Articles | Volume 15, issue 10
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-4055-2022
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-4055-2022
Methods for assessment of models
 | 
25 May 2022
Methods for assessment of models |  | 25 May 2022

Earth System Model Aerosol–Cloud Diagnostics (ESMAC Diags) package, version 1: assessing E3SM aerosol predictions using aircraft, ship, and surface measurements

Shuaiqi Tang, Jerome D. Fast, Kai Zhang, Joseph C. Hardin, Adam C. Varble, John E. Shilling, Fan Mei, Maria A. Zawadowicz, and Po-Lun Ma

Related authors

Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) airborne field campaign data products between 2013 and 2018
Fan Mei, Jennifer M. Comstock, Mikhail S. Pekour, Jerome D. Fast, Krista L. Gaustad, Beat Schmid, Shuaiqi Tang, Damao Zhang, John E. Shilling, Jason M. Tomlinson, Adam C. Varble, Jian Wang, L. Ruby Leung, Lawrence Kleinman, Scot Martin, Sebastien C. Biraud, Brian D. Ermold, and Kenneth W. Burk
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 5429–5448, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-5429-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-5429-2024, 2024
Short summary
Understanding aerosol–cloud interactions using a single-column model for a cold-air outbreak case during the ACTIVATE campaign
Shuaiqi Tang, Hailong Wang, Xiang-Yu Li, Jingyi Chen, Armin Sorooshian, Xubin Zeng, Ewan Crosbie, Kenneth L. Thornhill, Luke D. Ziemba, and Christiane Voigt
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 10073–10092, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-10073-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-10073-2024, 2024
Short summary
Earth System Model Aerosol–Cloud Diagnostics (ESMAC Diags) package, version 2: assessing aerosols, clouds, and aerosol–cloud interactions via field campaign and long-term observations
Shuaiqi Tang, Adam C. Varble, Jerome D. Fast, Kai Zhang, Peng Wu, Xiquan Dong, Fan Mei, Mikhail Pekour, Joseph C. Hardin, and Po-Lun Ma
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 6355–6376, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6355-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6355-2023, 2023
Short summary
Evaluation of liquid cloud albedo susceptibility in E3SM using coupled eastern North Atlantic surface and satellite retrievals
Adam C. Varble, Po-Lun Ma, Matthew W. Christensen, Johannes Mülmenstädt, Shuaiqi Tang, and Jerome Fast
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 13523–13553, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13523-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13523-2023, 2023
Short summary
The E3SM version 1 single-column model
Peter A. Bogenschutz, Shuaiqi Tang, Peter M. Caldwell, Shaocheng Xie, Wuyin Lin, and Yao-Sheng Chen
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4443–4458, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4443-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4443-2020, 2020
Short summary

Related subject area

Atmospheric sciences
Accurate space-based NOx emission estimates with the flux divergence approach require fine-scale model information on local oxidation chemistry and profile shapes
Felipe Cifuentes, Henk Eskes, Enrico Dammers, Charlotte Bryan, and Folkert Boersma
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 621–649, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-621-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-621-2025, 2025
Short summary
Exploring a high-level programming model for the NWP domain using ECMWF microphysics schemes
Stefano Ubbiali, Christian Kühnlein, Christoph Schär, Linda Schlemmer, Thomas C. Schulthess, Michael Staneker, and Heini Wernli
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 529–546, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-529-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-529-2025, 2025
Short summary
Quantifying uncertainties in satellite NO2 superobservations for data assimilation and model evaluation
Pieter Rijsdijk, Henk Eskes, Arlene Dingemans, K. Folkert Boersma, Takashi Sekiya, Kazuyuki Miyazaki, and Sander Houweling
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 483–509, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-483-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-483-2025, 2025
Short summary
ML-AMPSIT: Machine Learning-based Automated Multi-method Parameter Sensitivity and Importance analysis Tool
Dario Di Santo, Cenlin He, Fei Chen, and Lorenzo Giovannini
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 433–459, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-433-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-433-2025, 2025
Short summary
Coupling the urban canopy model TEB (SURFEXv9.0) with the radiation model SPARTACUS-Urbanv0.6.1 for more realistic urban radiative exchange calculation
Robert Schoetter, Robin James Hogan, Cyril Caliot, and Valéry Masson
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 405–431, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-405-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-405-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Albrecht, B. A.: Aerosols, Cloud Microphysics, and Fractional Cloudiness, Science, 245, 1227–1230, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.245.4923.1227, 1989. 
AMWG (Atmospheric Model Working Group): AMWG Diagnostic Package [data set], https://www.cesm.ucar.edu/working_groups/Atmosphere/amwg-diagnostics-package/, last access: 2 November 2021. 
ARM (Atmospheric Radiation Measurement): Intensive Operational Period (IOP) Data Browser [data set], https://iop.archive.arm.gov/arm-iop/2012/mag/magic/reynolds-marmet/ (last access: 2 November 2021), 2014. 
ARM (Atmospheric Radiation Measurement): Intensive Operational Period (IOP) Data Browser [data set], https://iop.archive.arm.gov/arm-iop/2016/sgp/hiscale/matthews-wcm (last access: 2 November 2021), 2016a. 
Short summary
We developed an Earth system model (ESM) diagnostics package to compare various types of aerosol properties simulated in ESMs with aircraft, ship, and surface measurements from six field campaigns across spatial scales. The diagnostics package is coded and organized to be flexible and modular for future extension to other field campaign datasets and adapted to higher-resolution model simulations. Future releases will include comprehensive cloud and aerosol–cloud interaction diagnostics.
Share