Articles | Volume 12, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1643-2019
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1643-2019
Model evaluation paper
 | 
24 Apr 2019
Model evaluation paper |  | 24 Apr 2019

The global aerosol–climate model ECHAM6.3–HAM2.3 – Part 1: Aerosol evaluation

Ina Tegen, David Neubauer, Sylvaine Ferrachat, Colombe Siegenthaler-Le Drian, Isabelle Bey, Nick Schutgens, Philip Stier, Duncan Watson-Parris, Tanja Stanelle, Hauke Schmidt, Sebastian Rast, Harri Kokkola, Martin Schultz, Sabine Schroeder, Nikos Daskalakis, Stefan Barthel, Bernd Heinold, and Ulrike Lohmann

Related authors

The implementation of dust mineralogy in COSMO5.05-MUSCAT
Sofía Gómez Maqueo Anaya, Dietrich Althausen, Matthias Faust, Holger Baars, Bernd Heinold, Julian Hofer, Ina Tegen, Albert Ansmann, Ronny Engelmann, Annett Skupin, Birgit Heese, and Kerstin Schepanski
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1271–1295, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1271-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1271-2024, 2024
Short summary
How the extreme 2019–2020 Australian wildfires affected global circulation and adjustments
Fabian Senf, Bernd Heinold, Anne Kubin, Jason Müller, Roland Schrödner, and Ina Tegen
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 8939–8958, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-8939-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-8939-2023, 2023
Short summary
Important role of stratospheric injection height for the distribution and radiative forcing of smoke aerosol from the 2019–2020 Australian wildfires
Bernd Heinold, Holger Baars, Boris Barja, Matthew Christensen, Anne Kubin, Kevin Ohneiser, Kerstin Schepanski, Nick Schutgens, Fabian Senf, Roland Schrödner, Diego Villanueva, and Ina Tegen
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 9969–9985, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-9969-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-9969-2022, 2022
Short summary
Modelling mineral dust emissions and atmospheric dispersion with MADE3 in EMAC v2.54
Christof G. Beer, Johannes Hendricks, Mattia Righi, Bernd Heinold, Ina Tegen, Silke Groß, Daniel Sauer, Adrian Walser, and Bernadett Weinzierl
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4287–4303, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4287-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4287-2020, 2020
Short summary
Climate and air quality impacts due to mitigation of non-methane near-term climate forcers
Robert J. Allen, Steven Turnock, Pierre Nabat, David Neubauer, Ulrike Lohmann, Dirk Olivié, Naga Oshima, Martine Michou, Tongwen Wu, Jie Zhang, Toshihiko Takemura, Michael Schulz, Kostas Tsigaridis, Susanne E. Bauer, Louisa Emmons, Larry Horowitz, Vaishali Naik, Twan van Noije, Tommi Bergman, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Prodromos Zanis, Ina Tegen, Daniel M. Westervelt, Philippe Le Sager, Peter Good, Sungbo Shim, Fiona O'Connor, Dimitris Akritidis, Aristeidis K. Georgoulias, Makoto Deushi, Lori T. Sentman, Jasmin G. John, Shinichiro Fujimori, and William J. Collins
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 9641–9663, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-9641-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-9641-2020, 2020

Related subject area

Atmospheric sciences
Modelling wind farm effects in HARMONIE–AROME (cycle 43.2.2) – Part 1: Implementation and evaluation
Jana Fischereit, Henrik Vedel, Xiaoli Guo Larsén, Natalie E. Theeuwes, Gregor Giebel, and Eigil Kaas
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2855–2875, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2855-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2855-2024, 2024
Short summary
Analytical and adaptable initial conditions for dry and moist baroclinic waves in the global hydrostatic model OpenIFS (CY43R3)
Clément Bouvier, Daan van den Broek, Madeleine Ekblom, and Victoria A. Sinclair
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2961–2986, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2961-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2961-2024, 2024
Short summary
Challenges of constructing and selecting the “perfect” boundary conditions for the large-eddy simulation model PALM
Jelena Radović, Michal Belda, Jaroslav Resler, Kryštof Eben, Martin Bureš, Jan Geletič, Pavel Krč, Hynek Řezníček, and Vladimír Fuka
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2901–2927, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2901-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2901-2024, 2024
Short summary
A machine learning approach for evaluating Southern Ocean cloud radiative biases in a global atmosphere model
Sonya L. Fiddes, Marc D. Mallet, Alain Protat, Matthew T. Woodhouse, Simon P. Alexander, and Kalli Furtado
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2641–2662, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2641-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2641-2024, 2024
Short summary
Decision Support System version 1.0 (DSS v1.0) for air quality management in Delhi, India
Gaurav Govardhan, Sachin D. Ghude, Rajesh Kumar, Sumit Sharma, Preeti Gunwani, Chinmay Jena, Prafull Yadav, Shubhangi Ingle, Sreyashi Debnath, Pooja Pawar, Prodip Acharja, Rajmal Jat, Gayatry Kalita, Rupal Ambulkar, Santosh Kulkarni, Akshara Kaginalkar, Vijay K. Soni, Ravi S. Nanjundiah, and Madhavan Rajeevan
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2617–2640, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2617-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2617-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Abdul-Razzak, H. and Ghan, S.: A parameterization of aerosol activation: 2. Multiple aerosol types, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 105, 6837–6844, https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JD901161, 2000. a, b
Andreas, E. L., Jones, K. F., and Fairall, C. W.: Production velocity of sea spray droplets, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 115, C12065, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JC006458, 2010. a
Arimoto, R., Duce, R. A., Ray, B. J., Ellis, W. G., Cullen, J. D., and Merrill, J. T.: Trace elements in the atmosphere over the North Atlantic, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 100, 1199–1213, https://doi.org/10.1029/94JD02618, 1995. a
Asmi, A., Wiedensohler, A., Laj, P., Fjaeraa, A.-M., Sellegri, K., Birmili, W., Weingartner, E., Baltensperger, U., Zdimal, V., Zikova, N., Putaud, J.-P., Marinoni, A., Tunved, P., Hansson, H.-C., Fiebig, M., Kivekäs, N., Lihavainen, H., Asmi, E., Ulevicius, V., Aalto, P. P., Swietlicki, E., Kristensson, A., Mihalopoulos, N., Kalivitis, N., Kalapov, I., Kiss, G., de Leeuw, G., Henzing, B., Harrison, R. M., Beddows, D., O'Dowd, C., Jennings, S. G., Flentje, H., Weinhold, K., Meinhardt, F., Ries, L., and Kulmala, M.: Number size distributions and seasonality of submicron particles in Europe 2008–2009, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 5505–5538, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-5505-2011, 2011a. a, b, c, d
Asmi, A., Wiedensohler, A., Laj, P., Fjaeraa, A.-M., Sellegri, K., Birmili, W., Weingartner, E., Baltensperger, U., Zdimal, V., Zikova, N., Putaud, J.-P., Marinoni, A., Tunved, P., Hansson, H.-C., Fiebig, M., Kivekäs, N., Lihavainen, H., Asmi, E., Ulevicius, V., Aalto, P., Swietlicki, E., Kristensson, A., Mihalopoulos, N., Kalivitis, N., Kalapov, I., Kiss, G., de Leeuw, G., Henzing, B., Harrison, R. M., Beddows, D., O'Dowd, C., Jennings, G. S., Flentje, H., Weinhold, K., Meinhardt, F., Ries, L., and Kulmala, M.: EUSAAR size distribution analysis database. PANGAEA, https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.861856, 2011b. a
Short summary
We describe a new version of the aerosol–climate model ECHAM–HAM and show tests of the model performance by comparing different aspects of the aerosol distribution with different datasets. The updated version of HAM contains improved descriptions of aerosol processes, including updated emission fields and cloud processes. While there are regional deviations between the model and observations, the model performs well overall.