann, U., Rasch, P., Satheesh, S. K.,
Sherwood, S., Stevens,  B., and Zhang, X. Y.: Clouds and Aerosols, in: Climate Change
2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
edited by: Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S. K., Boschung,
J.,
Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and Midgley, P. M., Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Chang, W., Liao, H., Xin J., Li, Z., Li, D., and Zhang, X.: Uncertainties in
anthropogenic aerosol concentrations and direct radiative forcing induced by
emission inventories in eastern China, Atmos. Res., 166, 129–140, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Chen, D., Wang, Y., McElroy, M. B., He, K., Yantosca, R. M., and Le Sager,
P.: Regional CO pollution and export in China simulated by the
high-resolution nested-grid GEOS-Chem model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9,
3825–3839, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-3825-2009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-9-3825-2009</ext-link>, 2009. .</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Chen, D., Liu, Z., Fast, J., and Ban, J.: Simulations of
sulfate-nitrate-ammonium (SNA) aerosols during the extreme haze events over
northern China in October 2014, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 10707–10724,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-10707-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-10707-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Cheng Y., Zheng, G., Wei, C., Mu, Q., Zheng, B., Wang, Z., Gao, M., Zhang,
Q., He, K., Carmichael, G., Pöschl, U., and Su, H.: Reactive nitrogen
chemistry in aerosol water as a source of sulfate during haze events in
China, Sci. Adv., 2, e1601530, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1601530" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/sciadv.1601530</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Chung, C. E., Lee, K., and Müller, D.: Effect of internal mixture on
black carbon radiative forcing, Tellus B, 64, 1–13, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Dee, D. P., Uppala S. M., Simmons A. J., Berrisford, P., Poli, P., Kobayashi,
S., Andrae, U., Balmaseda, G., Balsamo, M. A., Bauer, P., Bechtold, P.,
Beljaars, A. C. M., van de Berg, L., Bidlot, J., Bormann, N., Delsol, C.,
Dragani, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A. J., Haimberger, L., Healy, S. B.,
Hersbach, H., Hólm, E. V., Isaksen, L., Kållberg, P., Köhler, M.,
Matricardi, M., McNally, A. P., Monge-Sanz, B. M., Morcrette, J.-J., Park,
B.-K., Peubey, C., de Rosnay, P., Tavolato, C., Thépaut, J.-N., and
Vitart F.: The ERA Interim reanalysis: Configuration and performance of the
data assimilation system, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 137, 553–597, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Ding, A. J., Huang, X., Nie, W., Sun, J. N., Kerminen, V.-M.,
Petäjä, T., Su, H., Cheng, Y. F., Yang, X.-Q., Wang, M. H., Chi, X.
G., Wang, J. P., Virkkula, A., Guo, W. D., Yuan, J., Wang, S. Y., Zhang, R.
J., Wu, Y. F., Song, Y., Zhu, T., Zilitinkevich, S., Kulmala, M., and Fu, C.
B.: Enhanced haze pollution by black carbon in megacities in China, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 43, 2873–2879, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL067745" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016GL067745</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Dong, X., Fu, J. S., Huang, K., Tong, D., and Zhuang, G.: Model development
of dust emission and heterogeneous chemistry within the Community Multiscale
Air Quality modeling system and its application over East Asia, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 16, 8157–8180, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-8157-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-8157-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Fu, T.-M., Cao, J. J., Zhang, X. Y., Lee, S. C., Zhang, Q., Han, Y. M., Qu,
W. J., Han, Z., Zhang, R., Wang, Y. X., Chen, D., and Henze, D. K.:
Carbonaceous aerosols in China: top-down constraints on primary sources and
estimation of secondary contribution, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 2725–2746,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-2725-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-2725-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Gao, Y., Zhao, C., Liu, X., Zhang, M., and Leung, L.-R.: WRF-Chem
simulations of aerosols and anthropogenic aerosol<?pagebreak page1414?> radiative forcing in East
Asia, Atmos. Environ., 92, 250–266, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.04.038" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.04.038</ext-link>,
2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Ghan, S. J. and Zaveri, R. A.: Parameterization of optical properties for
hydrated internally mixed aerosol, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 112, D10201,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006jd007927" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006jd007927</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Guo, S., Hu, M., Zamora, M. L., Peng, J., Shang, D., Zheng, J., Du, Z., Wu,
Z., Shao, M., Zeng, L., Molina, M. J., and Zhang, R.: Elucidating severe
urban haze formation in China, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 11, 17373–17378,
2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>He, H., Wang, Y., Ma, Q., Ma, J., Chu, B., Ji, D., Tang, G., Liu, C. Zhang,
H., and Hao, J.: Mineral dust and NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> promote the conversion of SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
to sulfate in heavy pollution days, Sci. Rep., 4, 4172,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/srep04172" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/srep04172</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>He, J. and Zhang, Y.: Improvement and further development in CESM/CAM5:
gas-phase chemistry and inorganic aerosol treatments, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14,
9171–9200, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-9171-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-9171-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>He, J., Zhang, Y., Glotfelty, T., He, R., Bennartz, R., Rausch, J., and
Sartelet, K.: Decadal simulation and comprehensive evaluation of CESM/CAM5.1
with advanced chemistry, aerosol microphysics, and aerosol cloud
interactions, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 7, 110–141,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014MS000360" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014MS000360</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Hess, M., Koepke, P., and Schult, I.: Optical properties of aerosols and
clouds: The software package OPAC, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 79, 831–844, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Hoesly, R. M., Smith, S. J., Feng, L., Klimont, Z., Janssens-Maenhout, G.,
Pitkanen, T., Seibert, J. J., Vu, L., Andres, R. J., Bolt, R. M., Bond, T.
