2019, Schacht, Jacob, Heinold, Bernd, Quaas, Johannes, Backman, John, Cherian, Ribu, Ehrlich, Andre, Herber, Andreas, Huang, Wan Ting Katty, Kondo, Yutaka, Massling, Andreas, Sinha, P.R., Weinzierl, Bernadett, Zanatta, Marco, Tegen, Ina

Aerosol particles can contribute to the Arctic amplification (AA) by direct and indirect radiative effects. Specifically, black carbon (BC) in the atmosphere, and when deposited on snow and sea ice, has a positive warming effect on the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiation balance during the polar day. Current climate models, however, are still struggling to reproduce Arctic aerosol conditions.We present an evaluation study with the global aerosol-climate model ECHAM6.3-HAM2.3 to examine emission-related uncertainties in the BC distribution and the direct radiative effect of BC. The model results are comprehensively compared against the latest ground and airborne aerosol observations for the period 2005-2017, with a focus on BC. Four different setups of air pollution emissions are tested. The simulations in general match well with the observed amount and temporal variability in near-surface BC in the Arctic. Using actual daily instead of fixed biomass burning emissions is crucial for reproducing individual pollution events but has only a small influence on the seasonal cycle of BC. Compared with commonly used fixed anthropogenic emissions for the year 2000, an up-to-date inventory with transient air pollution emissions results in up to a 30% higher annual BC burden locally. This causes a higher annual mean all-sky net direct radiative effect of BC of over 0.1Wm-2 at the top of the atmosphere over the Arctic region (60-90° N), being locally more than 0.2Wm-2 over the eastern Arctic Ocean. We estimate BC in the Arctic as leading to an annual net gain of 0.5Wm-2 averaged over the Arctic region but to a local gain of up to 0.8Wm-2 by the direct radiative effect of atmospheric BC plus the effect by the BC-in-snow albedo reduction. Long-range transport is identified as one of the main sources of uncertainties for ECHAM6.3-HAM2.3, leading to an overestimation of BC in atmospheric layers above 500 hPa, especially in summer. This is related to a misrepresentation in wet removal in one identified case at least, which was observed during the ARCTAS (Arctic Research of the Composition of the Troposphere from Aircraft and Satellites) summer aircraft campaign. Overall, the current model version has significantly improved since previous intercomparison studies and now performs better than the multi-model average in the Aerosol Comparisons between Observation and Models (AEROCOM) initiative in terms of the spatial and temporal distribution of Arctic BC. © Author(s) 2019.

2019, Wendisch, Manfred, Macke, Andreas, Ehrlich, André, Lüpkes, Christof, Mech, Mario, Chechin, Dmitry, Dethloff, Klaus, Velasco, Carola Barrientos, Bozem, Heiko, Brückner, Marlen, Clemen, Hans-Christian, Crewell, Susanne, Donth, Tobias, Dupuy, Regis, Ebell, Kerstin, Egerer, Ulrike, Engelmann, Ronny, Engler, Christa, Eppers, Oliver, Gehrmann, Martin, Gong, Xianda, Gottschalk, Matthias, Gourbeyre, Christophe, Griesche, Hannes, Hartmann, Jörg, Hartmann, Markus, Heinold, Bernd, Herber, Andreas, Herrmann, Hartmut, Heygster, Georg, Hoor, Peter, Jafariserajehlou, Soheila, Jäkel, Evelyn, Järvinen, Emma, Jourdan, Olivier, Kästner, Udo, Kecorius, Simonas, Knudsen, Erlend M., Köllner, Franziska, Kretzschmar, Jan, Lelli, Luca, Leroy, Delphine, Maturilli, Marion, Mei, Linlu, Mertes, Stephan, Mioche, Guillaume, Neuber, Roland, Nicolaus, Marcel, Nomokonova, Tatiana, Notholt, Justus, Palm, Mathias, van Pinxteren, Manuela, Quaas, Johannes, Richter, Philipp, Ruiz-Donoso, Elena, Schäfer, Michael, Schmieder, Katja, Schnaiter, Martin, Schneider, Johannes, Schwarzenböck, Alfons, Seifert, Patric, Shupe, Matthew D., Siebert, Holger, Spreen, Gunnar, Stapf, Johannes, Stratmann, Frank, Vogl, Teresa, Welti, André, Wex, Heike, Wiedensohler, Alfred, Zanatta, Marco, Zeppenfeld, Sebastian

Clouds play an important role in Arctic amplification. This term represents the recently observed enhanced warming of the Arctic relative to the global increase of near-surface air temperature. However, there are still important knowledge gaps regarding the interplay between Arctic clouds and aerosol particles, and surface properties, as well as turbulent and radiative fluxes that inhibit accurate model simulations of clouds in the Arctic climate system. In an attempt to resolve this so-called Arctic cloud puzzle, two comprehensive and closely coordinated field studies were conducted: the Arctic Cloud Observations Using Airborne Measurements during Polar Day (ACLOUD) aircraft campaign and the Physical Feedbacks of Arctic Boundary Layer, Sea Ice, Cloud and Aerosol (PASCAL) ice breaker expedition. Both observational studies were performed in the framework of the German Arctic Amplification: Climate Relevant Atmospheric and Surface Processes, and Feedback Mechanisms (AC) project. They took place in the vicinity of Svalbard, Norway, in May and June 2017. ACLOUD and PASCAL explored four pieces of the Arctic cloud puzzle: cloud properties, aerosol impact on clouds, atmospheric radiation, and turbulent dynamical processes. The two instrumented Polar 5 and Polar 6 aircraft; the icebreaker Research Vessel (R/V) Polarstern; an ice floe camp including an instrumented tethered balloon; and the permanent ground-based measurement station at Ny-Ålesund, Svalbard, were employed to observe Arctic low- and mid-level mixed-phase clouds and to investigate related atmospheric and surface processes. The Polar 5 aircraft served as a remote sensing observatory examining the clouds from above by downward-looking sensors; the Polar 6 aircraft operated as a flying in situ measurement laboratory sampling inside and below the clouds. Most of the collocated Polar 5/6 flights were conducted either above the R/V Polarstern or over the Ny-Ålesund station, both of which monitored the clouds from below using similar but upward-looking remote sensing techniques as the Polar 5 aircraft. Several of the flights were carried out underneath collocated satellite tracks. The paper motivates the scientific objectives of the ACLOUD/PASCAL observations and describes the measured quantities, retrieved parameters, and the applied complementary instrumentation. Furthermore, it discusses selected measurement results and poses critical research questions to be answered in future papers analyzing the data from the two field campaigns.