Aerosol Indirect Effects in CAM and MIRAGE Steve Ghan Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Jean-Francois Lamarque, Peter Hess, and Francis Vitt, NCAR.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Paolo Tuccella, Gabriele Curci, Suzanne Crumeyrolle, Guido Visconti
Advertisements

Olivier Geoffroy Parameterization of precipitation in boundary layer clouds at the cloud system scale Pier Siebesma, Roel Neggers RK science lunch, 05/10/2010.
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Review June 30 - July 2, 2009 Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Review June 30 - July 2, 2009.
GFDL Geophysical Fluid Dynamics GFDL Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, New Jersey AM2 cloud sensitivity to details of convection and cloud.
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Review June 30 - July 2, 2009 Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Review June 30 - July 2, 2009.
By : Kerwyn Texeira. Outline Definitions Introduction Model Description Model Evaluation The effect of dust nuclei on cloud coverage Conclusion Questions.
Proposed Aerosol Treatment for CAM4 Steve Ghan, Richard Easter, Xiaohong Liu, Rahul Zaveri Pacific Northwest National Laboratory precursor emissions coagulation.
Simulation of Cloud Droplets in Parameterized Shallow Cumulus During RICO and ICARTT Knut von Salzen 1, Richard Leaitch 2, Nicole Shantz 3, Jonathan Abbatt.
Sensitivity of cloud droplet nucleation to kinetic effects and varying updraft velocity Ulrike Lohmann, Lisa Phinney and Yiran Peng Department of Physics.
"Future climate impacts of direct radiative forcing of anthropogenic aerosols, tropospheric ozone, and long-lived greenhouse gases" Chen, W; Liao, H; Seinfeld,
The Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research A partnership between CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology The Effect of Turbulence on Cloud Microstructure,
Implementation of Sulfate and Sea-Salt Aerosol Microphysics in GEOS-Chem Hi everyone. My name is Win Trivitayanurak… I’m a PhD student working with Peter.
ARM Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program. 2 Improve the performance of general circulation models (GCMs) used for climate research and prediction.
Using satellite-bourne instruments to diagnose the indirect effect A review of the capabilities and previous studies.
Current issues in GFS moist physics Hua-Lu Pan, Stephen Lord, and Bill Lapenta.
Acknowledgments This research was supported by the DOE Atmospheric Radiation Measurements Program (ARM) and by the PNNL Directed Research and Development.
Factors controlling BC deposition in the Arctic Ling Qi 1, Qinbin Li 1,2,3, Yinrui Li 4, Cenlin He 1,3 1 Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences,
Aerosol Microphysics: Plans for GEOS-CHEM
Clouds, Aerosols and Precipitation GRP Meeting August 2011 Susan C van den Heever Department of Atmospheric Science Colorado State University Fort Collins,
Test simulation of Aerosol impact on solar radiation with WRF-CHEM DustDNI (w/o dust) – DNI (w/ dust) Positive value indicates the decreased DNI due to.
Progress on Application of Modal Aerosol Dynamics to CAM Xiaohong Liu, Steve Ghan, Richard Easter, Rahul Zaveri, Yun Qian (Pacific Northwest National.
Influences of In-cloud Scavenging Parameterizations on Aerosol Concentrations and Deposition in the ECHAM5-HAM GCM Betty Croft - Dalhousie University,
Aerosol-Cloud Interactions and Radiative Forcing: Modeling and Observations Graham Feingold 1, K. S. Schmidt 2, H. Jiang 3, P. Zuidema 4, H. Xue 5, P.
AEROSOL & CLIMATE ( IN THE ARCTIC) Pamela Lehr METEO 6030 Spring 2006
Morrison/Gettelman/GhanAMWG January 2007 Two-moment Stratiform Cloud Microphysics & Cloud-aerosol Interactions in CAM H. Morrison, A. Gettelman (NCAR),
RICO Modeling Studies Group interests RICO data in support of studies.
Large Eddy Simulation of Low Cloud Feedback to a 2-K SST Increase Anning Cheng 1, and Kuan-Man Xu 2 1. AS&M, Inc., 2. NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton,
April Hansen et al. [1997] proposed that absorbing aerosol may reduce cloudiness by modifying the heating rate profiles of the atmosphere. Absorbing.
Aerosol Size-Dependent Impaction Scavenging in Warm, Mixed, and Ice Clouds in the ECHAM5-HAM GCM Betty Croft, and Randall V. Martin – Dalhousie University,
Betty Croft, and Randall V. Martin – Dalhousie University, Canada
Boundary Layer Clouds.
