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

NeuralMie (v1.0): an aerosol optics emulator
Andrew Geiss and Po-Lun Ma
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1809–1827, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1809-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1809-2025, 2025
Short summary
The DOE E3SM version 2.1: overview and assessment of the impacts of parameterized ocean submesoscales
Katherine M. Smith, Alice M. Barthel, LeAnn M. Conlon, Luke P. Van Roekel, Anthony Bartoletti, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Chengzhu Zhang, Carolyn Branecky Begeman, James J. Benedict, Gautam Bisht, Yan Feng, Walter Hannah, Bryce E. Harrop, Nicole Jeffery, Wuyin Lin, Po-Lun Ma, Mathew E. Maltrud, Mark R. Petersen, Balwinder Singh, Qi Tang, Teklu Tesfa, Jonathan D. Wolfe, Shaocheng Xie, Xue Zheng, Karthik Balaguru, Oluwayemi Garuba, Peter Gleckler, Aixue Hu, Jiwoo Lee, Ben Moore-Maley, and Ana C. Ordoñez
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1613–1633, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1613-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1613-2025, 2025
Short summary
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

Related subject area

Atmospheric sciences
Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology (IITM) High-Resolution Global Forecast Model version 1: an attempt to resolve monsoon prediction deadlock
R. Phani Murali Krishna, Siddharth Kumar, A. Gopinathan Prajeesh, Peter Bechtold, Nils Wedi, Kumar Roy, Malay Ganai, B. Revanth Reddy, Snehlata Tirkey, Tanmoy Goswami, Radhika Kanase, Sahadat Sarkar, Medha Deshpande, and Parthasarathi Mukhopadhyay
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1879–1894, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1879-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1879-2025, 2025
Short summary
Cell-tracking-based framework for assessing nowcasting model skill in reproducing growth and decay of convective rainfall
Jenna Ritvanen, Seppo Pulkkinen, Dmitri Moisseev, and Daniele Nerini
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1851–1878, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1851-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1851-2025, 2025
Short summary
NeuralMie (v1.0): an aerosol optics emulator
Andrew Geiss and Po-Lun Ma
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1809–1827, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1809-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1809-2025, 2025
Short summary
Simulation performance of planetary boundary layer schemes in WRF v4.3.1 for near-surface wind over the western Sichuan Basin: a single-site assessment
Qin Wang, Bo Zeng, Gong Chen, and Yaoting Li
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1769–1784, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1769-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1769-2025, 2025
Short summary
FootNet v1.0: development of a machine learning emulator of atmospheric transport
Tai-Long He, Nikhil Dadheech, Tammy M. Thompson, and Alexander J. Turner
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1661–1671, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1661-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1661-2025, 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