AeroCom phase III multi-model evaluation of the aerosol life cycle and optical properties using ground- and space-based remote sensing as well as surface in situ observations

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorGliß, Jonas
dc.contributor.authorMortier, Augustin
dc.contributor.authorSchulz, Michael
dc.contributor.authorAndrews, Elisabeth
dc.contributor.authorBalkanski, Yves
dc.contributor.authorBauer, Susanne E.
dc.contributor.authorBenedictow, Anna M. K.
dc.contributor.authorBian, Huisheng
dc.contributor.authorCheca-Garcia, Ramiro
dc.contributor.authorChin, Mian
dc.contributor.authorGinoux, Paul
dc.contributor.authorGriesfeller, Jan J.
dc.contributor.authorHeckel, Andreas
dc.contributor.authorKipling, Zak
dc.contributor.authorKirkevåg, Alf
dc.contributor.authorKokkola, Harri
dc.contributor.authorLaj, Paolo
dc.contributor.authorSager, Philippe Le
dc.contributor.authorLund, Marianne Tronstad
dc.contributor.authorMyhre, Cathrine Lund
dc.contributor.authorMatsui, Hitoshi
dc.contributor.authorMyhre, Gunnar
dc.contributor.authorNeubauer, David
dc.contributor.authorNoije, Twan van
dc.contributor.authorNorth, Peter
dc.contributor.authorOlivié, Dirk J. L.
dc.contributor.authorRémy, Samuel
dc.contributor.authorSogacheva, Larisa
dc.contributor.authorTakemura, Toshihiko
dc.contributor.authorTsigaridis, Kostas
dc.contributor.authorTsyro, Svetlana G.
dc.date.accessioned2021-02-05T18:32:25Z
dc.date.available2021-02-05T18:32:25Z
dc.date.issued2021-01-06
dc.description.abstractWithin the framework of the AeroCom (Aerosol Comparisons between Observations and Models) initiative, the state-of-the-art modelling of aerosol optical properties is assessed from 14 global models participating in the phase III control experiment (AP3). The models are similar to CMIP6/AerChemMIP Earth System Models (ESMs) and provide a robust multi-model ensemble. Inter-model spread of aerosol species lifetimes and emissions appears to be similar to that of mass extinction coefficients (MECs), suggesting that aerosol optical depth (AOD) uncertainties are associated with a broad spectrum of parameterised aerosol processes. Total AOD is approximately the same as in AeroCom phase I (AP1) simulations. However, we find a 50 % decrease in the optical depth (OD) of black carbon (BC), attributable to a combination of decreased emissions and lifetimes. Relative contributions from sea salt (SS) and dust (DU) have shifted from being approximately equal in AP1 to SS contributing about 2∕3 of the natural AOD in AP3. This shift is linked with a decrease in DU mass burden, a lower DU MEC, and a slight decrease in DU lifetime, suggesting coarser DU particle sizes in AP3 compared to AP1. Relative to observations, the AP3 ensemble median and most of the participating models underestimate all aerosol optical properties investigated, that is, total AOD as well as fine and coarse AOD (AODf, AODc), Ångström exponent (AE), dry surface scattering (SCdry), and absorption (ACdry) coefficients. Compared to AERONET, the models underestimate total AOD by ca. 21 % ± 20 % (as inferred from the ensemble median and interquartile range). Against satellite data, the ensemble AOD biases range from −37 % (MODIS-Terra) to −16 % (MERGED-FMI, a multi-satellite AOD product), which we explain by differences between individual satellites and AERONET measurements themselves. Correlation coefficients (R) between model and observation AOD records are generally high (R>0.75), suggesting that the models are capable of capturing spatio-temporal variations in AOD. We find a much larger underestimate in coarse AODc (∼ −45 % ± 25 %) than in fine AODf (∼ −15 % ± 25 %) with slightly increased inter-model spread compared to total AOD. These results indicate problems in the modelling of DU and SS. The AODc bias is likely due to missing DU over continental land masses (particularly over the United States, SE Asia, and S. America), while marine AERONET sites and the AATSR SU satellite data suggest more moderate oceanic biases in AODc. Column AEs are underestimated by about 10 % ± 16 %. For situations in which measurements show AE > 2, models underestimate AERONET AE by ca. 35 %. In contrast, all models (but one) exhibit large overestimates in AE when coarse aerosol dominates (bias ca. +140 % if observed AE < 0.5). Simulated AE does not span the observed AE variability. These results indicate that models overestimate particle size (or underestimate the fine-mode fraction) for fine-dominated aerosol and underestimate size (or overestimate the fine-mode fraction) for coarse-dominated aerosol. This must have implications for lifetime, water uptake, scattering enhancement, and the aerosol radiative effect, which we can not quantify at this moment. Comparison against Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) in situ data results in mean bias and inter-model variations of −35 % ± 25 % and −20 % ± 18 % for SCdry and ACdry, respectively. The larger underestimate of SCdry than ACdry suggests the models will simulate an aerosol single scattering albedo that is too low. The larger underestimate of SCdry than ambient air AOD is consistent with recent findings that models overestimate scattering enhancement due to hygroscopic growth. The broadly consistent negative bias in AOD and surface scattering suggests an underestimate of aerosol radiative effects in current global aerosol models. Considerable inter-model diversity in the simulated optical properties is often found in regions that are, unfortunately, not or only sparsely covered by ground-based observations. This includes, for instance, the Sahara, Amazonia, central Australia, and the South Pacific. This highlights the need for a better site coverage in the observations, which would enable us to better assess the models, but also the performance of satellite products in these regions. Using fine-mode AOD as a proxy for present-day aerosol forcing estimates, our results suggest that models underestimate aerosol forcing by ca. −15 %, however, with a considerably large interquartile range, suggesting a spread between −35 % and +10 %.