| 1. |
- Fanourgakis, George S., et al.
(author)
-
Evaluation of global simulations of aerosol particle and cloud condensation nuclei number, with implications for cloud droplet formation
- 2019
-
In: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. - : Copernicus GmbH. - 1680-7316 .- 1680-7324. ; 19:13, s. 8591-8617
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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% and -35% for particles with dry diameters >50 and >120nm, as well as -36% and -34% for CCN at supersaturations of 0.2% and 1.0%, respectively. However, they seem to behave differently for particles activating at very low supersaturations (<0.1%) 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 3nm) 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% (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 120nm). 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% during winter and 20% 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% and -22% for updraft velocities 0.3 and 0.6ms-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 (Nd=Na) and to updraft velocity (Nd=w). 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 Nd=Na and Nd=w; 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 intermodel biases on the aerosol indirect effect.
|
|
| 2. |
- Seland, Øyvind, et al.
(author)
-
Overview of the Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM2) and key climate response of CMIP6 DECK, historical, and scenario simulations
- 2020
-
In: Geoscientific Model Development. - : Copernicus GmbH. - 1991-959X .- 1991-9603. ; 13:12, s. 6165-6200
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The second version of the coupled Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM2) is presented and evaluated. NorESM2 is based on the second version of the Community Earth System Model (CESM2) and shares with CESM2 the computer code infrastructure and many Earth system model components. However, NorESM2 employs entirely different ocean and ocean biogeochemistry models. The atmosphere component of NorESM2 (CAM-Nor) includes a different module for aerosol physics and chemistry, including interactions with cloud and radiation; additionally, CAM-Nor includes improvements in the formulation of local dry and moist energy conservation, in local and global angular momentum conservation, and in the computations for deep convection and air-sea fluxes. The surface components of NorESM2 have minor changes in the albedo calculations and to land and sea-ice models. We present results from simulations with NorESM2 that were carried out for the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). Two versions of the model are used: one with lower (similar to 2 degrees) atmosphere-land resolution and one with medium (similar to 1 degrees) atmosphere-land resolution. The stability of the pre-industrial climate and the sen- sitivity of the model to abrupt and gradual quadrupling of CO2 are assessed, along with the ability of the model to simulate the historical climate under the CMIP6 forcings. Compared to observations and reanalyses, NorESM2 represents an improvement over previous versions of NorESM in most aspects. NorESM2 appears less sensitive to greenhouse gas forcing than its predecessors, with an estimated equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.5 K in both resolutions on a 150-year time frame; however, this estimate increases with the time window and the climate sensitivity at equilibration is much higher. We also consider the model response to future scenarios as defined by selected Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) from the Scenario Model Intercomparison Project defined under CMIP6. Under the four scenarios (SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0, and SSP5-8.5), the warming in the period 2090-2099 compared to 1850-1879 reaches 1.3, 2.2, 3.0, and 3.9 K in NorESM2-LM, and 1.3, 2.1, 3.1, and 3.9 K in NorESM-MM, robustly similar in both resolutions. NorESM2-LM shows a rather satisfactory evolution of recent sea-ice area. In NorESM2-LM, an ice-free Arctic Ocean is only avoided in the SSP1-2.6 scenario.
|
|
| 3. |
- Acosta Navarro, Juan C., et al.
(author)
-
Future response of temperature and precipitation to reduced aerosol emissions as compared with increased greenhouse gas concentrations
- 2017
-
In: Journal of Climate. - 0894-8755 .- 1520-0442. ; 30:3, s. 939-954
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Experiments with a climate model (NorESM1) were performed to isolate the effects of aerosol particles and greenhouse gases on surface temperature and precipitation in simulations of future climate. The simulations show that by 2025-2049, a reduction of aerosol emissions from fossil fuels following a maximum technically feasible reduction (MFR) scenario could lead to a global and Arctic warming of 0.26 K and 0.84 K, respectively; as compared with a simulation with fixed aerosol emissions at the level of 2005. If fossil fuel emissions of aerosols follow a current legislation emissions (CLE) scenario, the NorESM1 model simulations yield a non-significant change in global and Arctic average surface temperature as compared with aerosol emissions fixed at year 2005. The corresponding greenhouse gas effect following the RCP4.5 emission scenario leads to a global and Arctic warming of 0.35 K and 0.94 K, respectively.The model yields a marked annual average northward shift in the inter-tropical convergence zone with decreasing aerosol emissions and subsequent warming of the northern hemisphere. The shift is most pronounced in the MFR scenario but also visible in the CLE scenario. The modeled temperature response to a change in greenhouse gas concentrations is relatively symmetric between the hemispheres and there is no marked shift in the annual average position of the inter-tropical convergence zone. The strong reduction in aerosol emissions in MFR also leads to a net southward cross-hemispheric energy transport anomaly both in the atmosphere and ocean, and enhanced monsoon circulation in Southeast and East Asia causing an increase in precipitation over a large part of this region.
|
|
| 4. |
- Frey, Lena, et al.