Influences of In-cloud Scavenging and Cloud Processing on Aerosol Concentrations in ECHAM5-HAM Betty Croft - Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada Ulrike.
Cloud-Aerosol-climate feedback
K.S Carslaw, L. A. Lee, C. L. Reddington, K. J. Pringle, A. Rap, P. M. Forster, G.W. Mann, D. V. Spracklen, M. T. Woodhouse, L. A. Regayre and J. R. Pierce.
An Interactive Aerosol-Climate Model based on CAM/CCSM: Progress and challenging issues Chien Wang and Dongchul Kim (MIT) Annica Ekman (U. Stockholm) Mary.
Cloud-mediated radiative forcing of climate due to aerosols simulated by newly developed two-way coupled WRF-CMAQ during 2006 TexAQS/GoMACCS over the Gulf.
Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division,
Using WRF-Chem to understand interactions between synoptic and microphysical variability during VOCALS Rhea George, Robert Wood University of Washington.
Cumulus Parameterization in the Context of Turbulence Studies February Jean-Louis Brenguier - Météo-France Physical Processes & Issues Aerosol.
Particle Size, Water Path, and Photon Tunneling in Water and Ice Clouds ARM STM Albuquerque Mar Sensitivity of the CAM to Small Ice Crystals.
Update on the 2-moment stratiform cloud microphysics scheme in CAM Hugh Morrison and Andrew Gettelman National Center for Atmospheric Research CCSM Atmospheric.
Cloud Object Analysis and Modeling of Cloud-Aerosol Interactions and Cloud Feedbacks with the Combined CERES and CALIPSO Data Kuan-Man Xu NASA Langley.
Simulation of the indirect radiative forcing of climate due to aerosols by the two-way coupled WRF-CMAQ model over the continental United States: Preliminary.
Application of Ice Microphysics to CAM Xiaohong Liu, S. J. Ghan (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory) M. Wang, J. E. Penner (University of Michigan)
Towards parameterization of cloud drop size distribution for large scale models Wei-Chun Hsieh Athanasios Nenes Image source: NCAR.
Update on progress with the implementation of a new two-moment microphysics scheme: Model description and single-column tests Hugh Morrison, Andrew Gettelman,
PAPERSPECIFICS OF STUDYFINDINGS Kohler, 1936 (“The nucleus in and the growth of hygroscopic droplets”) Evaporate 2kg of hoar-frost and determined Cl content;
Development of cloud resolving model with microphysical bin model and parameterizations to predict the initial cloud droplet size distribution KUBA, Naomi.
Page 1© Crown copyright 2006 Precipitating Shallow Cumulus Case Intercomparison For the 9th GCSS Boundary Layer Cloud Workshop, September 2006, GISS.
Background – Building their Case “continental” – polluted, aerosol laden “maritime” – clean, pristine Polluted concentrations are 1-2 orders of magnitude.
Parameterization of cloud droplet formation and autoconversion in large-scale models Wei-Chun Hsieh Advisor: Athanasios Nenes 10,Nov 2006 EAS Graduate.
12 th annual CMAS conference Impact of Biomass Burning Aerosols on Regional Climate over Southeast US Peng Liu, Yongtao Hu, Armistead G. Russell, Athanasios.
Aerosol 1 st indirect forcing in the coupled CAM-IMPACT model: effects from primary-emitted particulate sulfate and boundary layer nucleation Minghuai.
Aerosol Indirect Effects in CAM A. Gettelman (NCAR), F. Vitt (NCAR), P. Hess (Cornell) H. Morrison (NCAR), P. R. Field (Met Office), S.J. Ghan (PNNL)
Modal Aerosol Treatment in CAM: Evaluation and Indirect Effect X. Liu, S. J. Ghan, R. Easter (PNNL) J.-F. Lamarque, P. Hess, N. Mahowald, F. Vitt, H. Morrison,
Office of Research and Development Atmospheric Modeling Division, National Exposure Research Laboratory WRF-CMAQ 2-way Coupled System: Part II Jonathan.
Putting the Clouds Back in Aerosol-Cloud Interactions
Matthew Christensen and Graeme Stephens
H. Morrison, A. Gettelman (NCAR) , S. Ghan (PNL)
AM and ChemClim WG - February, 2008
What are the causes of GCM biases in cloud, aerosol, and radiative properties over the Southern Ocean? How can the representation of different processes.
Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division,
Group interests RICO data required
Latest Development on Modal Aerosol Formulation and Indirect Effects
Constraining the aerosol indirect effect
Aerosol Optical Thickness
Does anyone believe that this feedback loop works as advertised?
Recent CCSM development simulations: Towards CCSM4
Global Climate Response to Anthropogenic Aerosol Indirect Effects
Group interests RICO data in support of studies
Presentation transcript:

