2 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- ItemThe regional aerosol-climate model REMO-HAM(München : European Geopyhsical Union, 2012) Pietikäinen, J.-P.; O'Donnell, D.; Teichmann, C.; Karstens, U.; Pfeifer, S.; Kazil, J.; Podzun, R.; Fiedler, S.; Kokkola, H.; Birmili, W.; O'Dowd, C.; Baltensperger, U.; Weingartner, E.; Gehrig, R.; Spindler, G.; Kulmala, M.; Feichter, J.; Jacob, D.; Laaksonen, A.REMO-HAM is a new regional aerosol-climate model. It is based on the REMO regional climate model and includes most of the major aerosol processes. The structure for aerosol is similar to the global aerosol-climate model ECHAM5-HAM, for example the aerosol module HAM is coupled with a two-moment stratiform cloud scheme. On the other hand, REMO-HAM does not include an online coupled aerosol-radiation nor a secondary organic aerosol module. In this work, we evaluate the model and compare the results against ECHAM5-HAM and measurements. Four different measurement sites were chosen for the comparison of total number concentrations, size distributions and gas phase sulfur dioxide concentrations: Hyytiälä in Finland, Melpitz in Germany, Mace Head in Ireland and Jungfraujoch in Switzerland. REMO-HAM is run with two different resolutions: 50 × 50 km2 and 10 × 10 km2. Based on our simulations, REMO-HAM is in reasonable agreement with the measured values. The differences in the total number concentrations between REMO-HAM and ECHAM5-HAM can be mainly explained by the difference in the nucleation mode. Since we did not use activation nor kinetic nucleation for the boundary layer, the total number concentrations are somewhat underestimated. From the meteorological point of view, REMO-HAM represents the precipitation fields and 2 m temperature profile very well compared to measurement. Overall, we show that REMO-HAM is a functional aerosol-climate model, which will be used in further studies.
- ItemPrimary versus secondary contributions to particle number concentrations in the European boundary layer(München : European Geopyhsical Union, 2011) Reddington, C.L.; Carslaw, K.S.; Spracklen, D.V.; Frontoso, M.G.; Collins, L.; Merikanto, J.; Minikin, A.; Hamburger, T.; Coe, H.; Kulmala, M.; Aalto, P.; Flentje, H.; Plass-Dülmer, C.; Birmili, W.; Wiedensohler, A.; Wehner, B.; Tuch, T.; Sonntag, A.; O'Dowd, C.D.; Jennings, S.G.; Dupuy, R.; Baltensperger, U.; Weingartner, E.; Hansson, H.-C.; Tunved, P.; Laj, P.; Sellegri, K.; Boulon, J.; Putaud, J.-P.; Gruening, C.; Swietlicki, E.; Roldin, P.; Henzing, J.S.; Moerman, M.; Mihalopoulos, N.; Kouvarakis, G.; Ždímal, V.; Zíková, N.; Marinoni, A.; Bonasoni, P.; Duchi, R.It is important to understand the relative contribution of primary and secondary particles to regional and global aerosol so that models can attribute aerosol radiative forcing to different sources. In large-scale models, there is considerable uncertainty associated with treatments of particle formation (nucleation) in the boundary layer (BL) and in the size distribution of emitted primary particles, leading to uncertainties in predicted cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) concentrations. Here we quantify how primary particle emissions and secondary particle formation influence size-resolved particle number concentrations in the BL using a global aerosol microphysics model and aircraft and ground site observations made during the May 2008 campaign of the European Integrated Project on Aerosol Cloud Climate Air Quality Interactions (EUCAARI). We tested four different parameterisations for BL nucleation and two assumptions for the emission size distribution of anthropogenic and wildfire carbonaceous particles. When we emit carbonaceous particles at small sizes (as recommended by the Aerosol Intercomparison project, AEROCOM), the spatial distributions of campaign-mean number concentrations of particles with diameter >50 nm (N50) and >100 nm (N100) were well captured by the model (R2≥0.8) and the normalised mean bias (NMB) was also small (−18% for N50 and −1% for N100). Emission of carbonaceous particles at larger sizes, which we consider to be more realistic for low spatial resolution global models, results in equally good correlation but larger bias (R2≥0.8, NMB = −52% and −29%), which could be partly but not entirely compensated by BL nucleation. Within the uncertainty of the observations and accounting for the uncertainty in the size of emitted primary particles, BL nucleation makes a statistically significant contribution to CCN-sized particles at less than a quarter of the ground sites. Our results show that a major source of uncertainty in CCN-sized particles in polluted European air is the emitted size of primary carbonaceous particles. New information is required not just from direct observations, but also to determine the "effective emission size" and composition of primary particles appropriate for different resolution models.