C., Dawidowski, L., Kholod, N., Kurokawa, J.-I., Li, M., Liu, L., Lu, Z.,
Moura, M. C. P., O'Rourke, P. R., and Zhang, Q.: Historical (1750–2014)
anthropogenic emissions of reactive gases and aerosols from the Community
Emission Data System (CEDS), Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss.,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2017-43" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-2017-43</ext-link>, in review, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Hsu, N. C., Tsay, S. C., King, M. D., and Herman, J. R.: Aerosol properties
over bright-reflecting source regions, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 42, 557–569,
2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Huang, X., Song, Y., Zhao, C., Li, M., Zhu, T., Zhang, Q., and Zhang, X.:
Pathways of sulfate enhancement by natural and anthropogenic mineral aerosols
in China, J. Geophys. Res., 119, 14165–14179, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022301" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014JD022301</ext-link>,
2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Jiang, Y., Yang, X. Q., and Liu, X.: Seasonality in anthropogenic aerosol
effects on East Asian climate simulated with CAM5, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
120, 10837–10861, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023451" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015JD023451</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Kang, Y., Liu, M. , Song, Y., Huang, X. , Yao, H., Cai, X., Zhang, H., Kang,
L., Liu, X., Yan, X., He, H., Zhang, Q., Shao, M., and Zhu, T.:
High-resolution ammonia emissions inventories in China from 1980 to 2012,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 2043–2058, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-2043-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-2043-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Klimont, Z., Cofala, J., Xing, J., Wei, W., Zhang, C., Wang, S., Kejun, J.,
Bhandari, P., Mathura, R., Purohit, P., Rafaj, P., Chambers, A., Amann, M.,
and
Hao, J.: Projections of SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, and carbonaceous aerosols
emissions in Asia, Tellus B, 61, 602–617,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2009.00428.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1600-0889.2009.00428.x</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Lamarque, J.-F., Bond, T. C., Eyring, V., Granier, C., Heil, A., Klimont, Z.,
Lee, D., Liousse, C., Mieville, A., Owen, B., Schultz, M. G., Shindell, D.,
Smith, S. J., Stehfest, E., Van Aardenne, J., Cooper, O. R., Kainuma, M.,
Mahowald, N., McConnell, J. R., Naik, V., Riahi, K., and van Vuuren, D. P.:
Historical (1850–2000) gridded anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions
of reactive gases and aerosols: methodology and application, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 10, 7017–7039, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-7017-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-7017-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Lamarque, J.-F., Shindell, D. T., Josse, B., Young, P. J., Cionni, I.,
Eyring, V., Bergmann, D., Cameron-Smith, P., Collins, W. J., Doherty, R.,
Dalsoren, S., Faluvegi, G., Folberth, G., Ghan, S. J., Horowitz, L. W., Lee,
Y. H., MacKenzie, I. A., Nagashima, T., Naik, V., Plummer, D., Righi, M.,
Rumbold, S. T., Schulz, M., Skeie, R. B., Stevenson, D. S., Strode, S., Sudo,
K., Szopa, S., Voulgarakis, A., and Zeng, G.: The Atmospheric Chemistry and
Climate Model Intercomparison Project (ACCMIP): overview and description of
models, simulations and climate diagnostics, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 179–206,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-179-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-6-179-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Lei, Y., Zhang, Q., He, K. B., and Streets, D. G.: Primary anthropogenic
aerosol emission trends for China, 1990–2005, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11,
931–954, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-931-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-931-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Levy, R. C., Remer, L. A., Kleidman, R. G., Mattoo, S., Ichoku, C., Kahn, R.,
and Eck, T. F.: Global evaluation of the Collection 5 MODIS dark-target
aerosol products over land, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10399–10420,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-10399-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-10399-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Li, B., Gasser, T., Ciais, P., Piao, S., Tao, S., Balkanski, Y.,
Hauglustaine, D., Boisier, J.-P., Chen, Z., Huang, M., Li, L.Z., Li, Y., Liu,
H., Liu, J., Peng, S., Shen, Z., Sun, Z., Wang, R., Wang, T., Yin, G., Yin,
Y., Zeng, H., Zeng, Z., and Zhou, F.: The contribution of China's emissions
to global climate forcing, Nature, 531, 357–361, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Li, C., Zhang, Q., Krotkov, N. A., Streets, D. G., He, K., Tsay, S.-C., and
Gleason, J. F.: Recent large reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions from
Chinese power plants observed by the Ozone Monitoring Instrument, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 37, L08807, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL042594" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2010GL042594</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Li, M., Zhang, Q., Kurokawa, J., Woo, J.-H., He, K., Lu, Z., Ohara, T., Song,
Y., Streets, D. G., Carmichael, G. R., Cheng, Y., Hong, C., Huo, H., Jiang,
X., Kang, S., Liu, F., Su, H., and Zheng, B.: MIX: a mosaic Asian
anthropogenic emission inventory under the international collaboration
framework of the MICS-Asia and HTAP, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 935–963,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-935-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-17-935-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>Li, Z., Xia, X., Cribb, M., Mi, W., Holben, B., Wang, P., Chen, H., Tsay S.
C., Eck, T. F., Zhao, F., Dutton, E. G., and Dickerson, R. E.: Aerosol
optical properties and their radiative effects in northern China, J. Geophys.
Res., 112, D22S01, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007382" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006JD007382</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Li, Z., Lee, K. H., Wang, Y., Xin, J., and Hao, W.-M.: First observation
based estimates of cloud free aerosol radiative forcing across China, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 115, D00K18, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013306" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009JD013306</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Li, Z., Lau, W. K., Ramanathan, V., Wu, G., Ding, Y., Manoj, M. G., Liu, J.,
Qian, Y., Li, J., Zhou, T., Fan, J., Rosenfeld, D., Ming, Y., Wang, Y.,
Huang, J., Wang, B., Xu, X., Lee, S.-S., Cribb, M., Zhang, F., Yang, X.,
Takemura, T., Wang, K., Xia, X., Yin, Y., Zhang, H., Guo, J., Zhai, P. M.,
Sugimoto, N., Babu, S. S., and Brasseur, G. P.: Aerosol and Monsoon<?pagebreak page1415?> Climate
Interactions over Asia, Geophys. Rev., 54, 866–929,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015RG000500" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015RG000500</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Liao, H., Chang, W., and Yang, Y.: Climatic effects of air pollutants over
china: A review, Adv. Atmos. Sci., 32, 115–139, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Liu, F., Beirle, S., Zhang, Q., Dörner, S., He, K. B., and Wagner, T.:
NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> lifetimes and emissions of hotspots in polluted background estimated
by satellite observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 5283–5298,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-5283-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-5283-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>Liu, X., Zhang, Y., Xing J., Zhang, Q., Wang, K., Streets, D. G., Jang, C.,
Wang, W., and Hao, J.: Understanding of regional air pollution over China
using CMAQ, part II, Process analysis and sensitivity of ozone and
particulate matter to precursor emissions, Atmos. Environ., 44, 3719–3727,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.03.036" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.03.036</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Liu, X., Easter, R. C., Ghan, S. J., Zaveri, R., Rasch, P., Shi, X.,
Lamarque, J.-F., Gettelman, A., Morrison, H., Vitt, F., Conley, A., Park, S.,
Neale, R., Hannay, C., Ekman, A. M. L., Hess, P., Mahowald, N., Collins, W.,
Iacono, M. J., Bretherton, C. S., Flanner, M. G., and Mitchell, D.: Toward a
minimal representation of aerosols in climate models: description and
evaluation in the Community Atmosphere Model CAM5, Geosci. Model Dev., 5,
709–739, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-709-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-5-709-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>Liu, Y., Huang, J., Shi, G., Takamura, T., Khatri, P., Bi, J., Shi, J., Wang,
T., Wang, X., and Zhang, B.: Aerosol optical properties and radiative effect
determined from sky-radiometer over Loess Plateau of Northwest China, Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 11, 11455–11463, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-11455-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-11455-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>Lu, Z., Zhang, Q., and Streets, D. G.: Sulfur dioxide and primary
carbonaceous aerosol emissions in China and India, 1996–2010, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 11, 9839–9864, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-9839-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-9839-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Ma, P.-L., Rasch, P. J., Wang, H., Zhang, K., Easter, R. C., Tilmes, S.,
Fast, J. D., Liu, X., Yoon, J.-H., and Lamarque, J.-F.: The role of
circulation features on black carbon transport into the Arctic in the
Community Atmosphere Model version 5 (CAM5), J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118,
4657–4669, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50411" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/jgrd.50411</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Ma, P.-L., Rasch, P. J., Fast, J. D., Easter, R. C., Gustafson Jr.,W. I.,
Liu, X., Ghan, S. J., and Singh, B.: Assessing the CAM5 physics suite in the
WRF-Chem model: implementation, resolution sensitivity, and a first
evaluation for a regional case study, Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 755–778,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-755-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-7-755-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Myhre, G., Samset, B. H., Schulz, M., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S., Berntsen, T.
K., Bian, H., Bellouin, N., Chin, M., Diehl, T., Easter, R. C., Feichter, J.,
Ghan, S. J., Hauglustaine, D., Iversen, T., Kinne, S., Kirkevåg, A.,
Lamarque, J.-F., Lin, G., Liu, X., Lund, M. T., Luo, G., Ma, X., van Noije,
T., Penner, J. E., Rasch, P. J., Ruiz, A., Seland, Ø., Skeie, R. B.,
Stier, P., Takemura, T., Tsigaridis, K., Wang, P., Wang, Z., Xu, L., Yu, H.,
Yu, F., Yoon, J.-H., Zhang, K., Zhang, H., and Zhou, C.: Radiative forcing of
the direct aerosol effect from AeroCom Phase II simulations, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 13, 1853–1877, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-1853-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-1853-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>Neale, R. B., Chen, C.-C., Gettelman, A., Lauritzen, P. H., Park, S.,
Williamson, D. L., Conley, A. J., Garcia, R., Kinnison, D., Larmarque, J.-F.,
Marsh, D., Mills, M., Smith, A. K., Tilmes, S., Vitt, F., Morrison, H.,
Cameron-Smith, P., Collins, W. D., Iacono, M. J., Easter, R. C., Ghan, S. J.,
Liu, X., Rasch, P. J., and Taylor, M.: Description of the NCAR Community
Atmosphere Model (CAM5), Technical Report NCAR/TN-486<inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>STR, National Center
for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, 268 pp., 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>Qian, Y., Gustafson Jr., W. I., and Fast, J. D.: An investigation of the
sub-grid variability of trace gases and aerosols for global climate modeling,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 6917–6946, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-6917-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-6917-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>Qiu, C. and Zhang, R.: Multiphase chemistry of atmospheric amines, Phys.
