Journal cover Journal topic
Geoscientific Model Development An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic

Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 4.252 IF 4.252
  • IF 5-year value: 4.890 IF 5-year 4.890
  • CiteScore value: 4.49 CiteScore 4.49
  • SNIP value: 1.539 SNIP 1.539
  • SJR value: 2.404 SJR 2.404
  • IPP value: 4.28 IPP 4.28
  • h5-index value: 40 h5-index 40
  • Scimago H index value: 51 Scimago H index 51
Volume 11, issue 9
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 3833-3863, 2018
© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 3833-3863, 2018
© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Model evaluation paper 26 Sep 2018

Model evaluation paper | 26 Sep 2018

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

Harri Kokkola1, Thomas Kühn1,2, Anton Laakso1,3, Tommi Bergman4, Kari E. J. Lehtinen1,2, Tero Mielonen1, Antti Arola1, Scarlet Stadtler5, Hannele Korhonen6, Sylvaine Ferrachat7, Ulrike Lohmann7, David Neubauer7, Ina Tegen8, Colombe Siegenthaler-Le Drian9, Martin G. Schultz5,10, Isabelle Bey9,11, Philip Stier12, Nikos Daskalakis13, Colette L. Heald14, and Sami Romakkaniemi1 Harri Kokkola et al.
  • 1Atmospheric Research Centre of Eastern Finland, Finnish Meteorological Institute, P.O. Box 1627, 70211 Kuopio, Finland
  • 2Aerosol Physics Research Group, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 1627, 70211 Kuopio, Finland
  • 3Department of Soil, Water and Climate, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA
  • 4Weather and Climate Models, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, P.O. Box 201, 3730AE De Bilt, the Netherlands
  • 5Institut für Energie- und Klimaforschung, IEK-8, Forschungszentrum Jülich, Jülich, Germany
  • 6Climate Research, Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, 00100, Finland
  • 7Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
  • 8Modeling of Atmospheric Processes, Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research (TROPOS), Leipzig, Germany
  • 9Centre for Climate Systems Modeling (C2SM), ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
  • 10Jülich Supercomputing Centre, JSC, Forschungszentrum Jülich, Jülich, Germany
  • 11Centre météorologique de Genève, Office fédéral de météorologie et de climatologie MétéoSuisse, av. de la Paix 7bis, 1211 Genève 2, Switzerland
  • 12Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Parks Road, OX1 3PU, UK
  • 13Laboratory for Modeling and Observation of the Earth System (LAMOS), Institute of Environmental Physics (IUP), University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
  • 14Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA

Abstract. In this paper, we present the implementation and evaluation of the aerosol microphysics module SALSA2.0 in the framework of the aerosol–chemistry–climate model ECHAM-HAMMOZ. It is an alternative microphysics module to the default modal microphysics scheme M7 in ECHAM-HAMMOZ. The SALSA2.0 implementation within ECHAM-HAMMOZ is evaluated against observations of aerosol optical properties, aerosol mass, and size distributions, comparing also to the skill of the M7 implementation. The largest differences between the implementation of SALSA2.0 and M7 are in the methods used for calculating microphysical processes, i.e., nucleation, condensation, coagulation, and hydration. These differences in the microphysics are reflected in the results so that the largest differences between SALSA2.0 and M7 are evident over regions where the aerosol size distribution is heavily modified by the microphysical processing of aerosol particles. Such regions are, for example, highly polluted regions and regions strongly affected by biomass burning. In addition, in a simulation of the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption in which a stratospheric sulfate plume was formed, the global burden and the effective radii of the stratospheric aerosol are very different in SALSA2.0 and M7. While SALSA2.0 was able to reproduce the observed time evolution of the global burden of sulfate and the effective radii of stratospheric aerosol, M7 strongly overestimates the removal of coarse stratospheric particles and thus underestimates the effective radius of stratospheric aerosol. As the mode widths of M7 have been optimized for the troposphere and were not designed to represent stratospheric aerosol, the ability of M7 to simulate the volcano plume was improved by modifying the mode widths, decreasing the standard deviations of the accumulation and coarse modes from 1.59 and 2.0, respectively, to 1.2 similar to what was observed after the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. Overall, SALSA2.0 shows promise in improving the aerosol description of ECHAM-HAMMOZ and can be further improved by implementing methods for aerosol processes that are more suitable for the sectional method, e.g., size-dependent emissions for aerosol species and size-resolved wet deposition.

Publications Copernicus
Short summary
In this paper we present a global aerosol–chemistry–climate model with the focus on its representation for atmospheric aerosol particles. In the model, aerosols are simulated using the aerosol module SALSA2.0, which in this paper is compared to satellite, ground, and aircraft-based observations of the properties of atmospheric aerosol. Based on this study, the model simulated aerosol properties compare well with the observations.
In this paper we present a global aerosol–chemistry–climate model with the focus on its...