Towards an improved understanding of the impact of clouds and precipitation on the representation of aerosols over the Boreal Forest in GCMs

Le résumé fourni par la source

Global climate models (GCMs) face uncertainties in estimating Earth's radiative budget due to aerosol-cloud interactions (ACI). Accurate particle number size distributions (PNSDs) are crucial for improving ACI representation, requiring precise modelling of aerosol sources and sinks. Using a Lagrangian trajectory framework, we examine how clouds and precipitation influence aerosols during transport, and thereby influence aerosol–cloud relationships in the boreal forest. Two GCMs, the United Kingdom Earth System Model (UKESM1) and ECHAM6.3-HAM2.3-MOZ1.0 with the SALSA2.0 aerosol module (ECHAM-SALSA), are complemented with model-derived trajectories and evaluated against in-situ observations, which are accompanied by reanalysis trajectories. Overall aerosol–precipitation trends are similar between GCMs and observations. However, seasonal differences emerge: in summer, UKESM1 exhibits more efficient aerosol removal via precipitation than ECHAM-SALSA and observations, whereas in winter, the opposite is observed. These differences coincide with key variables controlling aerosol activation, such as sub-grid scale updraught velocities and PNSDs. For example, in winter, removal of total aerosol mass in ECHAM-SALSA was stronger than in UKESM1, coinciding with higher activated fractions and larger sub-grid scale updraught velocities in ECHAM-SALSA. For both GCMs, cloud processing along trajectories increased SO 4 mass, mainly in the accumulation mode, consistent with observations and model parametrizations. Discrepancies arise more from differences in PNSDs and updraught velocities than from wet removal parametrizations, an example being the underrepresentation of small particles in UKESM1. While our findings are representative of boreal region with predominantly stratiform precipitation, further work is needed to evaluate their applicability to other regions.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.