Description and evaluation of aerosol in UKESM1 and HadGEM3-GC3.1 CMIP6 historical simulations
-
Published:2020-12-21
Issue:12
Volume:13
Page:6383-6423
-
ISSN:1991-9603
-
Container-title:Geoscientific Model Development
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Geosci. Model Dev.
Author:
Mulcahy Jane P.ORCID, Johnson Colin, Jones Colin G., Povey Adam C., Scott Catherine E.ORCID, Sellar AlistairORCID, Turnock Steven T.ORCID, Woodhouse Matthew T.ORCID, Abraham Nathan LukeORCID, Andrews Martin B., Bellouin NicolasORCID, Browse Jo, Carslaw Ken S.ORCID, Dalvi Mohit, Folberth Gerd A.ORCID, Glover Matthew, Grosvenor Daniel P.ORCID, Hardacre Catherine, Hill Richard, Johnson BenORCID, Jones AndyORCID, Kipling ZakORCID, Mann GrahamORCID, Mollard James, O'Connor Fiona M., Palmiéri JulienORCID, Reddington CarlyORCID, Rumbold Steven T., Richardson Mark, Schutgens Nick A. J.ORCID, Stier PhilipORCID, Stringer MarcORCID, Tang Yongming, Walton JeremyORCID, Woodward Stephanie, Yool AndrewORCID
Abstract
Abstract. We document and evaluate the aerosol schemes as implemented in the physical and Earth system models, the Global Coupled 3.1 configuration of the Hadley Centre Global Environment Model version 3 (HadGEM3-GC3.1)
and the United Kingdom Earth System Model (UKESM1), which are contributing to the sixth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6).
The simulation of aerosols in the present-day period of the historical ensemble of these models is evaluated
against a range of observations.
Updates to the aerosol microphysics scheme are documented as well as differences in the
aerosol representation between the physical and Earth system configurations.
The additional Earth system interactions included in UKESM1 lead to differences in the emissions of
natural aerosol sources such as dimethyl sulfide, mineral dust and organic aerosol and subsequent evolution
of these species in the model.
UKESM1 also includes a stratospheric–tropospheric chemistry scheme which is fully coupled to the aerosol scheme,
while GC3.1 employs a simplified aerosol chemistry mechanism driven by prescribed monthly climatologies of
the relevant oxidants.
Overall, the simulated speciated aerosol mass concentrations compare reasonably well with observations.
Both models capture the negative trend in sulfate aerosol concentrations over Europe and the eastern United
States of America (US)
although the models tend to underestimate sulfate concentrations in both regions.
Interactive emissions of biogenic volatile organic compounds in UKESM1 lead
to an improved agreement of organic aerosol over the US.
Simulated dust burdens are similar in both models despite a 2-fold difference in dust emissions.
Aerosol optical depth is biased low in dust source and outflow regions but performs well in
other regions compared to a number of satellite and ground-based retrievals of aerosol optical depth.
Simulated aerosol number concentrations are generally within a factor of 2 of the observations, with
both models tending to overestimate number concentrations over remote ocean regions, apart from
at high latitudes, and underestimate over Northern Hemisphere continents.
Finally, a new primary marine organic aerosol source is implemented in UKESM1 for the first time.
The impact of this new aerosol source is evaluated. Over the pristine Southern Ocean, it is found to improve the seasonal
cycle of organic aerosol mass and cloud droplet number concentrations relative to GC3.1
although underestimations in cloud droplet number concentrations remain.
This paper provides a useful characterisation of the aerosol climatology in both models
and will facilitate understanding in the numerous aerosol–climate interaction studies that will
be conducted as part of CMIP6 and beyond.
Funder
European Commission Natural Environment Research Council European Research Council
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Reference178 articles.
1. Abdul-Razzak, H. and Ghan, S. J.: A parameterization of aerosol activation: 2.
Multiple aerosol types, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 105,
6837–6844, https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JD901161,
2000. a 2. Abel, S. J. and Shipway, B. J.: A comparison of cloud-resolving model
simulations of trade wind cumulus with aircraft observa- tions taken during
RICO, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 133, 781–794, 2007. a 3. Albrecht, B. A.: Aerosols, Cloud Microphysics, and Fractional
Cloudiness, Science, 245, 1227–1230, 1989. a 4. Anderson, T., Spall, S., Yool, A., Cipollini, P., Challenor, P., and Fasham,
M.: Global fields of sea surface dimethylsulfide predicted from chlorophyll,
nutrients and light, J. Marine Syst., 30, 1–20,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-7963(01)00028-8,
2001. a, b, c 5. Andrews, M. B., Ridley, J. K., Wood, R. A., Andrews, T., Blockley, E. W.,
Booth, B., Burke, E., Dittus, A. J., Florek, P., Gray, L. J., Haddad, S.,
Hermanson, L., Hodson, D., Hogan, E., Jones, G. S., Knight, J. R., Kuhlbrodt,
T., Misios, S., Mizielinski, M. S., Ringer, M. A., Robson, J., and Sutton,
R. T.: Historical simulations with HadGEM3-GC3.1 for CMIP6, J.
Adv. Model. Earth Syst., e2019MS001995, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001995, 2020. a
Cited by
99 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|