Climate processes

Abstract:

<jats:p>Abstract. The 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. </jats:p>

Abstract:

<p><strong>Abstract.</strong> The interactions between aerosols and convective clouds represent some of the greatest uncertainties in the climate impact of aerosols in the atmosphere. A wide variety of mechanisms have been proposed by which aerosols may invigorate, suppress, or change the properties of individual convective clouds, some of which can be reproduced in high-resolution limited-area models. However, there may also be mesoscale, regional or global adjustments which modulate or dampen such impacts which cannot be captured in the limited domain of such models. The Convective Cloud Field Model (CCFM) provides a mechanism to explicitly simulate a population of convective clouds within each grid column at resolutions used for global climate modelling, so that a representation of the microphysical aerosol response within each parameterised cloud type is possible.</p> <p>Using CCFM within the global aerosol–climate model ECHAM–HAM, we demonstrate how the parameterised cloud field responds to the present-day anthropogenic aerosol perturbation in different regions. In particular, we show that in regions with strongly-forced deep convection and/or significant aerosol effects via large-scale processes, the changes in the convective cloud field due to microphysical effects is rather small; however in a more weakly-forced regime such as the Caribbean, where large-scale aerosol effects are small, a signature of convective invigoration does become apparent.</p>

Abstract:

<p><strong>Abstract.</strong> A total of 16 global chemistry transport models and general circulation models have participated in this study; 14 models have been evaluated with regard to their ability to reproduce the near-surface observed number concentration of aerosol particles and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), as well as derived cloud droplet number concentration (CDNC). Model results for the period 2011–2015 are compared with aerosol measurements (aerosol particle number, CCN and aerosol particle composition in the submicron fraction) from nine surface stations located in Europe and Japan. The evaluation focuses on the ability of models to simulate the average across time state in diverse environments and on the seasonal and short-term variability in the aerosol properties.</p> <p>There is no single model that systematically performs best across all environments represented by the observations. Models tend to underestimate the observed aerosol particle and CCN number concentrations, with average normalized mean bias (NMB) of all models and for all stations, where data are available, of <span class="inline-formula">−24</span>&amp;thinsp;% and <span class="inline-formula">−35</span>&amp;thinsp;% for particles with dry diameters <span class="inline-formula">&amp;gt;50</span> and <span class="inline-formula">&amp;gt;120</span>&amp;thinsp;nm, as well as <span class="inline-formula">−36</span>&amp;thinsp;% and <span class="inline-formula">−34</span>&amp;thinsp;% for CCN at supersaturations of 0.2&amp;thinsp;% and 1.0&amp;thinsp;%, respectively. However, they seem to behave differently for particles activating at very low supersaturations (<span class="inline-formula">&amp;lt;0.1</span>&amp;thinsp;%) than at higher ones. A total of 15 models have been used to produce ensemble annual median distributions of relevant parameters. The model diversity (defined as the ratio of standard deviation to mean) is up to about 3 for simulated <span class="inline-formula">N₃</span> (number concentration of particles with dry diameters larger than 3&amp;thinsp;nm) and up to about 1 for simulated CCN in the extra-polar regions. A global mean reduction of a factor of about 2 is found in the model diversity for CCN at a supersaturation of <span class="inline-formula">0.2</span>&amp;thinsp;% (CCN<span class="inline-formula">_0.2</span>) compared to that for <span class="inline-formula">N₃</span>, maximizing over regions where new particle formation is important.</p> <p>An additional model has been used to investigate potential causes of model diversity in CCN and bias compared to the observations by performing a perturbed parameter ensemble (PPE) accounting for uncertainties in 26 aerosol-related model input parameters. This PPE suggests that biogenic secondary organic aerosol formation and the hygroscopic properties of the organic material are likely to be the major sources of CCN uncertainty in summer, with dry deposition and cloud processing being dominant in winter.</p> <p>Models capture the relative amplitude of the seasonal variability of the aerosol particle number concentration for all studied particle sizes with available observations (dry diameters larger than 50, 80 and 120&amp;thinsp;nm). The short-term persistence time (on the order of a few days) of CCN concentrations, which is a measure of aerosol dynamic behavior in the models, is underestimated on average by the models by 40&amp;thinsp;% during winter and 20&amp;thinsp;% in summer.</p> <p>In contrast to the large spread in simulated aerosol particle and CCN number concentrations, the CDNC derived from simulated CCN spectra is less diverse and in better agreement with CDNC estimates consistently derived from the observations (average NMB <span class="inline-formula">−13</span>&amp;thinsp;% and <span class="inline-formula">−22</span>&amp;thinsp;% for updraft velocities 0.3 and 0.6&amp;thinsp;m&amp;thinsp;s<span class="inline-formula">⁻¹</span>, respectively). In addition, simulated CDNC is in slightly better agreement with observationally derived values at lower than at higher updraft velocities (index of agreement 0.64 vs. 0.65). The reduced spread of CDNC compared to that of CCN is attributed to the sublinear response of CDNC to aerosol particle number variations and the negative correlation between the sensitivities of CDNC to aerosol particle number concentration (<span class="inline-formula"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M15" display="inline" overflow="scroll" dspmath="mathml"><mrow><mo>∂</mo><msub><mi>N</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">d</mi></msub><mo>/</mo><mo>∂</mo><msub><mi>N</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">a</mi></msub></mrow></math><span><svg:svg xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="48pt" height="14pt" class="svg-formula" dspmath="mathimg" md5hash="9faa6b9bc700a00532091cfd69cae419"><svg:image xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="acp-19-8591-2019-ie00001.svg" width="48pt" height="14pt" src="acp-19-8591-2019-ie00001.png"/></svg:svg></span></span>) and to updraft velocity (<span class="inline-formula"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M16" display="inline" overflow="scroll" dspmath="mathml"><mrow><mo>∂</mo><msub><mi>N</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">d</mi></msub><mo>/</mo><mo>∂</mo><mi>w</mi></mrow></math><span><svg:svg xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="43pt" height="14pt" class="svg-formula" dspmath="mathimg" md5hash="9a0c289e263af38b17f8d2715a056c8f"><svg:image xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="acp-19-8591-2019-ie00002.svg" width="43pt" height="14pt" src="acp-19-8591-2019-ie00002.png"/></svg:svg></span></span>). Overall, we find that while CCN is controlled by both aerosol particle number and composition, CDNC is sensitive to CCN at low and moderate CCN concentrations and to the updraft velocity when CCN levels are high. Discrepancies are found in sensitivities <span class="inline-formula"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M17" display="inline" overflow="scroll" dspmath="mathml"><mrow><mo>∂</mo><msub><mi>N</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">d</mi></msub><mo>/</mo><mo>∂</mo><msub><mi>N</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">a</mi></msub></mrow></math><span><svg:svg xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="48pt" height="14pt" class="svg-formula" dspmath="mathimg" md5hash="a47c1357bf9f8959859c5d28931197ed"><svg:image xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="acp-19-8591-2019-ie00003.svg" width="48pt" height="14pt" src="acp-19-8591-2019-ie00003.png"/></svg:svg></span></span> and <span class="inline-formula"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M18" display="inline" overflow="scroll" dspmath="mathml"><mrow><mo>∂</mo><msub><mi>N</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">d</mi></msub><mo>/</mo><mo>∂</mo><mi>w</mi></mrow></math><span><svg:svg xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="43pt" height="14pt" class="svg-formula" dspmath="mathimg" md5hash="2e76a96aacff9b259f027c6bf554be27"><svg:image xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="acp-19-8591-2019-ie00004.svg" width="43pt" height="14pt" src="acp-19-8591-2019-ie00004.png"/></svg:svg></span></span>; models may be predisposed to be too “aerosol sensitive” or “aerosol insensitive” in aerosol–cloud–climate interaction studies, even if they may capture average droplet numbers well. This is a subtle but profound finding that only the sensitivities can clearly reveal and may explain inter-model biases on the aerosol indirect effect.</p>

