3 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
- 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 1: Aerosol evaluation(Göttingen : Copernicus GmbH, 2019) Tegen, I.; Neubauer, D.; Ferrachat, S.; Drian, C.S.-L.; Bey, I.; Schutgens, N.; Stier, P.; Watson-Parris, D.; Stanelle, T.; Schmidt, H.; Rast, S.; Kokkola, H.; Schultz, M.; Schroeder, S.; Daskalakis, N.; Barthel, S.; Heinold, B.; Lohmann, U.We introduce and evaluate aerosol simulations with the global aerosol-climate model ECHAM6.3-HAM2.3, which is the aerosol component of the fully coupled aerosol-chemistry-climate model ECHAM-HAMMOZ. Both the host atmospheric climate model ECHAM6.3 and the aerosol model HAM2.3 were updated from previous versions. The updated version of the HAM aerosol model contains improved parameterizations of aerosol processes such as cloud activation, as well as updated emission fields for anthropogenic aerosol species and modifications in the online computation of sea salt and mineral dust aerosol emissions. Aerosol results from nudged and free-running simulations for the 10-year period 2003 to 2012 are compared to various measurements of aerosol properties. While there are regional deviations between the model and observations, the model performs well overall in terms of aerosol optical thickness, but may underestimate coarse-mode aerosol concentrations to some extent so that the modeled particles are smaller than indicated by the observations. Sulfate aerosol measurements in the US and Europe are reproduced well by the model, while carbonaceous aerosol species are biased low. Both mineral dust and sea salt aerosol concentrations are improved compared to previous versions of ECHAM-HAM. The evaluation of the simulated aerosol distributions serves as a basis for the suitability of the model for simulating aerosol-climate interactions in a changing climate.
- ItemThe EMEP Intensive Measurement Period campaign, 2008-2009: Characterizing carbonaceous aerosol at nine rural sites in Europe(Katlenburg-Lindau : EGU, 2019) Yttri, Karl Espen; Simpson, David; Bergström, Robert; Kiss, Gyula; Szidat, Sönke; Ceburnis, Darius; Eckhardt, Sabine; Hueglin, Christoph; Nøjgaard, Jacob Klenø; Perrino, Cinzia; Pisso, Ignazio; Prevot, Andre Stephan Henry; Putaud, Jean-Philippe; Spindler, Gerald; Vana, Milan; Zhang, Yan-Lin; Aas, WencheCarbonaceous aerosol (total carbon, TCp) was source apportioned at nine European rural background sites, as part of the European Measurement and Evaluation Programme (EMEP) Intensive Measurement Periods in fall 2008 and winter/spring 2009. Five predefined fractions were apportioned based on ambient measurements: elemental and organic carbon, from combustion of biomass (ECbb and OCbb) and from fossil-fuel (ECff and OCff) sources, and remaining non-fossil organic carbon (OCrnf), dominated by natural sources.OCrnf made a larger contribution to TCp than anthropogenic sources (ECbb, OCbb, ECff, and OCff) at four out of nine sites in fall, reflecting the vegetative season, whereas anthropogenic sources dominated at all but one site in winter/spring. Biomass burning (OCbb + ECbb) was the major anthropogenic source at the central European sites in fall, whereas fossil-fuel (OCff + ECff) sources dominated at the southernmost and the two northernmost sites. Residential wood burning emissions explained 30 %-50 % of TCp at most sites in the first week of sampling in fall, showing that this source can be the dominant one, even outside the heating season. In winter/spring, biomass burning was the major anthropogenic source at all but two sites, reflecting increased residential wood burning emissions in the heating season. Fossil-fuel sources dominated EC at all sites in fall, whereas there was a shift towards biomass burning for the southernmost sites in winter/spring.Model calculations based on base-case emissions (mainly officially reported national emissions) strongly underpredicted observational derived levels of OCbb and ECbb outside Scandinavia. Emissions based on a consistent bottom-up inventory for residential wood burning (and including intermediate volatility compounds, IVOCs) improved model results compared to the base-case emissions, but modeled levels were still substantially underestimated compared to observational derived OCbb and ECbb levels at the southernmost sites.Our study shows that natural sources are a major contributor to carbonaceous aerosol in Europe, even in fall and in winter/spring, and that residential wood burning emissions are equally as large as or larger than that of fossil-fuel sources, depending on season and region. The poorly constrained residential wood burning emissions for large parts of Europe show the obvious need to improve emission inventories, with harmonization of emission factors between countries likely being the most important step to improve model calculations for biomass burning emissions, and European PM2.5 concentrations in general. © Author(s) 2019.