Chem. Chem. Phys., 15, 5738–5752, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1039/c3cp43446j" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1039/c3cp43446j</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>Schulz, M., Textor, C., Kinne, S., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S., Berntsen, T.,
Berglen, T., Boucher, O., Dentener, F., Guibert, S., Isaksen, I. S. A.,
Iversen, T., Koch, D., Kirkevåg, A., Liu, X., Montanaro, V., Myhre, G.,
Penner, J. E., Pitari, G., Reddy, S., Seland,Ø., Stier, P., and Takemura,
T.: Radiative forcing by aerosols as derived from the AeroCom present-day and
pre-industrial simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 5225–5246,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-5225-2006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-6-5225-2006</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Seinfeld, J. H. and Pandis, S. N.: Atmospheric chemistry and physics: from
air pollution to climate change, John Wiley &amp; Sons, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>Shindell, D. T., Lamarque, J.-F., Schulz, M., Flanner, M., Jiao, C., Chin,
M., Young, P. J., Lee, Y. H., Rotstayn, L., Mahowald, N., Milly, G.,
Faluvegi, G., Balkanski, Y., Collins, W. J., Conley, A. J., Dalsoren, S.,
Easter, R., Ghan, S., Horowitz, L., Liu, X., Myhre, G., Nagashima, T., Naik,
V., Rumbold, S. T., Skeie, R., Sudo, K., Szopa, S., Takemura, T.,
Voulgarakis, A., Yoon, J.-H., and Lo, F.: Radiative forcing in the ACCMIP
historical and future climate simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13,
2939–2974, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2939-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-2939-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>Sihto, S.-L., Kulmala, M., Kerminen, V.-M., Dal Maso, M., Petäjä, T.,
Riipinen, I., Korhonen, H., Arnold, F., Janson, R., Boy, M., Laaksonen, A.,
and Lehtinen, K. E. J.: Atmospheric sulphuric acid and aerosol formation:
implications from atmospheric measurements for nucleation and early growth
mechanisms, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 4079–4091, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-4079-2006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-6-4079-2006</ext-link>,
2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Streets, D. G., Yu, C., Wu, Y., Chin, M., Zhao, Z., Hayasaka, T., and Shi,
G.: Aerosol trends over China, 1980–2000, Atmos. Res., 88, 174–182, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>Textor, C., Schulz, M., Guibert, S., Kinne, S., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S.,
Berntsen, T., Berglen, T., Boucher, O., Chin, M., Dentener, F., Diehl, T.,
Feichter, J., Fillmore, D., Ginoux, P., Gong, S., Grini, A., Hendricks, J.,
Horowitz, L., Huang, P., Isaksen, I. S. A., Iversen, T., Kloster, S., Koch,
D., Kirkevåg, A., Kristjansson, J. E., Krol, M., Lauer, A., Lamarque, J.
F., Liu, X., Montanaro, V., Myhre, G., Penner, J. E., Pitari, G., Reddy, M.
S., Seland, Ø., Stier, P., Takemura, T., and Tie, X.: The effect of
harmonized emissions on aerosol properties in global models – an AeroCom
experiment, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 4489–4501, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-4489-2007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-7-4489-2007</ext-link>,
2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>Vehkamaki, H., Kulmala, M., Napari, I., Lehtinen, K. E. J., Noppel, M., and
Laaksonen, A.: An improved parameterization for sulfuric acid-water
nucleation rates for tropospheric and stratospheric conditions, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 107, 4622, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002jd002184" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002jd002184</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, F., An, J. L., Li, Y., Tang, Y. J., Lin, J., Qu, Y., Chen, Y., Zhang,
B., and Zhai, J.: Impacts of uncertainty in AVOC emissions on the summer ROx
budget and ozone production rate in<?pagebreak page1416?> the three most rapidly-developing
economic growth regions of China, Adv. Atmos. Sci., 31, 1331–1342, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>Wang, G., Zhang, R., Gomez, M. E., Yang L., Zamora, M. L., Hu, M., Lin Y.,
Peng, J., Guo, S., Meng, J., Li, J., Cheng, C., Hu, T., Ren, Y., Wang, Y.,
Gao, J., Cao, J., An, Z., Zhou, W., Li, G., Wang, J., Tian, P.,
Marrero-Ortiz, W., Secrest, J., Du, Z., Zheng, J., Shang, D., Zeng, L., Shao,
M., Wang, W., Huang, Y., Wang, Y., Zhu, Y., Li, Y., Hu, J., Pan, B., Cai, L.,
Cheng, Y., Ji, Y., Zhang, F., Rosenfeld, D., Liss, P. S., Duce, R. A., Kolb,
C. E., and Molina M. J.: Persistent sulfate formation from London Fog to
Chinese haze, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 113, 13630–13635,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1616540113" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/pnas.1616540113</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>Wang, H., Shi, G. Y., Zhang, X. Y., Gong, S. L., Tan, S. C., Chen, B., Che,
H. Z., and Li, T.: Mesoscale modelling study of the interactions between
aerosols and PBL meteorology during a haze episode in China Jing-Jin-Ji and
its near surrounding region – Part 2: Aerosols' radiative feedback effects,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 3277–3287, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-3277-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-3277-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>Wang, S., Streets, D. G., Zhang, Q., He, K., Chen, D., Kang, S., Lu, Z., and
Wang, Y.: Satellite detection and model verification of NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions from
power plants in Northern China, Environ. Res. Lett., 5, 044007,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/5/4/044007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/1748-9326/5/4/044007</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>Wang, S. W., Zhang, Q., Streets, D. G., He, K. B., Martin, R. V., Lamsal, L.
N., Chen, D., Lei, Y., and Lu, Z.: Growth in NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions from power
plants in China: bottom-up estimates and satellite observations, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 12, 4429–4447, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-4429-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-4429-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>Wang, Y., Zhang, Q. Q., He, K., Zhang, Q., and Chai, L.:
Sulfate-nitrate-ammonium aerosols over China: response to 2000–2015 emission
changes of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and ammonia, Atmos. Chem. Phys.,
13, 2635–2652, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2635-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-2635-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, Y. S., Yao, L., Wang, L., Liu, Z., Ji, D., Tang, G., Zhang, J., Sun,
Y., Hu, B., and Xin, J.: Mechanism for the formation of the January 2013
heavy haze pollution episode over central and eastern China, Sci. China, 57,
14–25, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>Wang, Y. X., Zhang, Q., Jiang, J., Zhou, W., Wang, B., He, K., Duan, F.,
Zhang, Q., Philip, S., and Xie, Y.: Enhanced sulfate formation during China's
severe winter haze episode in January 2013 missing from current models, J.
