Premium
Improvement of cloud microphysics in the aerosol‐climate model BCC_AGCM2.0.1_CUACE/Aero, evaluation against observations, and updated aerosol indirect effect
Author(s) -
Wang Zhili,
Zhang Hua,
Lu Peng
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
journal of geophysical research: atmospheres
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2169-8996
pISSN - 2169-897X
DOI - 10.1002/2014jd021886
Subject(s) - aerosol , environmental science , meteorology , atmospheric sciences , cloud computing , climatology , physics , geology , computer science , operating system
A two‐moment cloud microphysical scheme, to predict both the mass and number concentrations of cloud droplets and ice crystals, is implemented into the aerosol‐climate model BCC_AGCM2.0.1_CUACE/Aero. The model results for aerosols, cloud properties, and meteorological fields are evaluated, and the anthropogenic aerosol indirect effect (AIE) is estimated. The new model simulates more realistic aerosol mass concentrations and optical depth compared with the original version using a one‐moment bulk cloud microphysical scheme. The global annual mean column cloud droplet number concentration (CDNC) from the new model is 3.3 × 10 10 m −2 , which is comparable to the 4.0 × 10 10 m −2 from satellite retrieval. The global annual mean cloud droplet effective radius at the cloud top from the new model is 8.1 µm, which is smaller than the 10.5 µm from observation. The simulated liquid water path (LWP) in the new model is significantly lower than that in the original model. In particular, the annual mean LWP is lower in the new model by more than 100 g m −2 in some midlatitude regions and hence much more consistent with satellite retrievals. Cloud radiative forcing and precipitation are improved to some extent in the new model. The global annual mean radiation budget at the top of the atmosphere is −0.6 W m −2 , which is considerably different from the value of 1.8 W m −2 in the original model. The global annual mean anthropogenic AIE is estimated to be −1.9 W m −2 without imposing a lower bound of CDNC, whereas it is reduced significantly when a higher lower bound of CDNC is prescribed.