Articles | Volume 25, issue 3
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-1545-2025
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-1545-2025
Research article
 | 
04 Feb 2025
Research article |  | 04 Feb 2025

Biomass burning emission analysis based on MODIS aerosol optical depth and AeroCom multi-model simulations: implications for model constraints and emission inventories

Mariya Petrenko, Ralph Kahn, Mian Chin, Susanne E. Bauer, Tommi Bergman, Huisheng Bian, Gabriele Curci, Ben Johnson, Johannes W. Kaiser, Zak Kipling, Harri Kokkola, Xiaohong Liu, Keren Mezuman, Tero Mielonen, Gunnar Myhre, Xiaohua Pan, Anna Protonotariou, Samuel Remy, Ragnhild Bieltvedt Skeie, Philip Stier, Toshihiko Takemura, Kostas Tsigaridis, Hailong Wang, Duncan Watson-Parris, and Kai Zhang

Related authors

JCM v1.1: a differentiable, intermediate-complexity atmospheric model
Ellen H. Davenport, J. Varan Madan, Rebecca Gjini, Jared Brzenski, Benjamin Crawford, Nick Ho, Tien-Yiao Hsu, Yueshan Liang, Zhixing Liu, Veeramakali Manivannan, Eric Pham, Rohith Vutukuru, Andrew I. L. Williams, Zhiqi Yang, Rose Yu, Nicholas J. Lutsko, Stephan Hoyer, and Duncan Watson-Parris
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 6451–6466, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-6451-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-6451-2026, 2026
Short summary
Process-level contributions to uncertainty in aerosol effective radiative forcing: a perturbed parameter ensemble with the aerosol–climate model ICON–HAM
Hailing Jia, David Neubauer, Yusuf Bhatti, Duncan Watson-Parris, Philip Stier, Johannes Quaas, Daniel Partridge, Ardit Arifi, Anne Kubin, Athanasios Nenes, Muhammed Irfan, Ulas Im, Carl Svenhag, Nick Schutgens, Bastiaan van Diedenhoven, Sylvaine Ferrachat, Ulrike Lohmann, Ina Tegen, Alice Henkes, Guangliang Fu, and Otto Hasekamp
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3275,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3275, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary
ICON coupled to HAM-lite 1.0 in limited-area mode: an efficient framework for targeted kilometer-scale simulations with interactive aerosols
Bernd Heinold, Philipp Weiss, Sadhitro De, Anne Kubin, Jason Müller, Fabian Senf, Philip Stier, and Ina Tegen
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 6167–6187, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-6167-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-6167-2026, 2026
Short summary
A multi-model approach to constrain the atmospheric hydrogen budget
Srinath Krishnan, Ragnhild Bieltvedt Skeie, Øivind Hodnebrog, Gunnar Myhre, Maria Sand, Marit Sandstad, Hannah Bryant, Didier A. Hauglustaine, Fabien Paulot, Michael Prather, and David Stevenson
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 26, 9509–9539, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-9509-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-9509-2026, 2026
Short summary
ClimateBenchPress (v1.0): a benchmark for lossy compression of climate data
Tim Reichelt, Juniper Tyree, Milan Klöwer, Peter Dueben, Bryan N. Lawrence, Allison H. Baker, Sara Faghih-Naini, Torsten Hoefler, and Philip Stier
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 5933–5960, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-5933-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-5933-2026, 2026
Short summary

Cited articles

AeroCom: Finalized Benchmark Data, AeroCom [data set], https://aerocom.met.no/data, last access: 22 January 2025. 
Anderson, K., Chen, J., Englefield, P., Griffin, D., Makar, P. A., and Thompson, D.: The Global Forest Fire Emissions Prediction System version 1.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7713–7749, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7713-2024, 2024. 
Andreae, M. O., Rosenfeld, D., Artaxo, P., Costa, A. A., Frank, G. P., Longo, K. M., and Silva-Dias, M. A. F.: Smoking Rain Clouds over the Amazon, Science, 303, 1337–1342, 2004. 
Bauer, S. E., Koch, D., Unger, N., Metzger, S. M., Shindell, D. T., and Streets, D. G.: Nitrate aerosols today and in 2030: a global simulation including aerosols and tropospheric ozone, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 5043–5059, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-5043-2007, 2007. 
Download
Short summary
We compared smoke plume simulations from 11 global models to each other and to satellite smoke amount observations aimed at constraining smoke source strength. In regions where plumes are thick and background aerosol is low, models and satellites compare well. However, the input emission inventory tends to underestimate in many places, and particle property and loss rate assumptions vary enormously among models, causing uncertainties that require systematic in situ measurements to resolve.

Share
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint