Skip to content
Journal article

Adjoint sensitivity of global cloud droplet number to aerosol and dynamical parameters

Karydis V, Capps S, Russell A, Nenes A ...see all

Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, vol. 12, issue 19 (2012) pp. 9041-9055

  • 33

    Readers

    Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
  • 25

    Citations

    Citations of this article.
  • N/A

    Views

    ScienceDirect users who have downloaded this article.
Sign in to save reference

Abstract

We present the development of the adjoint of a comprehensive cloud droplet formation parameterization for use in aerosol-cloud-climate interaction studies. The ad-joint efficiently and accurately calculates the sensitivity of cloud droplet number concentration (CDNC) to all parame-terization inputs (e.g., updraft velocity, water uptake coeffi-cient, aerosol number and hygroscopicity) with a single ex-ecution. The adjoint is then integrated within three dimen-sional (3-D) aerosol modeling frameworks to quantify the sensitivity of CDNC formation globally to each parameter. Sensitivities are computed for year-long executions of the NASA Global Modeling Initiative (GMI) Chemical Trans-port Model (CTM), using wind fields computed with the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Global Circu-lation Model (GCM) II , and the GEOS-Chem CTM, driven by meteorological input from the Goddard Earth Observing System (GEOS) of the NASA Global Modeling and Assim-ilation Office (GMAO). We find that over polluted (pristine) areas, CDNC is more sensitive to updraft velocity and up-take coefficient (aerosol number and hygroscopicity). Over the oceans of the Northern Hemisphere, addition of anthro-pogenic or biomass burning aerosol is predicted to increase CDNC in contrast to coarse-mode sea salt which tends to decrease CDNC. Over the Southern Oceans, CDNC is most sensitive to sea salt, which is the main aerosol component of the region. Globally, CDNC is predicted to be less sensi-tive to changes in the hygroscopicity of the aerosols than in their concentration with the exception of dust where CDNC is very sensitive to particle hydrophilicity over arid areas. Re-gionally, the sensitivities differ considerably between the two frameworks and quantitatively reveal why the models differ considerably in their indirect forcing estimates.

Get free article suggestions today

Mendeley saves you time finding and organizing research

Sign up here
Already have an account ?Sign in

Find this document

Get full text

Authors

Cite this document

Choose a citation style from the tabs below