Geophys. Res., 119, 10425–10440, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD021426" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2013JD021426</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>Wen, L. A., Chen, J. M., Yang, L. X., Wang, X. F., Xu, C. H., Sui, X. A.,
Yao, L., Zhu, Y. H., Zhang, J. M., Zhu, T., and Wang, W. X.: Enhanced
formation of fine particulate nitrate at a rural site on the North China
Plain in summer: The important roles of ammonia and ozone, Atmos. Environ.,
101, 294–302, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.11.037" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.11.037</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>
Wu, G., Li, Z., Fu, C., Zhang, X., Zhang, R.-Y., Zhang, R.-H., Zhou, T.,
Li, J.-P., Li, J.-D., Zhou, D., Wu, L., Zhou, L., He, B., and Huang, R.: Advances in
studying interactions between aerosols and monsoon in China, Sci. China, 59,
1–16, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>Xia, X., Chen, H., Goloub, P., Zhang, W., Chatenet, B., and Wang, P.: A
complicaiton of aerosol optical properties and calculation of direct
radiative forcing over an urban region in northern China, J. Geophy. Res.,
112, D12203, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD008119" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006JD008119</ext-link>, 2007a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>Xia, X., Chen, H., Li, Z., Wang, P., and Wang J.: Significant reduction of
surface solar irradiance induced by aerosols in a suburban region in
northeastern China, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D22S02,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007562" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006JD007562</ext-link>, 2007b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>Xia, X., Li, Z., Holben, B., Wang, P., Eck, T., Chen, H., Cribb, M., and
Zhao, Y.: Aerosol optical properties and radiative effects in the Yangtze
Delta region of China, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D22S12,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD008859" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007JD008859</ext-link>, 2007c.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>Xin, J., Wang, Y., Li, Z., Wang, P., Hao, W., Nordgren, B. L., Wang, S., Liu,
G., Wang, L., Wen, T., Sun, Y., and Hu, B.: Aerosol optical depth (AOD) and
Ångström exponent of aerosols observed by the Chinese Sun Hazemeter
Network from August 2004 to September 2005, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 112,
D05203, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007075" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006JD007075</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>
Xing, J., Zhang, Y., Wang, S., Liu, X., Cheng S., Zhang, Q., Chen, Y.,
Streets, D. G., Jang, C., Hao, J., and Wang, W.: Modeling study on the air
quality impacts from emission reductions and atypical meteorological
conditions during the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Atmos. Environ., 45, 1786–1798,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>Yu, H., Chin, M., West, J.J., Atherton, C.S., Bellouin., N., Bergmann, D.,
Bey, I., Bian, H., Diehl, T., Forberth, G., Hess, P., Schulz, M., Shindell,
D., Takemura, T., and Tan, Q.: A multimodel assessment of the influence of
regional anthropogenic emission reductions on aerosol direct radiative
forcing and the role of intercontinental transport, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
118, 700–720, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD018148" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2012JD018148</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, K., Wan, H., Liu, X., Ghan, S. J., Kooperman, G. J., Ma, P.-L., Rasch,
P. J., Neubauer, D., and Lohmann, U.: Technical Note: On the use of nudging
for aerosol-climate model intercomparison studies, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14,
8631–8645, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-8631-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-8631-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, L., Jacob, D. J., Boersma, K. F., Jaffe, D. A., Olson, J. R., Bowman,
K. W., Worden, J. R., Thompson, A. M., Avery, M. A., Cohen, R. C., Dibb, J.
E., Flock, F. M., Fuelberg, H. E., Huey, L. G., McMillan, W. W., Singh, H.
B., and Weinheimer, A. J.: Transpacific transport of ozone pollution and the
effect of recent Asian emission increases on air quality in North America: an
integrated analysis using satellite, aircraft, ozonesonde, and surface
observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 6117–6136, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-6117-2008" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-8-6117-2008</ext-link>,
2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, L., Henze, D. K., Grell, G. A., Carmichael, G. R., Bousserez, N.,
Zhang, Q., Torres, O., Ahn, C., Lu, Z., Cao, J., and Mao, Y.: Constraining
black carbon aerosol over Asia using OMI aerosol absorption optical depth and
the adjoint of GEOS-Chem, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 10281–10308,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-10281-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-10281-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, Q., Streets, D. G., Carmichael, G. R., He, K. B., Huo, H., Kannari,
A., Klimont, Z., Park, I. S., Reddy, S., Fu, J. S., Chen, D., Duan, L., Lei,
Y., Wang, L. T., and Yao, Z. L.: Asian emissions in 2006 for the NASA INTEX-B
mission, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 5131–5153, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-5131-2009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-9-5131-2009</ext-link>,
2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, Q., Geng, G. N., Wang, S. W., Richter, A., and He, K. B.: Satellite
remote sensing of changes in NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions over China during 1996–2010,
China Sci. Bull., 57, 2857–2864, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, R., Wang, G., Guo, S., Zamora, M.L., Ying, Q., Lin, Y., Wang, W., Hu,
M., and Wang, Y.: Formation of Urban Fine Particulate Matter, Chem. Rev.,
115, 3803–3855, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00067" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00067</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page1417?><ref id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, X. Y., Wang, Y. Q.,Niu, T., Zhang, X. C., Gong, S. L., Zhang, Y. M.,
and Sun, J. Y.: Atmospheric aerosol compositions in China: spatial/temporal
variability, chemical signature, regional haze distribution and comparisons
with global aerosols, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 779–799,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-779-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-779-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><mixed-citation>Zhao, B., Wang, S. X., Liu, H., Xu, J. Y., Fu, K., Klimont, Z., Hao, J. M.,
He, K. B., Cofala, J., and Amann, M.: NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions in China: historical
trends and future perspectives, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 9869–9897,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-9869-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-9869-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</label><mixed-citation>Zhao, Y., Nielsen, C. P., Lei, Y., McElroy, M. B., and Hao, J.: Quantifying
the uncertainties of a bottom-up emission inventory of anthropogenic
atmospheric pollutants in China, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 2295–2308,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-2295-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-2295-2011</ext-link>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib80"><label>80</label><mixed-citation>Zheng, B., Zhang, Q., Zhang, Y., He, K., Wang, K., Zheng, G., Duan, F., Ma,
Y., and Kimoto, T.: Heterogeneous chemistry: a mechanism missing in current
models to explain secondary inorganic aerosol formation during the January
2013 haze episode in North China, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 2031–2049,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-2031-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-2031-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib81"><label>81</label><mixed-citation>
Zhuang, B. L., Wang, T. J., Li, S., Liu, J., Talbot, R., Mao, H. T., Yang, X.
Q., Fu, C. B., Yin, C. Q., Zhu, J. L., Che, H. Z., and Zhang, X. Y.: Optical
properties and radiative forcing of urban aerosols in Nanjing, China, Atmos.
Environ., 83, 43–52, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Emission or atmospheric processes? An attempt to attribute the source of large bias of aerosols in eastern China simulated by global climate models</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>Global climate models often underestimate aerosol loadings in China, and
these biases can have significant implications for anthropogenic aerosol
radiative forcing and climate effects. The biases may be caused by either the
emission inventory or the treatment of aerosol processes in the models, or
both, but so far no consensus has been reached. In this study, a relatively
new emission inventory based on energy statistics and technology,
Multi-resolution Emission Inventory for China (MEIC), is used to drive the
Community Atmosphere Model version 5 (CAM5) to evaluate aerosol distribution
and radiative effects against observations in China. The model results are
compared with the model simulations with the widely used Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC AR5) emission
inventory. We find that the new MEIC emission improves the aerosol optical
depth (AOD) simulations in eastern China and explains 22–28&thinsp;% of the AOD
low bias simulated with the AR5 emission. However, AOD is still biased low in
eastern China. Seasonal variation of the MEIC emission leads to a better
agreement with the observed seasonal variation of primary aerosols than the
AR5 emission, but the concentrations are still underestimated. This implies
that the atmospheric loadings of primary aerosols are closely related to the
emission, which may still be underestimated over eastern China. In contrast,
the seasonal variations of secondary aerosols depend more on aerosol
processes (e.g., gas- and aqueous-phase production from precursor gases) that
are associated with meteorological conditions and to a lesser extent on the
emission. It indicates that the emissions of precursor gases for the
secondary aerosols alone cannot explain the low bias in the model.