(author)
-
Absorbing aerosols over Asia – an inter-model and model-observation comparison study using CAM5.3-Oslo
- 2021
-
In: Tellus. Series B, Chemical and physical meteorology. - : Stockholm University Press. - 0280-6509 .- 1600-0889. ; 73:1, s. 1-25
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Aerosol absorption constitutes a significant component of the total radiative effect of aerosols, and hence its representation in general circulation models is crucial to radiative forcing estimates. We use here multiple observations to evaluate the performance of CAM5.3-Oslo with respect to its aerosol representation. CAM5.3-Oslo is the atmospheric component of the earth system model NorESM1.2 and shows on average an underestimation of aerosol absorption in the focus region over East and South Asia and a strong aerosol absorption overestimation in desert and arid regions compared to observations and other AeroCom phase III models. We explore the reasons of the model spread and find that it is related to the column burden and residence time of absorbing aerosols, in particular black carbon and dust. We conduct further sensitivity simulations with CAM5.3-Oslo to identify processes which are most important for modelled aerosol absorption. The sensitivity experiments target aerosol optical properties, and contrast their impact with effects from changes in emissions and deposition processes, and the driving meteorology. An improved agreement with observations was found with the use of a refined emission data set, transient emissions and assimilation of meteorological observations. Changes in optical properties of absorbing aerosols can also reduce the under- and overestimation of aerosol absorption in the model. However, changes in aerosol absorption strength between the sensitivity experiments are small compared to the inter-model spread among the AeroCom phase III models.
|
|
| 5. |
- Glantz, Paul, et al.
(author)
-
Remote sensing of aerosols in the Arctic for an evaluation of global climate model simulations
- 2014
-
In: Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres. - : Wiley-Blackwell. - 2169-897X .- 2169-8996. ; 119:13, s. 8169-8188
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In this study Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Aqua retrievals of aerosol optical thickness (AOT) at 555 nm are compared to Sun photometer measurements from Svalbard for a period of 9 years. For the 642 daily coincident measurements that were obtained, MODIS AOT generally varies within the predicted uncertainty of the retrieval over ocean (Delta AOT = +/- 0.03 +/- 0.05 . AOT). The results from the remote sensing have been used to examine the accuracy in estimates of aerosol optical properties in the Arctic, generated by global climate models and from in situ measurements at the Zeppelin station, Svalbard. AOT simulated with the Norwegian Earth System Model/Community Atmosphere Model version 4 Oslo global climate model does not reproduce the observed seasonal variability of the Arctic aerosol. The model overestimates clear-sky AOT by nearly a factor of 2 for the background summer season, while tending to underestimate the values in the spring season. Furthermore, large differences in all-sky AOT of up to 1 order of magnitude are found for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 model ensemble for the spring and summer seasons. Large differences between satellite/ground-based remote sensing of AOT and AOT estimated from dry and humidified scattering coefficients are found for the subarctic marine boundary layer in summer.
|
|
| 6. |
- Smith, Christopher J., et al.
(author)
-
Effective radiative forcing and adjustments in CMIP6 models
- 2020
-
In: Atmospheric Chemistry And Physics. - : Copernicus GmbH. - 1680-7316 .- 1680-7324. ; 20:16, s. 9591-9618
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The effective radiative forcing, which includes the instantaneous forcing plus adjustments from the atmosphere and surface, has emerged as the key metric of evaluating human and natural influence on the climate. We evaluate effective radiative forcing and adjustments in 17 contemporary climate models that are participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) and have contributed to the Radiative Forcing Model Intercomparison Project (RFMIP). Present-day (2014) global-mean anthropogenic forcing relative to pre-industrial (1850) levels from climate models stands at 2.00 (+/- 0.23) W m(-2), comprised of 1.81 (+/- 0.09) Wm(-2) from CO2, 1.08 (+/- 0.21) Wm(-2) from other well-mixed greenhouse gases, -1.01 (+/- 0.23) W m(-2) from aerosols and -0.09 (+/- 0.13) W m(-2) from land use change. Quoted uncertainties are 1 standard deviation across model best estimates, and 90 % confidence in the reported forcings, due to internal variability, is typically within 0.1 W m(-2). The majority of the remaining 0.21 W m(-2) is likely to be from ozone. In most cases, the largest contributors to the spread in effective radiative forcing (ERF) is from the instantaneous radiative forcing (IRF) and from cloud responses, particularly aerosol-cloud interactions to aerosol forcing. As determined in previous studies, cancellation of tropospheric and surface adjustments means that the stratospherically adjusted radiative forcing is approximately equal to ERF for greenhouse gas forcing but not for aerosols, and consequentially, not for the anthropogenic total. The spread of aerosol forcing ranges from -0.63 to -1.37 W m(-2), exhibiting a less negative mean and narrower range compared to 10 CMIP5 models. The spread in 4 x CO2 forcing has also narrowed in CMIP6 compared to 13 CMIP5 models. Aerosol forcing is uncorrelated with climate sensitivity. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that the increasing spread in climate sensitivity in CMIP6 models, particularly related to high-sensitivity models, is a consequence of a stronger negative present-day aerosol forcing and little evidence that modelling groups are systematically tuning climate sensitivity or aerosol forcing to recreate observed historical warming.
|
|
