Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorLeinonen, Ville
dc.contributor.authorKokkola, Harri
dc.contributor.authorYli-Juuti, Taina
dc.contributor.authorMielonen, Tero
dc.contributor.authorKühn, Thomas
dc.contributor.authorNieminen, Tuomo
dc.contributor.authorHeikkinen, Simo
dc.contributor.authorMiinalainen, Tuuli
dc.contributor.authorBergman, Tommi
dc.contributor.authorCarslaw, Ken
dc.contributor.authorDecesari, Stefano
dc.contributor.authorFiebig, Markus
dc.contributor.authorHussein, Tareq
dc.contributor.authorKivekäs, Niku
dc.contributor.authorKrejci, Radovan
dc.contributor.authorKulmala, Markku
dc.contributor.authorLeskinen, Ari
dc.contributor.authorMassling, Andreas
dc.contributor.authorMihalopoulos, Nikos
dc.contributor.authorMulcahy, Jane P.
dc.contributor.authorNoe, Steffen M.
dc.contributor.authorVan Noije, Twan
dc.contributor.authorO'connor, Fiona M.
dc.contributor.authorO'dowd, Colin
dc.contributor.authorOliviè, Dirk Jan Leo
dc.contributor.authorPernov, Jakob B.
dc.contributor.authorPetäjä, Tuukka
dc.contributor.authorSeland, Øyvind
dc.contributor.authorSchulz, Michael
dc.contributor.authorScott, Catherine E.
dc.contributor.authorSkov, Henrik
dc.contributor.authorSwietlicki, Erik
dc.contributor.authorTuch, Thomas
dc.contributor.authorWiedensohler, Alfred
dc.contributor.authorVirtanen, Annele
dc.contributor.authorMikkonen, Santtu
dc.date.accessioned2022-11-11T07:57:47Z
dc.date.available2022-11-11T07:57:47Z
dc.date.created2022-11-08T12:13:17Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.citationAtmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP). 2022, 22 (19), 12873-12905.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1680-7316
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3031305
dc.description.abstractDespite a large number of studies, out of all drivers of radiative forcing, the effect of aerosols has the largest uncertainty in global climate model radiative forcing estimates. There have been studies of aerosol optical properties in climate models, but the effects of particle number size distribution need a more thorough inspection. We investigated the trends and seasonality of particle number concentrations in nucleation, Aitken, and accumulation modes at 21 measurement sites in Europe and the Arctic. For 13 of those sites, with longer measurement time series, we compared the field observations with the results from five climate models, namely EC-Earth3, ECHAM-M7, ECHAM-SALSA, NorESM1.2, and UKESM1. This is the first extensive comparison of detailed aerosol size distribution trends between in situ observations from Europe and five earth system models (ESMs). We found that the trends of particle number concentrations were mostly consistent and decreasing in both measurements and models. However, for many sites, climate models showed weaker decreasing trends than the measurements. Seasonal variability in measured number concentrations, quantified by the ratio between maximum and minimum monthly number concentration, was typically stronger at northern measurement sites compared to other locations. Models had large differences in their seasonal representation, and they can be roughly divided into two categories: for EC-Earth and NorESM, the seasonal cycle was relatively similar for all sites, and for other models the pattern of seasonality varied between northern and southern sites. In addition, the variability in concentrations across sites varied between models, some having relatively similar concentrations for all sites, whereas others showed clear differences in concentrations between remote and urban sites. To conclude, although all of the model simulations had identical input data to describe anthropogenic mass emissions, trends in differently sized particles vary among the models due to assumptions in emission sizes and differences in how models treat size-dependent aerosol processes. The inter-model variability was largest in the accumulation mode, i.e. sizes which have implications for aerosol–cloud interactions. Our analysis also indicates that between models there is a large variation in efficiency of long-range transportation of aerosols to remote locations. The differences in model results are most likely due to the more complex effect of different processes instead of one specific feature (e.g. the representation of aerosol or emission size distributions). Hence, a more detailed characterization of microphysical processes and deposition processes affecting the long-range transport is needed to understand the model variability.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleComparison of particle number size distribution trends in ground measurements and climate modelsen_US
dc.title.alternativeComparison of particle number size distribution trends in ground measurements and climate modelsen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holder© Author(s) 2022.en_US
dc.source.pagenumber12873-12905en_US
dc.source.volume22en_US
dc.source.journalAtmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP)en_US
dc.source.issue19en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.5194/acp-22-12873-2022
dc.identifier.cristin2070554
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode2


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal