Evaluation of the aerosol vertical distribution in global aerosol models through comparison against CALIOP measurements: AeroCom phase II results. Issue 12 (30th June 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Koffi, Brigitte; Schulz, Michael; Bréon, François‐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; Kirkevåg, Alf; Liu, Xiaohong; Lohmann, Ulrike; Myhre, Gunnar; Rasch, Phil; Seland, Øyvind; Skeie, Ragnhild B.; Steenrod, Stephen D.; Stier, Philip; Tackett, Jason; Takemura, Toshihiko; Tsigaridis, Kostas; Vuolo, Maria Raffaella; Yoon, Jinho; Zhang, Kai;
• Is Part Of: Journal of geophysical research. Volume 121:Issue 12(2016)
• Page Start: 7254
• Page End: 7283
• Publication Date: 2016-06-30
• Subjects: aerosol vertical profile -- global climate models -- AeroCom -- CALIOP global extinction product; Atmospheric physics -- Periodicals; Geophysics -- Periodicals; 551.5
• DOI: 10.1002/2015JD024639
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2169-897X

Abstract

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 Z α 0–6 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 Z α 0–6 km peak season has also improved for all but two models from AeroCom Phase I to Phase II. The biases in Z α 0–6 km are smaller in all regions except Central Atlantic, East Asia, and North and South Africa. Most of the models now underestimate Z α 0–6 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 Z α 0–6 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. Key Points: The ability of 11 global models in simulating the aerosol vertical distribution is assessed Hypotheses for the models performance and evolution and for the inter‐model diversity are discussed An analysis of CALIOP limitations and uncertainties contributing to the discrepancies is provided