Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (May 2014)
Intercomparison and evaluation of global aerosol microphysical properties among AeroCom models of a range of complexity
- G. W. Mann,
- K. S. Carslaw,
- C. L. Reddington,
- K. J. Pringle,
- M. Schulz,
- A. Asmi,
- D. V. Spracklen,
- D. A. Ridley,
- M. T. Woodhouse,
- L. A. Lee,
- K. Zhang,
- S. J. Ghan,
- R. C. Easter,
- X. Liu,
- P. Stier,
- Y. H. Lee,
- P. J. Adams,
- H. Tost,
- J. Lelieveld,
- S. E. Bauer,
- K. Tsigaridis,
- T. P. C. van Noije,
- A. Strunk,
- E. Vignati,
- N. Bellouin,
- M. Dalvi,
- C. E. Johnson,
- T. Bergman,
- H. Kokkola,
- K. von Salzen,
- F. Yu,
- G. Luo,
- A. Petzold,
- J. Heintzenberg,
- A. Clarke,
- J. A. Ogren,
- J. Gras,
- U. Baltensperger,
- U. Kaminski,
- S. G. Jennings,
- C. D. O'Dowd,
- R. M. Harrison,
- D. C. S. Beddows,
- M. Kulmala,
- Y. Viisanen,
- V. Ulevicius,
- N. Mihalopoulos,
- V. Zdimal,
- M. Fiebig,
- H.-C. Hansson,
- E. Swietlicki,
- J. S. Henzing
Affiliations
- G. W. Mann
- National Centre for Atmospheric Science, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
- K. S. Carslaw
- School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
- C. L. Reddington
- School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
- K. J. Pringle
- School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
- M. Schulz
- Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway
- A. Asmi
- Helsinki University, Helsinki, Finland
- D. V. Spracklen
- School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
- D. A. Ridley
- School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
- M. T. Woodhouse
- School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
- L. A. Lee
- School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
- K. Zhang
- Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany
- S. J. Ghan
- Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA
- R. C. Easter
- Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA
- X. Liu
- Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA
- P. Stier
- Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Y. H. Lee
- Civil & Environment Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
- P. J. Adams
- Civil & Environment Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
- H. Tost
- Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, Mainz, Germany
- J. Lelieveld
- Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, Mainz, Germany
- S. E. Bauer
- Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
- K. Tsigaridis
- Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
- T. P. C. van Noije
- Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), De Bilt, the Netherlands
- A. Strunk
- Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), De Bilt, the Netherlands
- E. Vignati
- EU Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy
- N. Bellouin
- Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, UK
- M. Dalvi
- Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
- C. E. Johnson
- Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
- T. Bergman
- Finnish Meteorological Institute, Kuopio Unit, Kuopio, Finland
- H. Kokkola
- Finnish Meteorological Institute, Kuopio Unit, Kuopio, Finland
- K. von Salzen
- Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Environment Canada, Canada
- F. Yu
- Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, NY State University, Albany, USA
- G. Luo
- Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, NY State University, Albany, USA
- A. Petzold
- Institute of Atmospheric Physics, DLR, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany
- J. Heintzenberg
- Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research, Leipzig, Germany
- A. Clarke
- Department of Oceanography, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, USA
- J. A. Ogren
- Earth System Research Laboratory, NOAA, Boulder, Colorado, USA
- J. Gras
- CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Aspendale, Victoria, Australia
- U. Baltensperger
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
- U. Kaminski
- Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD), Germany
- S. G. Jennings
- National University of Ireland Galway, Ireland
- C. D. O'Dowd
- National University of Ireland Galway, Ireland
- R. M. Harrison
- National Centre for Atmospheric Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- D. C. S. Beddows
- National Centre for Atmospheric Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- M. Kulmala
- Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- Y. Viisanen
- Helsinki University, Helsinki, Finland
- V. Ulevicius
- Center for Physical Sciences and Technology, Vilnius, Lithuania
- N. Mihalopoulos
- Department of Chemistry, University of Crete, Heraklion, Greece
- V. Zdimal
- Institute of Chemical Process Fundamentals, Rozvojova, Prague, Czech Republic
- M. Fiebig
- Department for Atmospheric and Climate Research, Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU), Norway
- H.-C. Hansson
- Department of Applied Environmental Science, Stockholm University, Sweden
- E. Swietlicki
- Department of Physics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
- J. S. Henzing
- Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), Utrecht, the Netherlands
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-4679-2014
- Journal volume & issue
-
Vol. 14,
no. 9
pp. 4679 – 4713
Abstract
Many of the next generation of global climate models will include aerosol schemes which explicitly simulate the microphysical processes that determine the particle size distribution. These models enable aerosol optical properties and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) concentrations to be determined by fundamental aerosol processes, which should lead to a more physically based simulation of aerosol direct and indirect radiative forcings. This study examines the global variation in particle size distribution simulated by 12 global aerosol microphysics models to quantify model diversity and to identify any common biases against observations. Evaluation against size distribution measurements from a new European network of aerosol supersites shows that the mean model agrees quite well with the observations at many sites on the annual mean, but there are some seasonal biases common to many sites. In particular, at many of these European sites, the accumulation mode number concentration is biased low during winter and Aitken mode concentrations tend to be overestimated in winter and underestimated in summer. At high northern latitudes, the models strongly underpredict Aitken and accumulation particle concentrations compared to the measurements, consistent with previous studies that have highlighted the poor performance of global aerosol models in the Arctic. In the marine boundary layer, the models capture the observed meridional variation in the size distribution, which is dominated by the Aitken mode at high latitudes, with an increasing concentration of accumulation particles with decreasing latitude. Considering vertical profiles, the models reproduce the observed peak in total particle concentrations in the upper troposphere due to new particle formation, although modelled peak concentrations tend to be biased high over Europe. Overall, the multi-model-mean data set simulates the global variation of the particle size distribution with a good degree of skill, suggesting that most of the individual global aerosol microphysics models are performing well, although the large model diversity indicates that some models are in poor agreement with the observations. Further work is required to better constrain size-resolved primary and secondary particle number sources, and an improved understanding of nucleation and growth (e.g. the role of nitrate and secondary organics) will improve the fidelity of simulated particle size distributions.