Aerosol secondary production processes in CAM5
should also be revisited. The simulation using MEIC estimates the
annual-average aerosol direct radiative effects (ADREs) at the top of the
atmosphere (TOA), at the surface, and in the atmosphere to be −5.02,
−18.47, and 13.45&thinsp;W&thinsp;m<sup>−2</sup>, respectively, over eastern China, which are
enhanced by −0.91, −3.48, and 2.57&thinsp;W&thinsp;m<sup>−2</sup> compared with the AR5
emission. The differences of ADREs by using MEIC and AR5 emissions are larger
than the decadal changes of the modeled ADREs, indicating the uncertainty of
the emission inventories. This study highlights the importance of improving
both the emission and aerosol secondary production processes in modeling the
atmospheric aerosols and their radiative effects. Yet, if the estimations of
MEIC emissions in trace gases do not suffer similar biases to those in the
AOD, our findings will help affirm a fundamental error in the conversion from
precursor gases to secondary aerosols as hinted in other recent studies
following different approaches.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Binkowski, F. S. and Shankar, U.: The Regional Particulate Matter Model, 1.
Model description and preliminary results, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 100,
26191–26209, 1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Bond, T. C. and Bergstrom, R. W.: Light Absorption by Carbonaceous
Particles: An Investigative Review, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 40, 27–67, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Boucher, O., Randall, D., Artaxo, P., Bretherton, C., Feingold, G., Forster, P.
Kerminen, V.-M., Kondo, Y., Liao, H., Lohmann, U., Rasch, P., Satheesh, S. K.,
Sherwood, S., Stevens,  B., and Zhang, X. Y.: Clouds and Aerosols, in: Climate Change
2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
edited by: Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S. K., Boschung,
J.,
Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and Midgley, P. M., Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Chang, W., Liao, H., Xin J., Li, Z., Li, D., and Zhang, X.: Uncertainties in
anthropogenic aerosol concentrations and direct radiative forcing induced by
emission inventories in eastern China, Atmos. Res., 166, 129–140, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Chen, D., Wang, Y., McElroy, M. B., He, K., Yantosca, R. M., and Le Sager,
P.: Regional CO pollution and export in China simulated by the
high-resolution nested-grid GEOS-Chem model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9,
3825–3839, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-3825-2009" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-3825-2009</a>, 2009. .
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Chen, D., Liu, Z., Fast, J., and Ban, J.: Simulations of
sulfate-nitrate-ammonium (SNA) aerosols during the extreme haze events over
northern China in October 2014, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 10707–10724,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-10707-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-10707-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Cheng Y., Zheng, G., Wei, C., Mu, Q., Zheng, B., Wang, Z., Gao, M., Zhang,
Q., He, K., Carmichael, G., Pöschl, U., and Su, H.: Reactive nitrogen
chemistry in aerosol water as a source of sulfate during haze events in
China, Sci. Adv., 2, e1601530, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1601530" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1601530</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Chung, C. E., Lee, K., and Müller, D.: Effect of internal mixture on
black carbon radiative forcing, Tellus B, 64, 1–13, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Dee, D. P., Uppala S. M., Simmons A. J., Berrisford, P., Poli, P., Kobayashi,
S., Andrae, U., Balmaseda, G., Balsamo, M. A., Bauer, P., Bechtold, P.,
Beljaars, A. C. M., van de Berg, L., Bidlot, J., Bormann, N., Delsol, C.,
Dragani, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A. J., Haimberger, L., Healy, S. B.,
Hersbach, H., Hólm, E. V., Isaksen, L., Kållberg, P., Köhler, M.,
Matricardi, M., McNally, A. P., Monge-Sanz, B. M., Morcrette, J.-J., Park,
B.-K., Peubey, C., de Rosnay, P., Tavolato, C., Thépaut, J.-N., and
Vitart F.: The ERA Interim reanalysis: Configuration and performance of the
data assimilation system, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 137, 553–597, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Ding, A. J., Huang, X., Nie, W., Sun, J. N., Kerminen, V.-M.,
Petäjä, T., Su, H., Cheng, Y. F., Yang, X.-Q., Wang, M. H., Chi, X.
G., Wang, J. P., Virkkula, A., Guo, W. D., Yuan, J., Wang, S. Y., Zhang, R.
J., Wu, Y. F., Song, Y., Zhu, T., Zilitinkevich, S., Kulmala, M., and Fu, C.
B.: Enhanced haze pollution by black carbon in megacities in China, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 43, 2873–2879, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL067745" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL067745</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Dong, X., Fu, J. S., Huang, K., Tong, D., and Zhuang, G.: Model development
of dust emission and heterogeneous chemistry within the Community Multiscale
Air Quality modeling system and its application over East Asia, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 16, 8157–8180, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-8157-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-8157-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Fu, T.-M., Cao, J. J., Zhang, X. Y., Lee, S. C., Zhang, Q., Han, Y. M., Qu,
W. J., Han, Z., Zhang, R., Wang, Y. X., Chen, D., and Henze, D. K.:
Carbonaceous aerosols in China: top-down constraints on primary sources and
estimation of secondary contribution, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 2725–2746,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-2725-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-2725-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Gao, Y., Zhao, C., Liu, X., Zhang, M., and Leung, L.-R.: WRF-Chem
simulations of aerosols and anthropogenic aerosol radiative forcing in East
Asia, Atmos. Environ., 92, 250–266, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.04.038" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.04.038</a>,
2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Ghan, S. J. and Zaveri, R. A.: Parameterization of optical properties for
hydrated internally mixed aerosol, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 112, D10201,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006jd007927" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006jd007927</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Guo, S., Hu, M., Zamora, M. L., Peng, J., Shang, D., Zheng, J., Du, Z., Wu,
Z., Shao, M., Zeng, L., Molina, M. J., and Zhang, R.: Elucidating severe
urban haze formation in China, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 11, 17373–17378,
2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
He, H., Wang, Y., Ma, Q., Ma, J., Chu, B., Ji, D., Tang, G., Liu, C. Zhang,
H., and Hao, J.: Mineral dust and NO<sub><i>x</i></sub> promote the conversion of SO<sub>2</sub>
to sulfate in heavy pollution days, Sci. Rep., 4, 4172,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/srep04172" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/srep04172</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
He, J. and Zhang, Y.: Improvement and further development in CESM/CAM5:
gas-phase chemistry and inorganic aerosol treatments, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14,
9171–9200, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-9171-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-9171-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
He, J., Zhang, Y., Glotfelty, T., He, R., Bennartz, R., Rausch, J., and
Sartelet, K.: Decadal simulation and comprehensive evaluation of CESM/CAM5.1
with advanced chemistry, aerosol microphysics, and aerosol cloud
interactions, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 7, 110–141,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014MS000360" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2014MS000360</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Hess, M., Koepke, P., and Schult, I.: Optical properties of aerosols and
clouds: The software package OPAC, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 79, 831–844, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Hoesly, R. M., Smith, S. J., Feng, L., Klimont, Z., Janssens-Maenhout, G.,
Pitkanen, T., Seibert, J. J., Vu, L., Andres, R. J., Bolt, R. M., Bond, T.
