> Details

Kokkola, Harri; Kühn, Thomas; Laakso, Anton; Bergman, Tommi; Lehtinen, Kari E. J.; Mielonen, Tero; Arola, Antti; Stadtler, Scarlet; Korhonen, Hannele; Ferrachat, Sylvaine; Lohmann, Ulrike; Neubauer, David; Tegen, Ina; Siegenthaler-Le Drian, Colombe; Schultz, Martin G.; Bey, Isabelle; Stier, Philip; Daskalakis, Nikos; Heald, Colette L.; Romakkaniemi, Sami

SALSA2.0: The sectional aerosol module of the aerosol–chemistry–climate model ECHAM6.3.0-HAM2.3-MOZ1.0

Reference
management

Bookmarks

Remove from
bookmarks

Share this on Whatsapp

Close

Bookmarks



You can manage bookmarks using lists, please log in to your user account for this.
  • Media type: E-Article
  • Title: SALSA2.0: The sectional aerosol module of the aerosol–chemistry–climate model ECHAM6.3.0-HAM2.3-MOZ1.0
  • Contributor: Kokkola, Harri; Kühn, Thomas; Laakso, Anton; Bergman, Tommi; Lehtinen, Kari E. J.; Mielonen, Tero; Arola, Antti; Stadtler, Scarlet; Korhonen, Hannele; Ferrachat, Sylvaine; Lohmann, Ulrike; Neubauer, David; Tegen, Ina; Siegenthaler-Le Drian, Colombe; Schultz, Martin G.; Bey, Isabelle; Stier, Philip; Daskalakis, Nikos; Heald, Colette L.; Romakkaniemi, Sami
  • Published: Copernicus GmbH, 2018
  • Published in: Geoscientific Model Development, 11 (2018) 9, Seite 3833-3863
  • Language: English
  • DOI: 10.5194/gmd-11-3833-2018
  • ISSN: 1991-9603
  • Origination:
  • Footnote:
  • Description: Abstract. In this paper, we present the implementation and evaluation of theaerosol microphysics module SALSA2.0 in the framework of theaerosol–chemistry–climate model ECHAM-HAMMOZ. It is an alternativemicrophysics module to the default modal microphysics scheme M7 inECHAM-HAMMOZ. The SALSA2.0 implementation within ECHAM-HAMMOZ is evaluatedagainst observations of aerosol optical properties, aerosol mass, and sizedistributions, comparing also to the skill of the M7 implementation. Thelargest differences between the implementation of SALSA2.0 and M7 are in themethods used for calculating microphysical processes, i.e., nucleation,condensation, coagulation, and hydration. These differences in themicrophysics are reflected in the results so that the largest differencesbetween SALSA2.0 and M7 are evident over regions where the aerosol sizedistribution is heavily modified by the microphysical processing of aerosolparticles. Such regions are, for example, highly polluted regions and regionsstrongly affected by biomass burning. In addition, in a simulation of the1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption in which a stratospheric sulfate plume was formed,the global burden and the effective radii of the stratospheric aerosol arevery different in SALSA2.0 and M7. While SALSA2.0 was able to reproduce theobserved time evolution of the global burden of sulfate and the effectiveradii of stratospheric aerosol, M7 strongly overestimates the removal ofcoarse stratospheric particles and thus underestimates the effective radiusof stratospheric aerosol. As the mode widths of M7 have been optimized forthe troposphere and were not designed to represent stratospheric aerosol, theability of M7 to simulate the volcano plume was improved by modifying themode widths, decreasing the standard deviations of the accumulation and coarsemodes from 1.59 and 2.0, respectively, to 1.2 similar to what was observedafter the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. Overall, SALSA2.0 shows promise in improvingthe aerosol description of ECHAM-HAMMOZ and can be further improved byimplementing methods for aerosol processes that are more suitable for thesectional method, e.g., size-dependent emissions for aerosol species and size-resolved wet deposition.
  • Access State: Open Access