Detection and attribution of aerosol-cloud interactions in large-domain large-eddy simulations with ICON

Abstract. Clouds and aerosols contribute the largest uncertainty to current estimates and interpretations of the Earth’s changing energy budget. Here we use a new-generation large-domain large-eddy model, ICON-LEM, to simulate the response of clouds to realistic anthropogenic perturbations in aerosols serving as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). The novelty compared to previous studies is that (i) the LEM is run in weather prediction mode and with fully interactive land surface over a large domain, and (ii) a large range of data from various sources are used for the detection and attribution. The aerosol perturbation was chosen as peak-aerosol conditions over Europe in 1985, with more than five-fold more sulfate than in 2013. Observational data from various satellite and ground-based remote sensing instruments are used aiming at a detection and attribution of this response. The simulation was run for a selected day (2 May 2013) in which over the selected domain of central Europe a large variety of cloud regimes was present. It first is demonstrated, using satellite aerosol optical depth retrievals available for both 1985 and 2013, that the aerosol fields for the reference conditions and also for the perturbed ones, as well as the difference between the two, were consistent in the model and the satellite retrievals. In comparison to retrievals from ground-based lidar for 2013, CCN profiles for the reference conditions were consistent with the observations, while the ones for the 1985 conditions were not. Similarly, detection-and-attribution was successful for droplet number concentrations: the ones simulated for the 2013 conditions were consistent with satellite as well as new ground-based lidar retrievals, while the ones for the 1985 conditions were outside the observational range. For other cloud quantities, including cloud fraction, liquid water path, cloud-base altitude, and cloud lifetime, the aerosol response was small compared to their natural variability. Also, large uncertainties in satellite and ground-based observations make the detection-attribution difficult for these quantities. An exception to this is the fact that at large liquid water path, the control simulation matches the observations, while the perturbed one shows too large LWP. The model simulations allowed to quantify the radiative forcing due to aerosol-cloud interactions, as well as the adjustments to this forcing. The latter were small compared to the variability and showed overall a small positive radiative effect. The overall effective radiative forcing (ERF) due to aerosol-cloud interactions (ERFaci) in the simulation was dominated thus by the Twomey effect and yielded for this day, region, and aerosol perturbation −2.6 W m-2. Using general circulation models to scale this to a global-mean present-day vs. pre-industrial ERFaci yields a global ERFaci of −0.8 W m-2.

[1]  H. Baars,et al.  Estimation of cloud condensation nuclei number concentrations and comparison to in situ and lidar observations during the HOPE experiments , 2019, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

[2]  M. Christensen,et al.  Weak average liquid-cloud-water response to anthropogenic aerosols , 2019, Nature.

[3]  P. Kollias,et al.  A New Criterion to Improve Operational Drizzle Detection with Ground-Based Remote Sensing , 2019, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology.

[4]  A. Ansmann,et al.  Dust mass, CCN, and INP profiling with polarization lidar: Updated POLIPHON conversion factors from global AERONET analysis , 2019 .

[5]  Minghuai Wang,et al.  Aerosol-driven droplet concentrations dominate coverage and water of oceanic low-level clouds , 2019, Science.

[6]  R. Engelmann,et al.  Polarization lidar: an extended three-signal calibration approach , 2018, Atmospheric Measurement Techniques.

[7]  J. Mülmenstädt,et al.  Constraining the aerosol influence on cloud liquid water path , 2018, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

[8]  G. Zängl,et al.  ICON‐A, the Atmosphere Component of the ICON Earth System Model: I. Model Description , 2018, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems.

[9]  P. Field,et al.  Large simulated radiative effects of smoke in the south-east Atlantic , 2018, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

[10]  J. Mülmenstädt,et al.  The Radiative Forcing of Aerosol–Cloud Interactions in Liquid Clouds: Wrestling and Embracing Uncertainty , 2018, Current Climate Change Reports.

