Incorporation of aerosol into the COSPv2 satellite lidar simulator for climate model evaluation

• Published in: Geoscientific Model Development
• Main Authors: M. Bonazzola, H. Chepfer, P.-L. Ma, J. Quaas, D. M. Winker, A. Feofilov, N. Schutgens
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Copernicus Publications 2023
• Subjects: Geology; QE1-996.5; Southern Ocean
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1359-2023; https://doaj.org/article/54b8d4c5d2c64aa7907d6c581d6e2335

Atmospheric aerosol has substantial impacts on climate, air quality and biogeochemical cycles, and its concentrations are highly variable in space and time. A key variability to evaluate within models that simulate aerosol is the vertical distribution, which influences atmospheric heating profiles and aerosol–cloud interactions, to help constrain aerosol residence time and to better represent the magnitude of simulated impacts. To ensure a consistent comparison between modeled and observed vertical distribution of aerosol, we implemented an aerosol lidar simulator within the Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) Observation Simulator Package version 2 (COSPv2). We assessed the attenuated total backscattered (ATB) signal and the backscatter ratios (SRs) at 532 nm in the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Exascale Earth System Model version 1 (E3SMv1). The simulator performs the computations at the same vertical resolution as the Cloud-Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization (CALIOP), making use of aerosol optics from the E3SMv1 model as inputs and assuming that aerosol is uniformly distributed horizontally within each model grid box. The simulator applies a cloud masking and an aerosol detection threshold to obtain the ATB and SR profiles that would be observed above clouds by CALIOP with its aerosol detection capability. Our analysis shows that the aerosol distribution simulated at a seasonal timescale is generally in good agreement with observations. Over the Southern Ocean, however, the model does not produce the SR maximum as observed in the real world. Comparison between clear-sky and all-sky SRs shows little differences, indicating that the cloud screening by potentially incorrect model clouds does not affect the mean aerosol signal averaged over a season. This indicates that the differences between observed and simulated SR values are due not to sampling errors, but to deficiencies in the representation of aerosol in models. Finally, we highlight the need for future applications of lidar ...