Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorZhong, Qirui
dc.contributor.authorSchutgens, Nick
dc.contributor.authorVan Der Werf, Guido
dc.contributor.authorVan Noije, Twan
dc.contributor.authorTsigaridis, Kostas
dc.contributor.authorBauer, Susanne E.
dc.contributor.authorMielonen, Tero
dc.contributor.authorKirkevåg, Alf
dc.contributor.authorSeland, Øyvind
dc.contributor.authorKokkola, Harri
dc.contributor.authorCheca-Garcia, Ramiro
dc.contributor.authorNeubauer, David
dc.contributor.authorKipling, Zak
dc.contributor.authorMatsui, Hitoshi
dc.contributor.authorGinoux, Paul
dc.contributor.authorTakemura, Toshihiko
dc.contributor.authorLe Sager, Philippe
dc.contributor.authorRémy, Samuel
dc.contributor.authorBian, Huisheng
dc.contributor.authorChin, Mian
dc.contributor.authorZhang, Kai
dc.contributor.authorZhu, Jialei
dc.contributor.authorTsyro, Svetlana
dc.contributor.authorCurci, Gabriele
dc.contributor.authorProtonotariou, Anna
dc.contributor.authorJohnson, Ben
dc.contributor.authorPenner, Joyce E.
dc.contributor.authorBellouin, Nicolas
dc.contributor.authorSkeie, Ragnhild Bieltvedt
dc.contributor.authorMyhre, Gunnar
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-20T08:08:27Z
dc.date.available2024-02-20T08:08:27Z
dc.date.created2022-11-08T13:44:46Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.citationAtmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP). 2022, 22 (17), 11009-11032.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1680-7316
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3118553
dc.description.abstractGlobal models are widely used to simulate biomass burning aerosol (BBA). Exhaustive evaluations on model representation of aerosol distributions and properties are fundamental to assess health and climate impacts of BBA. Here we conducted a comprehensive comparison of Aerosol Comparisons between Observations and Models (AeroCom) project model simulations with satellite observations. A total of 59 runs by 18 models from three AeroCom Phase-III experiments (i.e., biomass burning emissions, CTRL16, and CTRL19) and 14 satellite products of aerosols were used in the study. Aerosol optical depth (AOD) at 550 nm was investigated during the fire season over three key fire regions reflecting different fire dynamics (i.e., deforestation-dominated Amazon, Southern Hemisphere Africa where savannas are the key source of emissions, and boreal forest burning in boreal North America). The 14 satellite products were first evaluated against AErosol RObotic NETwork (AERONET) observations, with large uncertainties found. But these uncertainties had small impacts on the model evaluation that was dominated by modeling bias. Through a comparison with Polarization and Directionality of the Earth’s Reflectances measurements with the Generalized Retrieval of Aerosol and Surface Properties algorithm (POLDER-GRASP), we found that the modeled AOD values were biased by −93 % to 152 %, with most models showing significant underestimations even for the state-of-the-art aerosol modeling techniques (i.e., CTRL19). By scaling up BBA emissions, the negative biases in modeled AOD were significantly mitigated, although it yielded only negligible improvements in the correlation between models and observations, and the spatial and temporal variations in AOD biases did not change much. For models in CTRL16 and CTRL19, the large diversity in modeled AOD was in almost equal measures caused by diversity in emissions, lifetime, and the mass extinction coefficient (MEC). We found that in the AeroCom ensemble, BBA lifetime correlated significantly with particle deposition (as expected) and in turn correlated strongly with precipitation. Additional analysis based on Cloud-Aerosol LIdar with Orthogonal Polarization (CALIOP) aerosol profiles suggested that the altitude of the aerosol layer in the current models was generally too low, which also contributed to the bias in modeled lifetime. Modeled MECs exhibited significant correlations with the Ångström exponent (AE, an indicator of particle size). Comparisons with the POLDER-GRASP-observed AE suggested that the models tended to overestimate the AE (underestimated particle size), indicating a possible underestimation of MECs in models. The hygroscopic growth in most models generally agreed with observations and might not explain the overall underestimation of modeled AOD. Our results imply that current global models contain biases in important aerosol processes for BBA (e.g., emissions, removal, and optical properties) that remain to be addressed in future research.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherEGUen_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleSatellite-based evaluation of AeroCom model bias in biomass burning regionsen_US
dc.title.alternativeSatellite-based evaluation of AeroCom model bias in biomass burning regionsen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.source.pagenumber11009-11032en_US
dc.source.volume22en_US
dc.source.journalAtmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP)en_US
dc.source.issue17en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.5194/acp-22-11009-2022
dc.identifier.cristin2070630
dc.relation.projectNorges forskningsråd: 270061en_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode2


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal