Authors

G. Myhre, Center for International Climate and Environmental Research-Oslo (CICERO), Oslo, Norway
B.H. Samset, Center for International Climate and Environmental Research-Oslo (CICERO), Oslo, Norway
M. Schulz, Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway
Y. Balkanski, Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, CEA-CNRS-UVSQ, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
S. Bauer, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia Earth Institute, NY
T.K. Berntsen, Center for International Climate and Environmental Research-Oslo (CICERO), Oslo, Norway
H. Bian, University of Maryland
N. Bellouin, Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, United Kingdom; University of Reading, United Kingdom
M. Chin, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD
T. Diehl, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD; Universities Space Research Association, Columbia, MD
R.C. Easter, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA
J. Feichter, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany
S.J. Ghan, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA
D. Hauglustaine, Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, CEA-CNRS-UVSQ, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
T. Iversen, Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway; University of Oslo, Norway
S. Kinne, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany
A. Kirkeväg, Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway
J.-F. Lamarque, NCAR Earth System Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
G. Lin, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Xiaohong Liu, University of Wyoming; Universities Space Research Association, Columbia, MD
M.T. Lund, Center for International Climate and Environmental Research-Oslo (CICERO), Oslo, Norway
G. Luo, State University of New York at Albany
X. Ma, State University of New York at Albany
T. Van Noije, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, De Bilt, Netherlands
J.E. Penner, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
P.J. Rasch, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA
A. Ruiz, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, De Bilt, Netherlands; LIFTEC, CSIC-Universidad de Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain
Ø Seland, Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway
R.B. Skeie, Center for International Climate and Environmental Research-Oslo (CICERO), Oslo, Norway
P. Stier, University of Oxford, United Kingdom
T. Takemura, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan
K. Tsigaridis, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia Earth Institute, NY
P. Wang, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, De Bilt, Netherlands
Z. Wang, Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, China
L. Xu, University of Michigan; University of California
H. Yu, University of Maryland
F. Yu, State University of New York at Albany
J.-H. Yoon, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA
K. Zhang, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA; Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany
H. Zhang, China Meteorological Administration, China
C. Zhou, University of Michigan

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2-19-2013

Abstract

We report on the AeroCom Phase II direct aerosol effect (DAE) experiment where 16 detailed global aerosol models have been used to simulate the changes in the aerosol distribution over the industrial era. All 16 models have estimated the radiative forcing (RF) of the anthropogenic DAE, and have taken into account anthropogenic sulphate, black carbon (BC) and organic aerosols (OA) from fossil fuel, biofuel, and biomass burning emissions. In addition several models have simulated the DAE of anthropogenic nitrate and anthropogenic influenced secondary organic aerosols (SOA). The model simulated all-sky RF of the DAE from total anthropogenic aerosols has a range from-0.58 to-0.02 Wm-2, with a mean of-0.27 Wm-2 for the 16 models. Several models did not include nitrate or SOA and modifying the estimate by accounting for this with information from the other AeroCom models reduces the range and slightly strengthens the mean. Modifying the model estimates for missing aerosol components and for the time period 1750 to 2010 results in a mean RF for the DAE of-0.35 Wm-2. Compared to AeroCom Phase I (Schulz et al., 2006) we find very similar spreads in both total DAE and aerosol component RF. However, the RF of the total DAE is stronger negative and RF from BC from fossil fuel and biofuel emissions are stronger positive in the present study than in the previous AeroCom study. We find a tendency for models having a strong (positive) BC RF to also have strong (negative) sulphate or OA RF. This relationship leads to smaller uncertainty in the total RF of the DAE compared to the RF of the sum of the individual aerosol components. The spread in results for the individual aerosol components is substantial, and can be divided into diversities in burden, mass extinction coefficient (MEC), and normalized RF with respect to AOD. We find that these three factors give similar contributions to the spread in results. © 2013 Author(s).

DOI

10.5194/acp-13-1853-2013

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Included in

Engineering Commons

Share

COinS