2 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- ItemComparison of particle number size distribution trends in ground measurements and climate models(Katlenburg-Lindau : EGU, 2022) Leinonen, Ville; Kokkola, Harri; Yli-Juuti, Taina; Mielonen, Tero; Kühn, Thomas; Nieminen, Tuomo; Heikkinen, Simo; Miinalainen, Tuuli; Bergman, Tommi; Carslaw, Ken; Decesari, Stefano; Fiebig, Markus; Hussein, Tareq; Kivekäs, Niku; Krejci, Radovan; Kulmala, Markku; Leskinen, Ari; Massling, Andreas; Mihalopoulos, Nikos; Mulcahy, Jane P.; Noe, Steffen M.; van Noije, Twan; O'Connor, Fiona M.; O'Dowd, Colin; Olivie, Dirk; Pernov, Jakob B.; Petäjä, Tuukka; Seland, Øyvind; Schulz, Michael; Scott, Catherine E.; Skov, Henrik; Swietlicki, Erik; Tuch, Thomas; Wiedensohler, Alfred; Virtanen, Annele; Mikkonen, SanttuDespite a large number of studies, out of all drivers of radiative forcing, the effect of aerosols has the largest uncertainty in global climate model radiative forcing estimates. There have been studies of aerosol optical properties in climate models, but the effects of particle number size distribution need a more thorough inspection. We investigated the trends and seasonality of particle number concentrations in nucleation, Aitken, and accumulation modes at 21 measurement sites in Europe and the Arctic. For 13 of those sites, with longer measurement time series, we compared the field observations with the results from five climate models, namely EC-Earth3, ECHAM-M7, ECHAM-SALSA, NorESM1.2, and UKESM1. This is the first extensive comparison of detailed aerosol size distribution trends between in situ observations from Europe and five earth system models (ESMs). We found that the trends of particle number concentrations were mostly consistent and decreasing in both measurements and models. However, for many sites, climate models showed weaker decreasing trends than the measurements. Seasonal variability in measured number concentrations, quantified by the ratio between maximum and minimum monthly number concentration, was typically stronger at northern measurement sites compared to other locations. Models had large differences in their seasonal representation, and they can be roughly divided into two categories: for EC-Earth and NorESM, the seasonal cycle was relatively similar for all sites, and for other models the pattern of seasonality varied between northern and southern sites. In addition, the variability in concentrations across sites varied between models, some having relatively similar concentrations for all sites, whereas others showed clear differences in concentrations between remote and urban sites. To conclude, although all of the model simulations had identical input data to describe anthropogenic mass emissions, trends in differently sized particles vary among the models due to assumptions in emission sizes and differences in how models treat size-dependent aerosol processes. The inter-model variability was largest in the accumulation mode, i.e. sizes which have implications for aerosol-cloud interactions. Our analysis also indicates that between models there is a large variation in efficiency of long-range transportation of aerosols to remote locations. The differences in model results are most likely due to the more complex effect of different processes instead of one specific feature (e.g. the representation of aerosol or emission size distributions). Hence, a more detailed characterization of microphysical processes and deposition processes affecting the long-range transport is needed to understand the model variability.
- ItemThe global aerosol-climate model ECHAM6.3-HAM2.3-Part 2: Cloud evaluation, aerosol radiative forcing, and climate sensitivity(Katlenburg-Lindau : Copernicus, 2019) Neubauer, David; Ferrachat, Sylvaine; Siegenthaler-Le Drian, Colombe; Stier, Philip; Partridge, Daniel G.; Tegen, Ina; Bey, Isabelle; Stanelle, Tanja; Kokkola, Harri; Lohmann, UlrikeThe global aerosol–climate model ECHAM6.3–HAM2.3 (E63H23) as well as the previous model versions ECHAM5.5–HAM2.0 (E55H20) and ECHAM6.1–HAM2.2 (E61H22) are evaluated using global observational datasets for clouds and precipitation. In E63H23, the amount of low clouds, the liquid and ice water path, and cloud radiative effects are more realistic than in previous model versions. E63H23 has a more physically based aerosol activation scheme, improvements in the cloud cover scheme, changes in the detrainment of convective clouds, changes in the sticking efficiency for the accretion of ice crystals by snow, consistent ice crystal shapes throughout the model, and changes in mixed-phase freezing; an inconsistency in ice crystal number concentration (ICNC) in cirrus clouds was also removed. Common biases in ECHAM and in E63H23 (and in previous ECHAM–HAM versions) are a cloud amount in stratocumulus regions that is too low and deep convective clouds over the Atlantic and Pacific oceans that form too close to the continents (while tropical land precipitation is underestimated). There are indications that ICNCs are overestimated in E63H23. Since clouds are important for effective radiative forcing due to aerosol–radiation and aerosol–cloud interactions (ERFari+aci) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), differences in ERFari+aci and ECS between the model versions were also analyzed. ERFari+aci is weaker in E63H23 (−1.0 W m−2) than in E61H22 (−1.2 W m−2) (or E55H20; −1.1 W m−2). This is caused by the weaker shortwave ERFari+aci (a new aerosol activation scheme and sea salt emission parameterization in E63H23, more realistic simulation of cloud water) overcompensating for the weaker longwave ERFari+aci (removal of an inconsistency in ICNC in cirrus clouds in E61H22). The decrease in ECS in E63H23 (2.5 K) compared to E61H22 (2.8 K) is due to changes in the entrainment rate for shallow convection (affecting the cloud amount feedback) and a stronger cloud phase feedback. Experiments with minimum cloud droplet number concentrations (CDNCmin) of 40 cm−3 or 10 cm−3 show that a higher value of CDNCmin reduces ERFari+aci as well as ECS in E63H23.