the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Features of mid- and high-latitude low-level clouds and their relation to strong aerosol effects in the Energy Exascale Earth System Model version 2 (E3SMv2)
Abstract. The E3SMv2 model, like various other global climate models that include representations of aerosol-cloud interactions, uses an empirically chosen lower bound on the simulated in-cloud cloud droplet number concentration (CDNC) to help constrain the effective radiative forcing of anthropogenic aerosols, ERFaer. This study identifies where ultra-low CDNCs (i.e., concentrations lower than 10 cm-3) occur in the stratiform and shallow convective clouds simulated by E3SMv2 and which of the occurrences have the strongest impact on ERFaer. Process-level analyses are presented to reveal characteristics of the cloud droplet formation and removal processes associated with impactful ultra-low CDNCs.
Simulations performed with present-day emissions show that ultra-low CDNCs are most frequently found over the mid- and high-latitude oceans in both hemispheres, while the occurrences are also frequent in polluted continental regions despite the high aerosol concentrations. Ultra-low CDNCs with the largest impacts on the simulated regional and global mean ERFaer are found in the lower troposphere in the Northern Hemisphere middle and high latitudes. These cases are typically associated with large cloud fractions, strong water vapor condensation, weak turbulence, and lack of cloud droplet nucleation from aerosol activation. Under such atmospheric conditions, boosting aerosol activation and enhancing turbulent mixing of cloud droplet number can increase the simulated CDNCs, although the magnitude of the global mean ERFaer increases undesirably. The reason for this model behavior is discussed. Overall, our study suggests that mid- and high-latitude low-level stratus occurring under weak turbulence is a cloud regime worth further investigating for the purpose of identifying and addressing the root causes of ultra-low CDNCs and strong ERFaer in E3SM.
- Preprint
(12277 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(11719 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4020', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Feb 2025
Review of “Features of mid- and high-latitude low-level clouds and their relation to strong aerosol effects in the Energy Exascale Earth System Model version 2 (E3SMv2)” by Wan et al.
This paper investigates ultra-low (<10 cm-3) cloud droplet number concentrations (CDNC) occurring in stratiform and convective clouds in E3SMv2, identifying the locations and some of the circumstances behind these events. These events are of particular concern because they appear to influence the global mean effective radiative forcing of anthropogenic aerosols (ERFaer). Through a series of sensitivity experiments, the authors find that ultra-low CDNC events specifically in lower troposphere gridboxes with high cloud fractions and weak turbulence have a strong influence on ERFaer sensitivity. However, while enhancing activation and turbulent mixing in the simulations increases CDNC in these regimes, the magnitude of ERFaer increases simultaneously. Although this finding doesn’t bring ERFaer closer to expected values, the results indicate that tropospheric stratus clouds in weak turbulence are a useful regime to focus on to help better understand the causal root behind these events.
Despite the many complex relationships and ideas discussed in this paper, the authors’ precise prose and clean, frequently-referenced figures clearly explain the processes involved with minimal sources of confusion. It’s a nicely put-together analysis that doesn’t overwhelm the reader despite the high volume of figures in the paper and supplementary materials. In particular, their timely references to Figure 1 throughout helped the overall analysis stay grounded in a familiar, understandable framework. Before publication, I recommend a few minor corrections below:
Comments:
- Line 231: What model levels are nudged? What’s the relaxation time? More information about the nudging would be useful here.
- Lines 384-387: The nc10_f0.9 experiment can account for ~65% of the reduction in ERFaer, indicating that the high cloud fraction regime plays a larger role in this change. Is the other ~35% wholly or mostly attributable to the small cloud fraction regime?
- In Section 5, you introduce Figure 10, which illuminates some of the involved processes for these Arctic summer low CDNC events. In this section and in this figure caption, it is difficult at first to follow which simulation (out of the many described in this paper) is being analyzed. While it is eventually mentioned in the caption for Figure 11, an in-text reminder that these are results from the free-running version of nc00 towards the beginning of this section would be useful to help keep the reader on track.
Typos:
Line 24: Should these units be in Wm-2 (instead of Wm-1)?
Line 152: “The decrement in the grid box mean droplet number mixing”- missing word?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4020-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Hui Wan, 08 Mar 2025
On behalf of all co-authors, I would like to thank referee 1 for the very positive and helpful feedback. Below please find our responses to the questions and suggestions.
- Line 231: What model levels are nudged? What’s the relaxation time? More information about the nudging would be useful here.
