Back to Search Start Over

Evaluation of the aerosol vertical distribution in global aerosol models through comparison against CALIOP measurements: AeroCom phase II results

Authors :
Koffi, Brigitte
Schulz, Michael
Breon, Francois-Marie
Dentener, Frank
Steensen, Birthe Marie
Griesfeller, Jan
Winker, David
Balkanski, Yves
Bauer, Susanne E.
Bellouin, Nicolas
Berntsen, Terje
Bian, Huisheng
Chin, Mian
Diehl, Thomas
Easter, Richard
Ghan, Steven
Hauglustaine, Didier A.
Iversen, Trond
Kirkevag, Alf
Liu, Xiaohong
Lohmann, Ulrike
Myhre, Gunnar
Rasch, Phil
Seland, Oyvind
Skeie, Ragnhild B.
Steenrod, Stephen D.
Stier, Philip
Tackett, Jason
Takemura, Toshihiko
Tsigaridis, Kostas
Vuolo, Maria Raffaella
Yoon, Jinho
Zhang, Kai
JRC Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES)
European Commission - Joint Research Centre [Ispra] (JRC)
Norwegian Meteorological Institute [Oslo] (MET)
Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement [Gif-sur-Yvette] (LSCE)
Institut national des sciences de l'Univers (INSU - CNRS)-Université Paris-Saclay-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA)-Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ)
Modélisation INVerse pour les mesures atmosphériques et SATellitaires (SATINV)
Institut national des sciences de l'Univers (INSU - CNRS)-Université Paris-Saclay-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA)-Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ)-Institut national des sciences de l'Univers (INSU - CNRS)-Université Paris-Saclay-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA)-Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ)
NASA Langley Research Center [Hampton] (LaRC)
Modelling the Earth Response to Multiple Anthropogenic Interactions and Dynamics (MERMAID)
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)
Center for Climate Systems Research [New York] (CCSR)
Columbia University [New York]
Department of Meteorology [Reading]
University of Reading (UOR)
Department of Geosciences [Tucson]
University of Arizona
Center for International Climate and Environmental Research [Oslo] (CICERO)
University of Oslo (UiO)
Joint Center for Earth Systems Technology [Baltimore] (JCET)
University of Maryland [Baltimore County] (UMBC)
University of Maryland System-University of Maryland System-NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)
University of Wyoming (UW)
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
Department of Physics [Oxford]
University of Oxford [Oxford]
Science Systems and Applications Inc (SSAI)
Research Institute for Applied Mechanics [Fukuoka] (RIAM)
Kyushu University [Fukuoka]
Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology (GIST)
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI-M)
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
European Commission [070307/ENV/2012/636596/C3]
Research Council of Norway [207711/E10, 229771]
CRAICC
EU
Norwegian Space Center
US Department of Energy, Office of Science
DOE [DE-AC06-76RLO 1830]
NASA MAP program Modeling, Analysis, and Prediction Climate Variability and Change [NNH08ZDA001N-MAP]
Research Council of Norway
Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ)-Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA)-Institut national des sciences de l'Univers (INSU - CNRS)-Université Paris-Saclay-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)
Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ)-Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA)-Institut national des sciences de l'Univers (INSU - CNRS)-Université Paris-Saclay-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ)-Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA)-Institut national des sciences de l'Univers (INSU - CNRS)-Université Paris-Saclay-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)
Department of Geosciences [University of Arizona]
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)-University of Maryland [Baltimore County] (UMBC)
University of Maryland System-University of Maryland System
University of Oxford
Kyushu University
Source :
Journal of Geophysical Research C: Atmospheres, J Geophys Res Atmos, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, American Geophysical Union, 2016, 121 (12), pp.7254-7283. ⟨10.1002/2015JD024639⟩, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 2016, 121 (12), pp.7254-7283. ⟨10.1002/2015JD024639⟩
Publication Year :
2016

Abstract

The ability of 11 models in simulating the aerosol vertical distribution from regional to global scales, as part of the second phase of the AeroCom model intercomparison initiative (AeroCom II), is assessed and compared to results of the first phase. The evaluation is performed using a global monthly gridded data set of aerosol extinction profiles built for this purpose from the CALIOP (Cloud-Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization) Layer Product 3.01. Results over 12 subcontinental regions show that five models improved, whereas three degraded in reproducing the interregional variability in Zα0–6 km, the mean extinction height diagnostic, as computed from the CALIOP aerosol profiles over the 0–6 km altitude range for each studied region and season. While the models' performance remains highly variable, the simulation of the timing of the Zα0–6 km peak season has also improved for all but two models from AeroCom Phase I to Phase II. The biases in Zα0–6 km are smaller in all regions except Central Atlantic, East Asia, and North and South Africa. Most of the models now underestimate Zα0–6 km over land, notably in the dust and biomass burning regions in Asia and Africa. At global scale, the AeroCom II models better reproduce the Zα0–6 km latitudinal variability over ocean than over land. Hypotheses for the performance and evolution of the individual models and for the intermodel diversity are discussed. We also provide an analysis of the CALIOP limitations and uncertainties contributing to the differences between the simulations and observations. ©2016. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.

Subjects

Subjects :
[SDV]Life Sciences [q-bio]
Article

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
2169897X and 21698996
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Journal of Geophysical Research C: Atmospheres, J Geophys Res Atmos, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, American Geophysical Union, 2016, 121 (12), pp.7254-7283. ⟨10.1002/2015JD024639⟩, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 2016, 121 (12), pp.7254-7283. ⟨10.1002/2015JD024639⟩
Accession number :
edsair.pmid.dedup....288343e777b62e8eee29d902235023bc
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024639⟩