Climate processes: publications

In-situ constraints on the vertical distribution of global aerosol

Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics European Geosciences Union (2019)

Authors:

Duncan Watson-Parris, Nick Schutgens, Carly Reddington, Kirsty J Pringle, Dantong Liu, James D Allan, Hugh Coe, Ken S Carslaw, Philip Stier

Abstract:

Abstract. Despite ongoing efforts, the vertical distribution of aerosols globally is poorly understood. This in turn leads to large uncertainties in the contributions of the direct and indirect aerosol forcing on climate. Using the Global Aerosol Synthesis and Science Project (GASSP) database – the largest synthesised collection of in-situ aircraft measurements currently available, with more than 1000 flights from 37 campaigns from around the world – we investigate the vertical structure of sub-micron aerosols across a wide range of regions and environments. The application of this unique dataset to assess the vertical distributions of number size distribution and Cloud Condensation Nuclei (CCN) in the global aerosol-climate model ECHAM-HAM reveals that the model underestimates accumulation mode particles in the upper troposphere, especially in remote regions. The processes underlying this discrepancy are explored using different aerosol microphysical schemes and a process sensitivity analysis. These show that the biases are predominantly related to aerosol ageing and removal rather than emissions.

Analysis of the Atmospheric Water Budget for Elucidating the Spatial Scale of Precipitation Changes Under Climate Change

Geophysical Research Letters American Geophysical Union (AGU) 46:17-18 (2019) 10504-10511

Authors:

Guy Dagan, Philip Stier, Duncan Watson‐Parris

Abstract:

AbstractGlobal mean precipitation changes due to climate change were previously shown to be relatively small and well constrained by the energy budget. However, local precipitation changes can be much more significant. In this paper we propose that for large enough scales, for which the water budget is closed (precipitation [P] roughly equals evaporation [E]), changes in P approach the small global mean value. However, for smaller scales, for which P and E are not necessarily equal and convergence of water vapor still plays a role, changes in P could be much larger due to dynamical contributions. Using 40 years of two reanalysis data sets, 39 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) models and additional numerical simulations, we identify the scale of transition in the importance of the different terms in the water budget to precipitation to be ~3,500–4,000 km and demonstrate its relation to the spatial scale of precipitation changes under climate change.

The global aerosol–climate model ECHAM6.3–HAM2.3 – Part 2: Cloud evaluation, aerosol radiative forcing, and climate sensitivity

Geoscientific Model Development Copernicus GmbH 12:8 (2019) 3609-3639

Authors:

David Neubauer, Sylvaine Ferrachat, Colombe Siegenthaler-Le Drian, Philip Stier, Daniel G Partridge, Ina Tegen, Isabelle Bey, Tanja Stanelle, Harri Kokkola, Ulrike Lohmann

Abstract:

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.

Global response of parameterised convective cloud fields to anthropogenic aerosol forcing

Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions Copernicus GmbH (2019) 1-25

Authors:

Zak Kipling, Laurent Labbouz, Philip Stier

Abstract:

Abstract. 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. 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.

Evaluation of global simulations of aerosol particle and cloud condensation nuclei number, with implications for cloud droplet formation

Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Copernicus GmbH 19:13 (2019) 8591-8617

Authors:

George S Fanourgakis, Maria Kanakidou, Athanasios Nenes, Susanne E Bauer, Tommi Bergman, Ken S Carslaw, Alf Grini, Douglas S Hamilton, Jill S Johnson, Vlassis A Karydis, Alf Kirkevåg, John K Kodros, Ulrike Lohmann, Gan Luo, Risto Makkonen, Hitoshi Matsui, David Neubauer, Jeffrey R Pierce, Julia Schmale, Philip Stier, Kostas Tsigaridis, Twan van Noije, Hailong Wang, Duncan Watson-Parris, Daniel M Westervelt, Yang Yang, Masaru Yoshioka, Nikos Daskalakis, Stefano Decesari, Martin Gysel-Beer, Nikos Kalivitis, Xiaohong Liu, Natalie M Mahowald, Stelios Myriokefalitakis, Roland Schrödner, Maria Sfakianaki, Alexandra P Tsimpidi, Mingxuan Wu, Fangqun Yu

Abstract:

Abstract. 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. 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 −24&thinsp;% and −35&thinsp;% for particles with dry diameters &gt;50 and &gt;120&thinsp;nm, as well as −36&thinsp;% and −34&thinsp;% for CCN at supersaturations of 0.2&thinsp;% and 1.0&thinsp;%, respectively. However, they seem to behave differently for particles activating at very low supersaturations (&lt;0.1&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 N3 (number concentration of particles with dry diameters larger than 3&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 0.2&thinsp;% (CCN0.2) compared to that for N3, maximizing over regions where new particle formation is important. 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. 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&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&thinsp;% during winter and 20&thinsp;% in summer. 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 −13&thinsp;% and −22&thinsp;% for updraft velocities 0.3 and 0.6&thinsp;m&thinsp;s−1, 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 (<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><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>) and to updraft velocity (<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><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>). 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 <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><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> and <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><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>; 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.

51��