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipData providers from all observation networks and satellite products and all people involved in the production of these products are highly acknowledged for sharing and submitting their data and for support. Jonas Gliß wishes to thank Oskar Landgren and Hanna Svennevik for providing data and code used in this study and Stefan Kinne for helpful comments via personal communication. Toshihiko Takemura was supported by the supercomputer system of the National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI (JP19H05669), and Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (JPMEERF20202F01) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency, Japan. Twan van Noije and Philippe Le Sager acknowledge funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation programme, project CRESCENDO (Coordinated Research in Earth Systems and Climate: Experiments, Knowledge, Dissemination and Outreach), under grant agreement no. 641816. David Neubauer acknowledges funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation programme, project FORCeS, under grant agreement no. 821205. Susanne E. Bauer and Kostas Tsigaridis acknowledge funding from NASA's Atmospheric Composition Modeling and Analysis Program (ACMAP), contract number NNX15AE36G. Paul Ginoux acknowledges partial funding from NASA's Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (EMIT), program number NNH12ZDA0060-EVI4. They also thank Jingbo Yu for running the GISS model. Resources supporting this work were provided by the NASA High-End Computing (HEC) Program through the NASA Center for Climate Simulation (NCCS) at Goddard Space Flight Center. Harri Kokkola acknowledges the Academy of Finland Projects 317390 and 308292. The ECHAM-HAMMOZ model is developed by a consortium composed of ETH Zurich, Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie, Forschungszentrum Jülich, University of Oxford, the Finnish Meteorological Institute, and the Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research and managed by the Center for Climate Systems Modeling (C2SM) at ETH Zurich. Peter North and Andreas Heckel are supported by the ESA Aerosol Climate Change Initiative (Aerosol CCI). Hitoshi Matsui acknowledges funding from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (MEXT/JSPS) KAKENHI (grant no. JP17H04709). Gunnar Myhre has received support from project SUPER (grant no. 250573), funded by the Research Council of Norway. Huisheng Bian acknowledges funding from NASA's Atmospheric Composition Modeling and Analysis Program (ACMAP), contract no. NNX17AG31G. Mian Chin acknowledges support by the NASA Earth Science programs. We thank two anonymous reviewers for careful reading and constructive suggestions. This research has been supported by the Research Council of Norway (EVA (grant no. 229771), INES (grant no. 270061), and KeyClim (grant no. 295046)) and the Horizon 2020 project CRESCENDO (grant no. 641816). High performance computing and storage resources were provided by the Norwegian Infrastructure for Computational Science (through projects NN2345K, NN9560K, NS2345K, and NS9560K).en_US
dc.description.urihttps://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/87/2021/en_US
dc.format.extent42 pagesen_US
dc.genrejournal articlesen_US
dc.identifierdoi:10.13016/m2xngq-bsxk
dc.identifier.citationJonas Gliß et al., AeroCom phase III multi-model evaluation of the aerosol life cycle and optical properties using ground- and space-based remote sensing as well as surface in situ observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 87–128, 2021 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-87-2021en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-87-2021
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11603/20960
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherCopernicus Publicationsen_US
dc.relation.isAvailableAtThe University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC)
dc.relation.ispartofUMBC Joint Center for Earth Systems Technology
dc.relation.ispartofUMBC Faculty Collection
dc.rightsThis item is likely protected under Title 17 of the U.S. Copyright Law. Unless on a Creative Commons license, for uses protected by Copyright Law, contact the copyright holder or the author.
dc.rightsPublic Domain Mark 1.0*
dc.rightsThis work was written as part of one of the author's official duties as an Employee of the United States Government and is therefore a work of the United States Government. In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 105, no copyright protection is available for such works under U.S. Law.
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/*
dc.titleAeroCom phase III multi-model evaluation of the aerosol life cycle and optical properties using ground- and space-based remote sensing as well as surface in situ observationsen_US
dc.typeTexten_US

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
acp-21-87-2021.pdf
Size:
8.35 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
2.56 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download

Collections

UMBC Joint Center for Earth Systems Technology (JCET)
UMBC Faculty Collection