Articles | Volume 16, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1359-2023
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1359-2023
Methods for assessment of models
 | 
27 Feb 2023
Methods for assessment of models |  | 27 Feb 2023

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

Marine Bonazzola, Hélène Chepfer, Po-Lun Ma, Johannes Quaas, David M. Winker, Artem Feofilov, and Nick Schutgens

Related authors

A new method for diagnosing effective radiative forcing from aerosol–cloud interactions in climate models
Brandon M. Duran, Casey J. Wall, Nicholas J. Lutsko, Takuro Michibata, Po-Lun Ma, Yi Qin, Margaret L. Duffy, Brian Medeiros, and Matvey Debolskiy
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 2123–2146, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-2123-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-2123-2025, 2025
Short summary
Can general circulation models (GCMs) represent cloud liquid water path adjustments to aerosol–cloud interactions?
Johannes Mülmenstädt, Andrew S. Ackerman, Ann M. Fridlind, Meng Huang, Po-Lun Ma, Naser Mahfouz, Susanne E. Bauer, Susannah M. Burrows, Matthew W. Christensen, Sudhakar Dipu, Andrew Gettelman, L. Ruby Leung, Florian Tornow, Johannes Quaas, Adam C. Varble, Hailong Wang, Kai Zhang, and Youtong Zheng
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 13633–13652, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13633-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13633-2024, 2024
Short summary
Aerosol-cloud interactions in liquid-phase clouds under different meteorological and aerosol backgrounds
Jianqi Zhao, Xiaoyan Ma, and Johannes Quaas
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3662,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3662, 2024
Short summary
Sensitivity experiments with ICON-LAM to test probable explanations for higher ice crystal number over Arctic sea ice vs. ocean
Iris Papakonstantinou-Presvelou and Johannes Quaas
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3293,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3293, 2024
Short summary
Adjustments to an abrupt solar forcing in the CMIP6 abrupt-solm4p experiment
Charlotte Lange and Johannes Quaas
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3229,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3229, 2024
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

Bonazzola, M.: ATB CALIOP profiles, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7107232, 2022a. 
Bonazzola, M.: CALIOP SR profiles, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7107162, 2022b. 
Bonazzola, M. and Chepfer, H.: COSPv2.0: Adding lidar aerosol simulator, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7418199, 2022. 
Cesana, G. and Chepfer, H.: How well do climate models simulate cloud vertical structure? a comparison between CALIPSO-GOCCP satellite observations and CMIP5 models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L20803, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL053153, 2012. 
Cesana, G. and Chepfer, H.: Evaluation of the cloud water phase in a climate model using CALIPSO-GOCCP, J. Geophys. Res., 118, 7922–7937, https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50376, 2013. 
Download
Short summary
Aerosol has a large impact on climate. Using a lidar aerosol simulator ensures consistent comparisons between modeled and observed aerosol. We present a lidar aerosol simulator that applies a cloud masking and an aerosol detection threshold. We estimate the lidar signals that would be observed at 532 nm by the Cloud-Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization overflying the atmosphere predicted by a climate model. Our comparison at the seasonal timescale shows a discrepancy in the Southern Ocean.
Share