the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The 4-mode Modal Aerosol Module in C++ (MAM4xx) v1.0: Representing Prognostic Aerosols in a Global Cloud-System Resolving Atmosphere Model for GPU Exascale Computing
Abstract. Aerosols are a key component of Earth system models since they affect meteorology and the Earth’s energy budget through complex cloud-aerosol-radiation interactions. Over the past decade, Earth system models have increased their spatial resolution to better resolve atmospheric processes; however, this advancement comes with significantly higher computational costs. To address this issue, some models now take advantage of high-performance Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) exascale computer clusters which offer faster processing capabilities with a higher level of parallelism than traditional Central Processing Unit (CPU) systems, but these models still lack detailed representations of aerosols. In this study, we describe the development of a new GPU-enabled prognostic aerosol model based on the four-mode version of the Modal Aerosol Module (MAM4), called MAM4xx, that has been coupled to the Energy Exascale Earth System (E3SM) Atmospheric Model (EAM) in C++ (EAMxx). To the best of our knowledge, MAM4xx is the first fully GPU-enabled aerosol model with sophisticated process representations. MAM4 has been completely rewritten in C++ using the Kokkos performance-portability programming library while preserving all the physical and chemical processes in the original Fortran version. The Kokkos library ensures compatibility across GPUs from various vendors and thus enables execution on multiple GPU exascale high-performance computer clusters. We describe the steps undertaken to port the code to C++/Kokkos as well as the rigorous testing methodology (i.e., unit tests, real-world tests) so that the functionality remains intact and that bugs were not inadvertently introduced. We demonstrate that MAM4xx coupled within EAMxx with ~12-km horizontal grid spacing behaves as expected for real-world conditions based on comparison with observations and a reanalysis aerosol dataset over the central U.S. during the spring of 2016. Currently, MAM4xx increases the computational cost of the host atmospheric model by ~40%, which is due primarily to the treatment of aerosol-cloud interactions, highlighting the need to optimize these processes for GPU computational efficiency. Future improvements to MAM4xx will benefit from recent advancements in the physical representation of aerosols in MAM4 as they are ported to C++/Kokkos. Additional testing for longer periods of time to encompass a wider range of atmospheric conditions, over other geographic regions, and at higher spatial resolution will be conducted in the future to more robustly assess simulated aerosol properties.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Geoscientific Model Development.
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 paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(27683 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1538', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 May 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-1538/egusphere-2026-1538-RC1-supplement.pdfCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2026-1538-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1538', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Jun 2026
Overview
The paper presents MAM4xx, a GPU-enabled version of the MAM4 aerosol model rewritten in C++/Kokkos and coupled to the EAMxx atmospheric model. It describes the code development from the original Fortran-based MAM4. A 33-day aerosol simulation for spring 2016 using MAM4xx within EAMxx is compared with a GEOS-FP simulation and evaluated against observations, including PM2.5, AOD, and AERONET. GEOS-FP uses the GOCART aerosol scheme and is constrained by MODIS AOD satellite observations.
General comment:
The paper’s scientific contribution is not yet clear. The main motivation for developing EAMxx–MAM4xx appears to be its ability to simulate aerosol- cloud and aerosol-radiation feedbacks, but this aspect is not examined in sufficient depth.
The paper describes the porting of MAM4 from Fortran to MAM4xx in detail, and it appears that technical tests were carried out to verify the correctness of the implementation. However, I am not convinced that this alone justifies a scientific publication.
The breakdown of the computational cost of EAMxx–MAM4xx is valuable. However, I would have expected some comparison of the performance changes between MAM4 and MAM4xx. It is interesting to note that aerosol–cloud and aerosol–radiation interactions (ACI, ARI) account for a large share of the MAM4xx overhead. (see first comment)
Because ACI and ARI appear to be central motivations of the paper, it is a missed opportunity that their impact on the EAMxx simulation is not examined. The paper fails to show the benefit of MAM4xx in MAM4xx.
Instead, the paper compares the aerosol simulation from EAMxx–MAM4xx with that from GEOS-FP over North America. The claim that GEOS-FP can serve as a reanalysis reference for aerosol should be treated with caution. The paper does not describe the AOD data assimilation method used in GEOS-FP. Although AOD assimilation can improve AOD fields, its positive effect on aerosol composition, especially near the surface, is generally limited. In addition, GEOS-FP should be regarded as a substantially different aerosol model because it uses a different aerosol scheme and, most importantly, different emissions for anthropogenic sources, biomass burning, sea salt, and dust. This likely explains the often large differences between EAMxx–MAM4xx and GEOS-FP, as well as their respective errors against observations.
The evaluation of EAMxx–MAM4xx against AOD observations in Figs. 13 and 14 should also be shown for the GEOS-FP simulation.
The evaluation of aerosol size distributions and CNN against campaign data (Figs. 9, 11, and 12) appears relevant to the intended applications. Since GEOS-FP cannot simulate these quantities, it would be helpful to compare the results with MAM4 or another modal aerosol model.
Please provide more detail in the figure captions: which line and graph presents which model.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1538-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 565 | 428 | 39 | 1,032 | 53 | 59 |
- HTML: 565
- PDF: 428
- XML: 39
- Total: 1,032
- BibTeX: 53
- EndNote: 59
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1