the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Towards an improved understanding of the impact of clouds and precipitation on the representation of aerosols over the Boreal Forest in GCMs
Abstract. General circulation models (GCMs) face uncertainties in estimating Earth's radiative budget due to aerosol-cloud interactions (ACI). Accurate aerosol number size distributions are crucial for improving ACI representation in GCMs, requiring precise modelling of aerosol source and sink processes throughout their lifetime. This study employs a Lagrangian trajectory framework to analyse how clouds and precipitation influence aerosol lifecycles during transport in the boreal forest. A comparison of two GCMs, the United Kingdom Earth System Model (UKESM1) and ECHAM6.3-HAM2.3-MOZ1.0 with the SALSA2.0 aerosol module (ECHAM-SALSA), is conducted. An evaluation against in-situ observations and reanalysis-based trajectories is performed. Results show that 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 were found to coincide with differences in key variables controlling aerosol activation, such as sub-grid scale updraughts and number size distributions. For example, in winter the removal of the total aerosol mass in ECHAM-SALSA was stronger compared to UKESM1, coinciding with higher activated fractions during airmass transport, which, on the other hand, were likely due to the larger sub-grid scale updraughts in ECHAM-SALSA. For both GCMs, investigation of aqueous-phase chemical processing along the trajectories showed clear increase of SO4 mass for cloud-processed air masses when compared to clear sky conditions, in-line with the observations. As expected, based on the model parametrizations, these increases in SO4 were mostly distributed to the accumulation mode aerosols.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.- Preprint
(2644 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(4191 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 18 May 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-721', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Apr 2025
reply
The authors compare output from two general circulation models that were nudged to reanalysis conditions against aerosol measurements taken at a boreal forest ground site. The analysis includes both Eulerian and Lagrangian perspectives. The latter is used to infer if aerosol sinks and sources are plausible in both models. The manuscript is of great relevance and should be published after major revisions.
Major concerns
I think the manuscript (not considering appendix and supporting material) is too long and should be more concise in style. A good example is the “Conclusion and Outlook” section, which spans over 2 pages. While there are key conclusions in this section, it is hard to find them when mingled with discussion material. Instead, the authors could split this section into a conclusion sections (as also suggested by the ACP guidelines) that is very concise and an outlook (or else discussion) section. In the same manner, the authors should attempt to shorten sections 3-5, by perhaps moving discussion-style material to a dedicated discussion section.
Throughout the Lagrangian analysis the authors mostly show median values. I’m wondering how large the interquartile range is and whether the main conclusions are affected when considering this range.
Minor concerns
l. 57 Please define “sectional approaches”.
ll. 428ff (and Fig. 3). Why is rainfall rate increasing closer to the site?
ll. 805ff. Is there a chance that “in-cloud” and “clear-sky” groups correspond to very different regions (with unique local aerosol sources)?
Typos/style
ll. 923-924 Please check this sentence.
l. 943 “extremeties”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-721-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
126 | 24 | 6 | 156 | 10 | 5 | 8 |
- HTML: 126
- PDF: 24
- XML: 6
- Total: 156
- Supplement: 10
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 57 | 32 |
United Kingdom | 2 | 20 | 11 |
Sweden | 3 | 17 | 9 |
Germany | 4 | 12 | 6 |
Finland | 5 | 12 | 6 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 57