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

HTAP3-OPNS: Ozone, PM, Nitrogen and Sulphur Deposition – multi-model experiments to support the revision of the CLRTAP Gothenburg Protocol
Tim Butler, Tabish Ansari, Claudio A. Belis, Elisa Bergas-Masso, Willem van Caspel, Hilde Fagerli, Johannes Flemming, Marta Garcia Vivanco, Paul Griffiths, Douglas S. Hamilton, Coralina Hernandez Trujillo, Lena Höglund-Isaksson, Vincent Huijnen, Matthew Kasoar, Johannes W. Kaiser, Gerbrand Koren, Zbigniew Klimont, Florian Lindl, Aura Lupascu, Mariano Mertens, Martijn Schaap, Steven T. Turnock, Oliver Wild, Philipp Weiss, Jacek Kaminski, Rosa Wu, and Terry Keating
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1367,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1367, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Assimilation of ground based lidar and ceilometer observations of aerosols from the European E-Profile network into ECMWF's Integrated Forecasting System (IFS-COMPO, CY49R1)
Michael Kahnert, Melanie Ades, Mickaël Bacles, Johannes Flemming, Vincent Guidard, Alexander Haefele, Robin J. Hogan, Samuel Rémy, and Eric Sauvageat
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6077,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6077, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Improving thermodynamic nudging in the E3SM Atmosphere Model version 2 (EAMv2): strategy and hindcast skills on weather systems
Shixuan Zhang, L. Ruby Leung, Bryce E. Harrop, Aniruddha Bora, George Karniadakis, Khemraj Shukla, and Kai Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 1937–1964, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-1937-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-1937-2026, 2026
Short summary
Two Decades of Aerosol Optical Depth evolution from CAMS Reanalysis
Anna Moustaka, Antonis Gkikas, Stavros-Andreas Logothetis, Johannes Flemming, Samuel Rémy, Melanie Ades, Angela Benedetti, Kleareti Tourpali, Vassilis Amiridis, and Stelios Kazadzis
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1107,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1107, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary
The MISR Research Product Algorithm – Producing Global, Self-Consistent, Pixel-Level Aerosol Retrievals for the Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer
Michael Anstett, James Limbacher, and Ralph Kahn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-342,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-342, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Measurement Techniques (AMT).
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