C., Dawidowski, L., Kholod, N., Kurokawa, J.-I., Li, M., Liu, L., Lu, Z.,
Moura, M. C. P., O'Rourke, P. R., and Zhang, Q.: Historical (1750–2014)
anthropogenic emissions of reactive gases and aerosols from the Community
Emission Data System (CEDS), Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss.,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2017-43" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2017-43</a>, in review, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Hsu, N. C., Tsay, S. C., King, M. D., and Herman, J. R.: Aerosol properties
over bright-reflecting source regions, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 42, 557–569,
2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Huang, X., Song, Y., Zhao, C., Li, M., Zhu, T., Zhang, Q., and Zhang, X.:
Pathways of sulfate enhancement by natural and anthropogenic mineral aerosols
in China, J. Geophys. Res., 119, 14165–14179, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022301" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022301</a>,
2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Jiang, Y., Yang, X. Q., and Liu, X.: Seasonality in anthropogenic aerosol
effects on East Asian climate simulated with CAM5, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
120, 10837–10861, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023451" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023451</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Kang, Y., Liu, M. , Song, Y., Huang, X. , Yao, H., Cai, X., Zhang, H., Kang,
L., Liu, X., Yan, X., He, H., Zhang, Q., Shao, M., and Zhu, T.:
High-resolution ammonia emissions inventories in China from 1980 to 2012,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 2043–2058, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-2043-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-2043-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Klimont, Z., Cofala, J., Xing, J., Wei, W., Zhang, C., Wang, S., Kejun, J.,
Bhandari, P., Mathura, R., Purohit, P., Rafaj, P., Chambers, A., Amann, M.,
and
Hao, J.: Projections of SO<sub>2</sub>, NO<sub><i>x</i></sub>, and carbonaceous aerosols
emissions in Asia, Tellus B, 61, 602–617,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2009.00428.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2009.00428.x</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Lamarque, J.-F., Bond, T. C., Eyring, V., Granier, C., Heil, A., Klimont, Z.,
Lee, D., Liousse, C., Mieville, A., Owen, B., Schultz, M. G., Shindell, D.,
Smith, S. J., Stehfest, E., Van Aardenne, J., Cooper, O. R., Kainuma, M.,
Mahowald, N., McConnell, J. R., Naik, V., Riahi, K., and van Vuuren, D. P.:
Historical (1850–2000) gridded anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions
of reactive gases and aerosols: methodology and application, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 10, 7017–7039, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-7017-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-7017-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Lamarque, J.-F., Shindell, D. T., Josse, B., Young, P. J., Cionni, I.,
Eyring, V., Bergmann, D., Cameron-Smith, P., Collins, W. J., Doherty, R.,
Dalsoren, S., Faluvegi, G., Folberth, G., Ghan, S. J., Horowitz, L. W., Lee,
Y. H., MacKenzie, I. A., Nagashima, T., Naik, V., Plummer, D., Righi, M.,
Rumbold, S. T., Schulz, M., Skeie, R. B., Stevenson, D. S., Strode, S., Sudo,
K., Szopa, S., Voulgarakis, A., and Zeng, G.: The Atmospheric Chemistry and
Climate Model Intercomparison Project (ACCMIP): overview and description of
models, simulations and climate diagnostics, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 179–206,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-179-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-179-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Lei, Y., Zhang, Q., He, K. B., and Streets, D. G.: Primary anthropogenic
aerosol emission trends for China, 1990–2005, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11,
931–954, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-931-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-931-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Levy, R. C., Remer, L. A., Kleidman, R. G., Mattoo, S., Ichoku, C., Kahn, R.,
and Eck, T. F.: Global evaluation of the Collection 5 MODIS dark-target
aerosol products over land, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10399–10420,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-10399-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-10399-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Li, B., Gasser, T., Ciais, P., Piao, S., Tao, S., Balkanski, Y.,
Hauglustaine, D., Boisier, J.-P., Chen, Z., Huang, M., Li, L.Z., Li, Y., Liu,
H., Liu, J., Peng, S., Shen, Z., Sun, Z., Wang, R., Wang, T., Yin, G., Yin,
Y., Zeng, H., Zeng, Z., and Zhou, F.: The contribution of China's emissions
to global climate forcing, Nature, 531, 357–361, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Li, C., Zhang, Q., Krotkov, N. A., Streets, D. G., He, K., Tsay, S.-C., and
Gleason, J. F.: Recent large reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions from
Chinese power plants observed by the Ozone Monitoring Instrument, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 37, L08807, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL042594" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL042594</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Li, M., Zhang, Q., Kurokawa, J., Woo, J.-H., He, K., Lu, Z., Ohara, T., Song,
Y., Streets, D. G., Carmichael, G. R., Cheng, Y., Hong, C., Huo, H., Jiang,
X., Kang, S., Liu, F., Su, H., and Zheng, B.: MIX: a mosaic Asian
anthropogenic emission inventory under the international collaboration
framework of the MICS-Asia and HTAP, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 935–963,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-935-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-935-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Li, Z., Xia, X., Cribb, M., Mi, W., Holben, B., Wang, P., Chen, H., Tsay S.
C., Eck, T. F., Zhao, F., Dutton, E. G., and Dickerson, R. E.: Aerosol
optical properties and their radiative effects in northern China, J. Geophys.
Res., 112, D22S01, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007382" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007382</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Li, Z., Lee, K. H., Wang, Y., Xin, J., and Hao, W.-M.: First observation
based estimates of cloud free aerosol radiative forcing across China, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 115, D00K18, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013306" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013306</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Li, Z., Lau, W. K., Ramanathan, V., Wu, G., Ding, Y., Manoj, M. G., Liu, J.,
Qian, Y., Li, J., Zhou, T., Fan, J., Rosenfeld, D., Ming, Y., Wang, Y.,
Huang, J., Wang, B., Xu, X., Lee, S.-S., Cribb, M., Zhang, F., Yang, X.,
Takemura, T., Wang, K., Xia, X., Yin, Y., Zhang, H., Guo, J., Zhai, P. M.,
Sugimoto, N., Babu, S. S., and Brasseur, G. P.: Aerosol and Monsoon Climate
Interactions over Asia, Geophys. Rev., 54, 866–929,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015RG000500" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015RG000500</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Liao, H., Chang, W., and Yang, Y.: Climatic effects of air pollutants over
china: A review, Adv. Atmos. Sci., 32, 115–139, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Liu, F., Beirle, S., Zhang, Q., Dörner, S., He, K. B., and Wagner, T.:
NO<sub><i>x</i></sub> lifetimes and emissions of hotspots in polluted background estimated
by satellite observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 5283–5298,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-5283-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-5283-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Liu, X., Zhang, Y., Xing J., Zhang, Q., Wang, K., Streets, D. G., Jang, C.,
Wang, W., and Hao, J.: Understanding of regional air pollution over China
using CMAQ, part II, Process analysis and sensitivity of ozone and
particulate matter to precursor emissions, Atmos. Environ., 44, 3719–3727,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.03.036" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.03.036</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Liu, X., Easter, R. C., Ghan, S. J., Zaveri, R., Rasch, P., Shi, X.,
Lamarque, J.-F., Gettelman, A., Morrison, H., Vitt, F., Conley, A., Park, S.,
Neale, R., Hannay, C., Ekman, A. M. L., Hess, P., Mahowald, N., Collins, W.,
Iacono, M. J., Bretherton, C. S., Flanner, M. G., and Mitchell, D.: Toward a
minimal representation of aerosols in climate models: description and
evaluation in the Community Atmosphere Model CAM5, Geosci. Model Dev., 5,
709–739, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-709-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-709-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Liu, Y., Huang, J., Shi, G., Takamura, T., Khatri, P., Bi, J., Shi, J., Wang,
T., Wang, X., and Zhang, B.: Aerosol optical properties and radiative effect
determined from sky-radiometer over Loess Plateau of Northwest China, Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 11, 11455–11463, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-11455-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-11455-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Lu, Z., Zhang, Q., and Streets, D. G.: Sulfur dioxide and primary
carbonaceous aerosol emissions in China and India, 1996–2010, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 11, 9839–9864, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-9839-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-9839-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Ma, P.-L., Rasch, P. J., Wang, H., Zhang, K., Easter, R. C., Tilmes, S.,
Fast, J. D., Liu, X., Yoon, J.-H., and Lamarque, J.-F.: The role of
circulation features on black carbon transport into the Arctic in the
Community Atmosphere Model version 5 (CAM5), J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118,
4657–4669, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50411" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50411</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Ma, P.-L., Rasch, P. J., Fast, J. D., Easter, R. C., Gustafson Jr.,W. I.,
Liu, X., Ghan, S. J., and Singh, B.: Assessing the CAM5 physics suite in the
WRF-Chem model: implementation, resolution sensitivity, and a first
evaluation for a regional case study, Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 755–778,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-755-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-755-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Myhre, G., Samset, B. H., Schulz, M., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S., Berntsen, T.