Abstract:

Precipitation plays a crucial role in the Earth's energy balance, the water cycle, and the global atmospheric circulation. Aerosols, by direct interaction with radiation and by serving as cloud condensation nuclei, may affect clouds and rain formation. This effect can be examined in terms of energetic constraints, that is, any aerosol‐driven diabatic heating/cooling of the atmosphere will have to be balanced by changes in precipitation, radiative fluxes, or divergence of dry static energy. Using an aqua‐planet general circulation model (GCM), we show that tropical and extratropical precipitation have contrasting responses to aerosol perturbations. This behavior can be explained by contrasting ability of the atmosphere to diverge excess dry static energy in the two different regions. It is shown that atmospheric heating in the tropics leads to large‐scale thermally driven circulation and a large increase in precipitation, while the excess energy from heating in the extratropics is constrained due to the effect of the Coriolis force, causing the precipitation to decrease.

Abstract:

<p><strong>Abstract.</strong> The radiative forcing from aerosols (particularly through their interaction with clouds) remains one of the most uncertain components of the human forcing of the climate. Observation-based studies have typically found a smaller aerosol effective radiative forcing than in model simulations and were given preferential weighting in the IPCC AR5 report. With their own sources of uncertainty, it is not clear that observation-based estimates are more reliable. Understanding the source of the model-observational difference is thus vital to reduce uncertainty in the impact of aerosols on the climate.</p> <p>These reported discrepancies arise from the different decompositions of the aerosol forcing used in model and observational studies. Applying the observational decomposition to global climate model output, the two different lines of evidence are surprisingly similar, with a much better agreement on the magnitude of aerosol impacts on cloud properties. Cloud adjustments remain a significant source of uncertainty, particularly for ice clouds. However, they are consistent with the uncertainty from observation-based methods, with the liquid water path adjustment usually enhancing the Twomey effect by less than 50&amp;thinsp;%. Depending on different sets of assumptions, this work suggests that model and observation-based estimates could be more equally weighted in future synthesis studies.</p>