2017, Filioglou, Maria, Nikandrova, Anna, Niemelä, Sami, Baars, Holger, Mielonen, Tero, Leskinen, Ari, Brus, David, Romakkaniemi, Sami, Giannakaki, Elina, Komppula, Mika

We present tropospheric water vapor profiles measured with a Raman lidar during three field campaigns held in Finland. Co-located radio soundings are available throughout the period for the calibration of the lidar signals. We investigate the possibility of calibrating the lidar water vapor profiles in the absence of co-existing on-site soundings using water vapor profiles from the combined Advanced InfraRed Sounder (AIRS) and the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU) satellite product; the Aire Limitée Adaptation dynamique Développement INternational and High Resolution Limited Area Model (ALADIN/HIRLAM) numerical weather prediction (NWP) system, and the nearest radio sounding station located 100 km away from the lidar site (only for the permanent location of the lidar). The uncertainties of the calibration factor derived from the soundings, the satellite and the model data are < 2.8, 7.4 and 3.9 %, respectively. We also include water vapor mixing ratio intercomparisons between the radio soundings and the various instruments/model for the period of the campaigns. A good agreement is observed for all comparisons with relative errors that do not exceed 50 % up to 8 km altitude in most cases. A 4-year seasonal analysis of vertical water vapor is also presented for the Kuopio site in Finland. During winter months, the air in Kuopio is dry (1.15±0.40 †kg-1); during summer it is wet (5.54±1.02 †kg-1); and at other times, the air is in an intermediate state. These are averaged values over the lowest 2 km in the atmosphere. Above that height a quick decrease in water vapor mixing ratios is observed, except during summer months where favorable atmospheric conditions enable higher mixing ratio values at higher altitudes. Lastly, the seasonal change in disagreement between the lidar and the model has been studied. The analysis showed that, on average, the model underestimates water vapor mixing ratios at high altitudes during spring and summer.

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, Santtu

Despite 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.