K., Bian, H., Bellouin, N., Chin, M., Diehl, T., Easter, R. C., Feichter, J.,
Ghan, S. J., Hauglustaine, D., Iversen, T., Kinne, S., Kirkevåg, A.,
Lamarque, J.-F., Lin, G., Liu, X., Lund, M. T., Luo, G., Ma, X., van Noije,
T., Penner, J. E., Rasch, P. J., Ruiz, A., Seland, Ø., Skeie, R. B.,
Stier, P., Takemura, T., Tsigaridis, K., Wang, P., Wang, Z., Xu, L., Yu, H.,
Yu, F., Yoon, J.-H., Zhang, K., Zhang, H., and Zhou, C.: Radiative forcing of
the direct aerosol effect from AeroCom Phase II simulations, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 13, 1853–1877, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-1853-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-1853-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Neale, R. B., Chen, C.-C., Gettelman, A., Lauritzen, P. H., Park, S.,
Williamson, D. L., Conley, A. J., Garcia, R., Kinnison, D., Larmarque, J.-F.,
Marsh, D., Mills, M., Smith, A. K., Tilmes, S., Vitt, F., Morrison, H.,
Cameron-Smith, P., Collins, W. D., Iacono, M. J., Easter, R. C., Ghan, S. J.,
Liu, X., Rasch, P. J., and Taylor, M.: Description of the NCAR Community
Atmosphere Model (CAM5), Technical Report NCAR/TN-486+STR, National Center
for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, 268 pp., 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Qian, Y., Gustafson Jr., W. I., and Fast, J. D.: An investigation of the
sub-grid variability of trace gases and aerosols for global climate modeling,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 6917–6946, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-6917-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-6917-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Qiu, C. and Zhang, R.: Multiphase chemistry of atmospheric amines, Phys.
Chem. Chem. Phys., 15, 5738–5752, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1039/c3cp43446j" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1039/c3cp43446j</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Schulz, M., Textor, C., Kinne, S., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S., Berntsen, T.,
Berglen, T., Boucher, O., Dentener, F., Guibert, S., Isaksen, I. S. A.,
Iversen, T., Koch, D., Kirkevåg, A., Liu, X., Montanaro, V., Myhre, G.,
Penner, J. E., Pitari, G., Reddy, S., Seland,Ø., Stier, P., and Takemura,
T.: Radiative forcing by aerosols as derived from the AeroCom present-day and
pre-industrial simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 5225–5246,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-5225-2006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-5225-2006</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Seinfeld, J. H. and Pandis, S. N.: Atmospheric chemistry and physics: from
air pollution to climate change, John Wiley &amp; Sons, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Shindell, D. T., Lamarque, J.-F., Schulz, M., Flanner, M., Jiao, C., Chin,
M., Young, P. J., Lee, Y. H., Rotstayn, L., Mahowald, N., Milly, G.,
Faluvegi, G., Balkanski, Y., Collins, W. J., Conley, A. J., Dalsoren, S.,
Easter, R., Ghan, S., Horowitz, L., Liu, X., Myhre, G., Nagashima, T., Naik,
V., Rumbold, S. T., Skeie, R., Sudo, K., Szopa, S., Takemura, T.,
Voulgarakis, A., Yoon, J.-H., and Lo, F.: Radiative forcing in the ACCMIP
historical and future climate simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13,
2939–2974, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2939-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2939-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Sihto, S.-L., Kulmala, M., Kerminen, V.-M., Dal Maso, M., Petäjä, T.,
Riipinen, I., Korhonen, H., Arnold, F., Janson, R., Boy, M., Laaksonen, A.,
and Lehtinen, K. E. J.: Atmospheric sulphuric acid and aerosol formation:
implications from atmospheric measurements for nucleation and early growth
mechanisms, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 4079–4091, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-4079-2006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-4079-2006</a>,
2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Streets, D. G., Yu, C., Wu, Y., Chin, M., Zhao, Z., Hayasaka, T., and Shi,
G.: Aerosol trends over China, 1980–2000, Atmos. Res., 88, 174–182, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Textor, C., Schulz, M., Guibert, S., Kinne, S., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S.,
Berntsen, T., Berglen, T., Boucher, O., Chin, M., Dentener, F., Diehl, T.,
Feichter, J., Fillmore, D., Ginoux, P., Gong, S., Grini, A., Hendricks, J.,
Horowitz, L., Huang, P., Isaksen, I. S. A., Iversen, T., Kloster, S., Koch,
D., Kirkevåg, A., Kristjansson, J. E., Krol, M., Lauer, A., Lamarque, J.
F., Liu, X., Montanaro, V., Myhre, G., Penner, J. E., Pitari, G., Reddy, M.
S., Seland, Ø., Stier, P., Takemura, T., and Tie, X.: The effect of
harmonized emissions on aerosol properties in global models – an AeroCom
experiment, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 4489–4501, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-4489-2007" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-4489-2007</a>,
2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
Vehkamaki, H., Kulmala, M., Napari, I., Lehtinen, K. E. J., Noppel, M., and
Laaksonen, A.: An improved parameterization for sulfuric acid-water
nucleation rates for tropospheric and stratospheric conditions, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 107, 4622, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002jd002184" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2002jd002184</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, F., An, J. L., Li, Y., Tang, Y. J., Lin, J., Qu, Y., Chen, Y., Zhang,
B., and Zhai, J.: Impacts of uncertainty in AVOC emissions on the summer ROx
budget and ozone production rate in the three most rapidly-developing
economic growth regions of China, Adv. Atmos. Sci., 31, 1331–1342, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, G., Zhang, R., Gomez, M. E., Yang L., Zamora, M. L., Hu, M., Lin Y.,
Peng, J., Guo, S., Meng, J., Li, J., Cheng, C., Hu, T., Ren, Y., Wang, Y.,
Gao, J., Cao, J., An, Z., Zhou, W., Li, G., Wang, J., Tian, P.,
Marrero-Ortiz, W., Secrest, J., Du, Z., Zheng, J., Shang, D., Zeng, L., Shao,
M., Wang, W., Huang, Y., Wang, Y., Zhu, Y., Li, Y., Hu, J., Pan, B., Cai, L.,
Cheng, Y., Ji, Y., Zhang, F., Rosenfeld, D., Liss, P. S., Duce, R. A., Kolb,
C. E., and Molina M. J.: Persistent sulfate formation from London Fog to
Chinese haze, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 113, 13630–13635,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1616540113" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1616540113</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, H., Shi, G. Y., Zhang, X. Y., Gong, S. L., Tan, S. C., Chen, B., Che,
H. Z., and Li, T.: Mesoscale modelling study of the interactions between
aerosols and PBL meteorology during a haze episode in China Jing-Jin-Ji and
its near surrounding region – Part 2: Aerosols' radiative feedback effects,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 3277–3287, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-3277-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-3277-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, S., Streets, D. G., Zhang, Q., He, K., Chen, D., Kang, S., Lu, Z., and
Wang, Y.: Satellite detection and model verification of NO<sub><i>x</i></sub> emissions from
power plants in Northern China, Environ. Res. Lett., 5, 044007,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/5/4/044007" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/5/4/044007</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, S. W., Zhang, Q., Streets, D. G., He, K. B., Martin, R. V., Lamsal, L.