[11]  M. Christensen,et al.  Volcano and Ship Tracks Indicate Excessive Aerosol‐Induced Cloud Water Increases in a Climate Model , 2017, Geophysical research letters.

[12]  J. K. Ayers,et al.  Use of cloud radar Doppler spectra to evaluate stratocumulus drizzle size distributions in large-eddy simulations with size-resolved microphysics. , 2017, Journal of applied meteorology and climatology.

[13]  Albert Ansmann,et al.  Retrieval of microphysical properties of liquid water clouds from atmospheric lidar measurements: comparison of the Raman dual field of view and the depolarization techniques , 2017, Remote Sensing.

[14]  P. Field,et al.  Aerosol–cloud interactions in mixed-phase convective clouds – Part 1: Aerosol perturbations , 2017 .

[15]  Robert Pincus,et al.  The Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project Observational Simulator Package: Version 2 , 2017 .

[16]  J. Mülmenstädt,et al.  Comment on ``Rethinking the Lower Bound on Aerosol Radiative Forcing'' , 2017 .

[17]  G. Mann,et al.  Strong constraints on aerosol–cloud interactions from volcanic eruptions , 2017, Nature.

[18]  J. Mülmenstädt,et al.  Assessment of simulated aerosol effective radiative forcings in the terrestrial spectrum , 2017 .

[19]  Hartwig Deneke,et al.  Large‐eddy simulations over Germany using ICON: a comprehensive evaluation , 2017 .

[20]  Steven Platnick,et al.  The MODIS Cloud Optical and Microphysical Products: Collection 6 Updates and Examples From Terra and Aqua , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing.

[21]  Hartwig Deneke,et al.  The HD(CP)2 Observational Prototype Experiment (HOPE) - An overview , 2016 .

[22]  I. Tegen,et al.  Parameterizing cloud condensation nuclei concentrations during HOPE , 2016 .

[23]  C. Bretherton,et al.  Improving our fundamental understanding of the role of aerosol−cloud interactions in the climate system , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[24]  Albert Ansmann,et al.  The automated multiwavelength Raman polarization and water-vapor lidar PollyXT: The neXT generation , 2016 .

[25]  R. Engelmann,et al.  An overview of the first decade of Polly NET : an emerging network of automated Raman-polarization lidars for continuous aerosol profiling , 2016 .

[26]  Allison McComiskey,et al.  New approaches to quantifying aerosol influence on the cloud radiative effect , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[27]  A. Ansmann,et al.  Potential of polarization lidar to provide profiles of CCN- and INP-relevant aerosol parameters , 2015 .

[28]  J. Quaas Approaches to Observe Anthropogenic Aerosol-Cloud Interactions , 2015, Current Climate Change Reports.

[29]  Günther Zängl,et al.  Large eddy simulation using the general circulation model ICON , 2015 .

[30]  Clemens Simmer,et al.  JOYCE: Jülich Observatory for cloud evolution , 2015 .

[31]  Pavlos Kollias,et al.  Developing and Evaluating Ice Cloud Parameterizations for Forward Modeling of Radar Moments Using in situ Aircraft Observations , 2015 .

[32]  M. Maahn Exploiting vertically pointing Doppler radar for advancing snow and ice cloud observations , 2015 .

[33]  G. Zängl,et al.  The ICON (ICOsahedral Non‐hydrostatic) modelling framework of DWD and MPI‐M: Description of the non‐hydrostatic dynamical core , 2015 .

[34]  W. Thomas,et al.  What is the benefit of ceilometers for aerosol remote sensing? An answer from EARLINET , 2014 .

[35]  J. Bühl,et al.  Dual‐FOV Raman and Doppler lidar studies of aerosol‐cloud interactions: Simultaneous profiling of aerosols, warm‐cloud properties, and vertical wind , 2014 .

[36]  Martin Wild,et al.  Pollution trends over Europe constrain global aerosol forcing as simulated by climate models , 2014 .

[37]  Zhanqing Li,et al.  Microphysical effects determine macrophysical response for aerosol impacts on deep convective clouds , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[38]  G. Mann,et al.  Large contribution of natural aerosols to uncertainty in indirect forcing , 2013, Nature.