We plan to add the following information to the revised manuscript: Horizontal winds in the altitude range of approximately 0.5 hPa to 850 hPa (i.e., model levels 5 to 58 out of a total of 72) were nudged with a relaxation time of 6 hours. The reanalysis data were read in every 6 hours and linearly interpolated to each model timestep. Winds in the near-surface layers as well as air temperature and humidity were not nudged, so as to retain good consistency between the climatology of the nudged simulations and the climatology of the free-running simulations. - Lines 384-387: The nc10_f0.9 experiment can account for ~65% of the reduction in ERFaer, indicating that the high cloud fraction regime plays a larger role in this change. Is the other ~35% wholly or mostly attributable to the small cloud fraction regime?
Since the cases with cloud fraction lower than 0.1 appear to form the other dominant regime in terms of case count, one might expect this regime to be mostly responsible for the other ~35% of reduction in ERFaer. On the other hand, a very low cloud fraction means a very small weight for the contribution of the cloudy portion to the grid-box mean radiative effects, which gives us a reason to expect the small-cloud-fraction regime to be not very impactful. We have performed an additional pair of PD and PI simulations and confirmed the latter to be true, i.e., bounding CDNCs only when cloud fraction is lower than 0.1 leads to a very small change in the global annual mean ERFaer. It then follows that the aggregate effect of the cases with cloud fraction between 0.1 and 0.9 is non-negligible. We have not done much analysis for the “in-between” cases but note that this regime will be useful to examine in the future. We plan to add a comment to the manuscript. - In Section 5, you introduce Figure 10, which illuminates some of the involved processes for these Arctic summer low CDNC events. In this section and in this figure caption, it is difficult at first to follow which simulation (out of the many described in this paper) is being analyzed. While it is eventually mentioned in the caption for Figure 11, an in-text reminder that these are results from the free-running version of nc00 towards the beginning of this section would be useful to help keep the reader on track.
Thanks for raising this point. We plan to add a clarification near the beginning of Section 5 (and at the beginning of the caption of Figure 10) that all results presented in this section (and in Figure 10) are based on the free-running simulation using the nc00 configuration.
Typos: These will be corrected in the revised manuscript. Thanks again for the careful review.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4020-AC1 - Line 231: What model levels are nudged? What’s the relaxation time? More information about the nudging would be useful here.
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4020', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Feb 2025
This study investigates ultra-low cloud droplet number concentrations in the E3SMv2 global climate model, focusing on their occurrence and impact on the effective radiative forcing of anthropogenic aerosols. The analysis identifies where ultra-low CDNCs occur in stratiform and shallow convective clouds and examines their influence on ERFaer. Process-level insights into cloud droplet formation and removal mechanisms are provided. The study suggests that increasing aerosol activation and enhancing turbulent mixing can raise CDNCs but may also undesirably amplify global mean ERFaer. The findings highlight the importance of further investigating mid- and high-latitude low-level stratus clouds under weak turbulence to address the root causes of ultra-low CDNCs and their strong influence on ERFaer in E3SMv2.
Overall I think it's a very well-written and info-dense manuscript and would support as-is publication, even though the style is a bit unconventional - L374 science questions in the middle of the paper, and L445 L512's question style titles, they did bring intrigue for the reader. Thanks for making it an interesting read.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4020-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Hui Wan, 08 Mar 2025
On behalf of all co-authors, I would like to thank Referee 2 for appreciating our work and for being open to our somewhat unconventional narrative. The style of the narrative reflects the curiosity that drove us throughout this study. Thanks again for the positive feedback.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4020-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Hui Wan, 08 Mar 2025
Data sets
CDNC and ERFaer in E3SMv2: numerical experiment results from free-running present-day simulations Hui Wan https://doi.org/10.25584/2481237
CDNC and ERFaer in E3SMv2: numerical experiment results from nudged simulations under present-day and pre-industrial emission scenarios Kai Zhang and Hui Wan https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14518205
Model code and software
Codes and scripts for an investigation of CDNC and ERFaer in E3SMv2 Hui Wan and Kai Zhang https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14517254
Video supplement
An animation of Arctic clouds simulated by E3SMv2 Abhishek Yenpure, Hui Wan, and Berk Geveci https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14523176
An animation of clouds over southeast China simulated by E3SMv2 Abhishek Yenpure, Hui Wan, and Berk Geveci https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14523263
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
222 | 48 | 7 | 277 | 24 | 5 | 6 |
- HTML: 222
- PDF: 48
- XML: 7
- Total: 277
- Supplement: 24
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 174 | 66 |
China | 2 | 12 | 4 |
France | 3 | 7 | 2 |
undefined | 4 | 6 | 2 |
India | 5 | 6 | 2 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 174