N., Chen, D., Lei, Y., and Lu, Z.: Growth in NO<sub><i>x</i></sub> emissions from power
plants in China: bottom-up estimates and satellite observations, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 12, 4429–4447, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-4429-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-4429-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, Y., Zhang, Q. Q., He, K., Zhang, Q., and Chai, L.:
Sulfate-nitrate-ammonium aerosols over China: response to 2000–2015 emission
changes of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and ammonia, Atmos. Chem. Phys.,
13, 2635–2652, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2635-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2635-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, Y. S., Yao, L., Wang, L., Liu, Z., Ji, D., Tang, G., Zhang, J., Sun,
Y., Hu, B., and Xin, J.: Mechanism for the formation of the January 2013
heavy haze pollution episode over central and eastern China, Sci. China, 57,
14–25, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, Y. X., Zhang, Q., Jiang, J., Zhou, W., Wang, B., He, K., Duan, F.,
Zhang, Q., Philip, S., and Xie, Y.: Enhanced sulfate formation during China's
severe winter haze episode in January 2013 missing from current models, J.
Geophys. Res., 119, 10425–10440, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD021426" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD021426</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>
Wen, L. A., Chen, J. M., Yang, L. X., Wang, X. F., Xu, C. H., Sui, X. A.,
Yao, L., Zhu, Y. H., Zhang, J. M., Zhu, T., and Wang, W. X.: Enhanced
formation of fine particulate nitrate at a rural site on the North China
Plain in summer: The important roles of ammonia and ozone, Atmos. Environ.,
101, 294–302, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.11.037" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.11.037</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>
Wu, G., Li, Z., Fu, C., Zhang, X., Zhang, R.-Y., Zhang, R.-H., Zhou, T.,
Li, J.-P., Li, J.-D., Zhou, D., Wu, L., Zhou, L., He, B., and Huang, R.: Advances in
studying interactions between aerosols and monsoon in China, Sci. China, 59,
1–16, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>
Xia, X., Chen, H., Goloub, P., Zhang, W., Chatenet, B., and Wang, P.: A
complicaiton of aerosol optical properties and calculation of direct
radiative forcing over an urban region in northern China, J. Geophy. Res.,
112, D12203, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD008119" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD008119</a>, 2007a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>
Xia, X., Chen, H., Li, Z., Wang, P., and Wang J.: Significant reduction of
surface solar irradiance induced by aerosols in a suburban region in
northeastern China, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D22S02,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007562" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007562</a>, 2007b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>
Xia, X., Li, Z., Holben, B., Wang, P., Eck, T., Chen, H., Cribb, M., and
Zhao, Y.: Aerosol optical properties and radiative effects in the Yangtze
Delta region of China, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D22S12,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD008859" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD008859</a>, 2007c.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>
Xin, J., Wang, Y., Li, Z., Wang, P., Hao, W., Nordgren, B. L., Wang, S., Liu,
G., Wang, L., Wen, T., Sun, Y., and Hu, B.: Aerosol optical depth (AOD) and
Ångström exponent of aerosols observed by the Chinese Sun Hazemeter
Network from August 2004 to September 2005, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 112,
D05203, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007075" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007075</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>
Xing, J., Zhang, Y., Wang, S., Liu, X., Cheng S., Zhang, Q., Chen, Y.,
Streets, D. G., Jang, C., Hao, J., and Wang, W.: Modeling study on the air
quality impacts from emission reductions and atypical meteorological
conditions during the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Atmos. Environ., 45, 1786–1798,
2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>
Yu, H., Chin, M., West, J.J., Atherton, C.S., Bellouin., N., Bergmann, D.,
Bey, I., Bian, H., Diehl, T., Forberth, G., Hess, P., Schulz, M., Shindell,
D., Takemura, T., and Tan, Q.: A multimodel assessment of the influence of
regional anthropogenic emission reductions on aerosol direct radiative
forcing and the role of intercontinental transport, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
118, 700–720, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD018148" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD018148</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, K., Wan, H., Liu, X., Ghan, S. J., Kooperman, G. J., Ma, P.-L., Rasch,
P. J., Neubauer, D., and Lohmann, U.: Technical Note: On the use of nudging
for aerosol-climate model intercomparison studies, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14,
8631–8645, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-8631-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-8631-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, L., Jacob, D. J., Boersma, K. F., Jaffe, D. A., Olson, J. R., Bowman,
K. W., Worden, J. R., Thompson, A. M., Avery, M. A., Cohen, R. C., Dibb, J.
E., Flock, F. M., Fuelberg, H. E., Huey, L. G., McMillan, W. W., Singh, H.
B., and Weinheimer, A. J.: Transpacific transport of ozone pollution and the
effect of recent Asian emission increases on air quality in North America: an
integrated analysis using satellite, aircraft, ozonesonde, and surface
observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 6117–6136, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-6117-2008" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-6117-2008</a>,
2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, L., Henze, D. K., Grell, G. A., Carmichael, G. R., Bousserez, N.,
Zhang, Q., Torres, O., Ahn, C., Lu, Z., Cao, J., and Mao, Y.: Constraining
black carbon aerosol over Asia using OMI aerosol absorption optical depth and
the adjoint of GEOS-Chem, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 10281–10308,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-10281-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-10281-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, Q., Streets, D. G., Carmichael, G. R., He, K. B., Huo, H., Kannari,
A., Klimont, Z., Park, I. S., Reddy, S., Fu, J. S., Chen, D., Duan, L., Lei,
Y., Wang, L. T., and Yao, Z. L.: Asian emissions in 2006 for the NASA INTEX-B
mission, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 5131–5153, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-5131-2009" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-5131-2009</a>,
2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, Q., Geng, G. N., Wang, S. W., Richter, A., and He, K. B.: Satellite
remote sensing of changes in NO<sub><i>x</i></sub> emissions over China during 1996–2010,
China Sci. Bull., 57, 2857–2864, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, R., Wang, G., Guo, S., Zamora, M.L., Ying, Q., Lin, Y., Wang, W., Hu,
M., and Wang, Y.: Formation of Urban Fine Particulate Matter, Chem. Rev.,
115, 3803–3855, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00067" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00067</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, X. Y., Wang, Y. Q.,Niu, T., Zhang, X. C., Gong, S. L., Zhang, Y. M.,
and Sun, J. Y.: Atmospheric aerosol compositions in China: spatial/temporal
variability, chemical signature, regional haze distribution and comparisons
with global aerosols, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 779–799,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-779-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-779-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><mixed-citation>
Zhao, B., Wang, S. X., Liu, H., Xu, J. Y., Fu, K., Klimont, Z., Hao, J. M.,
He, K. B., Cofala, J., and Amann, M.: NO<sub><i>x</i></sub> emissions in China: historical
trends and future perspectives, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 9869–9897,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-9869-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-9869-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</label><mixed-citation>
Zhao, Y., Nielsen, C. P., Lei, Y., McElroy, M. B., and Hao, J.: Quantifying
the uncertainties of a bottom-up emission inventory of anthropogenic
atmospheric pollutants in China, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 2295–2308,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-2295-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-2295-2011</a>, 2011.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib80"><label>80</label><mixed-citation>
Zheng, B., Zhang, Q., Zhang, Y., He, K., Wang, K., Zheng, G., Duan, F., Ma,
Y., and Kimoto, T.: Heterogeneous chemistry: a mechanism missing in current
models to explain secondary inorganic aerosol formation during the January
2013 haze episode in North China, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 2031–2049,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-2031-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-2031-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib81"><label>81</label><mixed-citation>
Zhuang, B. L., Wang, T. J., Li, S., Liu, J., Talbot, R., Mao, H. T., Yang, X.
Q., Fu, C. B., Yin, C. Q., Zhu, J. L., Che, H. Z., and Zhang, X. Y.: Optical
properties and radiative forcing of urban aerosols in Nanjing, China, Atmos.
Environ., 83, 43–52, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