[39]  C. Bretherton,et al.  Clouds and Aerosols , 2013 .

[40]  Albert Ansmann,et al.  LACROS: the Leipzig Aerosol and Cloud Remote Observations System , 2013, Remote Sensing.

[41]  Josep Calbó,et al.  Behavior of cloud base height from ceilometer measurements , 2013 .

[42]  Ulla Wandinger,et al.  Dual-field-of-view Raman lidar measurements for the retrieval of cloud microphysical properties. , 2013, Applied optics.

[43]  Matthias Wiegner,et al.  Aerosol profiling with the Jenoptik ceilometer CHM15kx , 2012 .

[44]  Ralf Wolke,et al.  Influence of grid resolution and meteorological forcing on simulated European air quality: A sensitivity study with the modeling system COSMO–MUSCAT , 2012 .

[45]  Karl E. Taylor,et al.  An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design , 2012 .

[46]  R. Wolke,et al.  A regional model of European aerosol transport: Evaluation with sun photometer, lidar and air quality data , 2012 .

[47]  M. Baldauf,et al.  Operational Convective-Scale Numerical Weather Prediction with the COSMO Model: Description and Sensitivities , 2011 .

[48]  John M. Haynes,et al.  COSP: Satellite simulation software for model assessment , 2011 .

[49]  G. Stephens,et al.  Aerosol Indirect Effects on Tropical Convection Characteristics under Conditions of Radiative-Convective Equilibrium , 2011 .

[50]  V. Freudenthaler,et al.  Regional modelling of Saharan dust and biomass-burning smoke , 2011 .

[51]  Hailong Wang,et al.  Precipitation-generated oscillations in open cellular cloud fields , 2010, Nature.

[52]  Zbigniew Klimont,et al.  Anthropogenic sulfur dioxide emissions: 1850–2005 , 2010 .

[53]  Giovanni Martucci,et al.  Detection of Cloud-Base Height Using Jenoptik CHM15K and Vaisala CL31 Ceilometers , 2010 .

[54]  B. Stevens,et al.  Untangling aerosol effects on clouds and precipitation in a buffered system , 2009, Nature.

[55]  P. Chuang,et al.  Can aerosol decrease cloud lifetime? , 2009 .

[56]  Aerosol Impacts on the Diurnal Cycle of Marine Stratocumulus , 2008 .

[57]  Oleg A. Krasnov,et al.  Continuous Evaluation of Cloud Profiles in Seven Operational Models Using Ground-Based Observations , 2007 .

[58]  G. Feingold,et al.  Large-Eddy Simulations of Trade Wind Cumuli: Investigation of Aerosol Indirect Effects , 2006 .

[59]  K. D. Beheng,et al.  A two-moment cloud microphysics parameterization for mixed-phase clouds. Part 1: Model description , 2006 .

[60]  U. Lohmann,et al.  Constraining the total aerosol indirect effect in the LMDZ and ECHAM4 GCMs using MODIS satellite data , 2005 .

[61]  A. Pokrovsky,et al.  Aerosol impact on the dynamics and microphysics of deep convective clouds , 2005 .

[62]  M. Kirkpatrick,et al.  The impact of humidity above stratiform clouds on indirect aerosol climate forcing , 2004, Nature.

[63]  Ralf Wolke,et al.  The Parallel Model System LM-MUSCAT for Chemistry-Transport Simulations: Coupling Scheme, Parallelization and Applications , 2003, PARCO.

[64]  Ralf Wolke,et al.  An explicit–implicit numerical approach for atmospheric chemistry–transport modeling , 1998 .

[65]  W. Rossow,et al.  ISCCP Cloud Data Products , 1991 .

[66]  B. Albrecht Aerosols, Cloud Microphysics, and Fractional Cloudiness , 1989, Science.

[67]  S. Twomey Pollution and the Planetary Albedo , 1974 .