Aerosol Indirect Effects in CAM and MIRAGE Steve Ghan Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Jean-Francois Lamarque, Peter Hess, and Francis Vitt, NCAR

Indirect Effects Physics N k = droplet number mixing ratio in layer k A k = droplet loss by autoconversion of droplets C k = droplet loss by collection by precipitation E k = droplet loss by evaporation S k = droplet nucleation source in layer k

Indirect Effects Physics N k = droplet number mixing ratio in layer k A k = droplet loss by autoconversion of droplets C k = droplet loss by collection by precipitation E k = droplet loss by evaporation S k = droplet nucleation source in layer k f = cloud fraction w = updraft velocity N n = number nucleated (parameterized in terms of w and aerosol) p ( w ) = probability density function of w w * = σ w = characteristic updraft velocity in growing part of cloud

Indirect Effects Physics N k = droplet number mixing ratio in layer k A k = droplet loss by autoconversion of droplets C k = droplet loss by collection by precipitation E k = droplet loss by evaporation S k = droplet nucleation source in layer k f = cloud fraction w = updraft velocity N n = number nucleated (parameterized in terms of w and aerosol) p ( w ) = probability density function of w w * = σ w = characteristic updraft velocity in growing part of cloud 2nd IE: Autoconversion connected to droplet number. 1st IE:

CAM and MIRAGE

CAM Aerosol Properties

Estimating Direct and Indirect Effects Two simulations: 1.All aerosol sources 2.All sources except anthropogenic sulfate Each simulation calculates radiative fluxes with (F aer ) and without aerosol (F noaer ).

Estimating Direct and Indirect Effects Two simulations: 1.All aerosol sources 2.All sources except anthropogenic sulfate Each simulation calculates radiative fluxes with (F aer ) and without aerosol (F noaer ). Direct effect of all aerosol in a simulation is F direct = F aer - F noaer.

Estimating Direct and Indirect Effects Two simulations: 1.All aerosol sources 2.All sources except anthropogenic sulfate Each simulation calculates radiative fluxes with (F aer ) and without aerosol (F noaer ). Direct effect of all aerosol in a simulation is F direct = F aer - F noaer. Difference between simulations is . Then  F direct =  F aer -  F noaer

Estimating Direct and Indirect Effects Two simulations: 1.All aerosol sources 2.All sources except anthropogenic sulfate Each simulation calculates radiative fluxes with (F aer ) and without aerosol (F noaer ). Direct effect of all aerosol in a simulation is F direct = F aer - F noaer. Difference between simulations is . Then  F direct =  F aer -  F noaer  F indirect =  F aer -  F direct =  F noaer

IE, DE with 2nd IE CAM tau=0, MIRAGE nudge

No 2nd indirect effect

No nudging

Change LWP w/, w/o nudging  lwp cam no2ndindir, mirage no2ndindir nudge, mirage no2ndindir nonudge

Zonal mean IE

Dlwp vs indirect effect

Ndrop cam, mirage Ndrop cam progaer no2ndindir tau=0 Mirage prognaer no2ndindir nudge Anthro, noanthro

Ccn3 cam, mirage, anthro, noanthro CCN3 cam progaer no2ndindir tau=0 Mirage prognaer no2ndindir nudge Anthro, noanthro

Ndrop cam updraft spectrum mirage updraft spectrum

DE, IE cam updraft spectrum

Background aerosol

Noanthro ccn3 cam tau=0,0.01, 0.02 Noanthro [CCN3] cam progaer no2ndindir tau=0, 0.01, 0.02 Mirage prognaer no2ndindir nonudge

IE, DE cam progaer 2ndindir tau=0.02, cam prescribe_aer 2ndindir tau=0.02

Sensitivity to size r=0.05 for oc, bc, volcanic

Conclusions The much larger indirect effect produced by CAM has not been completely explained. The much larger feedback of liquid water path explains at least part of larger indirect effect. The larger relative sensitivity of CCN to emissions in CAM may also contribute. The CAM CCN and IE are insensitive to the size distribution of OC and volcanic. A background aerosol reduces the IE from CAM, but cannot be justified.

Future Work Resolve differences between CAM and MIRAGE: insert monthly mean aerosol from each model into simulations by the other. Add detrainment of droplet number from cumulus. Integrate with UW turbulence and shallow cumulus schemes. Couple with MIRAGE treatment of aerosol dynamics and mixing state. Add nucleation scavenging and size-dependent impaction scavenging. Size and composition dependent optical properties. Add primary and secondary marine organic emissions.