Parameterization of size‐resolved dust emission and validation with measurements

244 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

An improved dust emission model – Part 1: Model description and comparison against measurements (2014, background): “2 Obtaining u*t, α, and Cd Although the Shao et al. (2011) data set includes many measurements near the threshold, the substantial scatter in these measurements causes their regression against u*, following the procedure in Appendix B, to not yield a reliable threshold value. Since the Shao et al. (”
The physics of wind-blown loess: Implications for grain size proxy interpretations in Quaternary paleoclimate studies (2016, background): “In contrast to this, neither Gillette et al. (1974) nor Shao et al. (2011) found a clear dependence of airborne dust PSD on wind speed (also see Kok, 2011b).”
The AFWA dust emission scheme for the GOCART aerosol model in WRF-Chem v3.8.1 (2019, methodology): “The UoC model is documented in Shao (2001) and later papers by the same author (Shao, 2004; Shao et al., 2011) that describe sub-option sets of varying complexity.”
The physics of wind-blown sand and dust (2012, background): “Recent reviews of the impact of the global dust cycle on various aspects of the Earth system were given by Mahowald et al (2009), Ravi et al (2011) and Shao et al (2011a).”