Dust Radiative Effects on Climate by Glaciating Mixed‐Phase Clouds

Yang, Shiguang; Liu, Xiaohong

doi:10.1029/2019gl082504

Cited by 46 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We also found dust INP abundance to be associated with optically thicker mixed‐phase clouds. This contrasts with the findings of Shi and Liu (2019), though that study assessed the impact of all dust INPs collectively, for which the ability of INPs to induce cloud liquid depletion was likely more prominent than for perturbations between more natural states. The ERFs reported here are both weaker and of the opposite sign as previously concluded in Sagoo and Storelvmo (2017).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 75%

Global Radiative Impacts of Mineral Dust Perturbations Through Stratiform Clouds

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Airborne mineral dust influences cloud occurrence and optical properties, which may provide a pathway for recent and future changes in dust concentration to alter the temperature at Earth's surface. However, despite prior suggestions that dust‐cloud interactions are an important control on the Earth's radiation balance, we find global mean cloud radiative effects to be insensitive to widespread dust changes. Here we simulate uniformly applied shifts in dust amount in a present‐day atmosphere using a version of the CAM5 atmosphere model (within CESM v1.2.2) modified to incorporate laboratory‐based ice nucleation parameterizations in stratiform clouds. Increasing and decreasing dustiness from current levels to paleoclimate extremes caused effective radiative forcings through clouds of +0.02 ± 0.01 and −0.05 ± 0.02 W/m2, respectively, with ranges of −0.26 to +0.13 W/m2 and −0.21 to +0.39 W/m2 from sensitivity tests. Our simulations suggest that these forcings are limited by several factors. Longwave and shortwave impacts largely cancel, particularly in mixed‐phase clouds, while in warm and cirrus clouds opposite responses between regions further reduce each global forcing. Additionally, changes in dustiness cause opposite forcings through aerosol indirect effects in mixed‐phase clouds as in cirrus, while in warm clouds indirect effects are weak at nearly all locations. Nevertheless, regional forcings and global impacts on longwave and shortwave radiation were found to be nonnegligible, suggesting that cloud‐mediated dust effects have significance in simulations of present and future climate.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 75%

Global Radiative Impacts of Mineral Dust Perturbations Through Stratiform Clouds

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Compared to Quaternary, MPWP likely has a lower atmospheric dust loading (Sagoo & Storelvmo, 2017), and enhanced emissions of greenhouse gases and particle precursors from vegetation and forest fire (Unger & Yue, 2014) due to its warm, moist, and more vegetated environment. Dust can promote cloud ice over cloud liquid formation (Shi & Liu, 2019) or a pure increase of cloud ice crystals (Sagoo & Storelvmo, 2017) in the mixed phase clouds. The dominancy of either effect can lead to a net warming (Shi & Liu, 2019) or cooling effect (Sagoo & Storelvmo, 2017) in response to increasing dust emission.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dust can promote cloud ice over cloud liquid formation (Shi & Liu, 2019) or a pure increase of cloud ice crystals (Sagoo & Storelvmo, 2017) in the mixed phase clouds. The dominancy of either effect can lead to a net warming (Shi & Liu, 2019) or cooling effect (Sagoo & Storelvmo, 2017) in response to increasing dust emission. With warm, moist, and forested Northern high latitudes, the emission and formation of greenhouse gases of methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide are expected to increase (Unger & Yue, 2014), yet the enhanced biogenic emissions of aerosol precursors and emergence of frequent boreal forest fire (Fletcher et al, 2019) may create a constant flux of aerosols into the troposphere and hence promote cloud formation, and reflection of sunlight (Tunved et al, 2006).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contributions of aerosol‐cloud interactions to mid‐Piacenzian seasonally sea ice‐free Arctic Ocean

Feng

Otto‐Bliesner

et al. 2019

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forcings and feedbacks controlling the seasonally sea ice‐free Arctic Ocean during the mid‐Piacenzian Warm period (3.264–3.025 Ma, MPWP), a period when CO2 level, geography, and topography were similar to present day, remain unclear given that many complex Earth System Models with comparatively higher skills at simulating twentieth century Arctic sea ice tend to produce perennial Arctic sea ice for this period. We demonstrate that explicitly simulating aerosol‐cloud interactions and the exclusion of industrial pollutants from model forcing conditions is key to simulating seasonally sea ice‐free Arctic Ocean of MPWP. The absence of industrial pollutants leads to fewer and larger cloud droplets over the high‐latitude Northern Europe and North Pacific, which allows greater absorption of solar radiation at the surface during the early summer. This enhanced absorption triggers the seasonally runaway sea ice surface albedo feedback that gives rise to September sea ice‐free Arctic Ocean and strongly amplified northern high‐latitude surface warmth.

show abstract

“…EAMv1, like 513 many other GCMs, underestimates the dust transport from mid-latitude sources and Arctic local 514 dust sources, and neglects biological aerosols. This leads to the substantial underestimation of 515 INP number concentrations over the Arctic (Shi & Liu, 2019). Such biases in modeled aerosols 516…”

Section: Impact Of Mg2 447mentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward Understanding the Simulated Phase Partitioning of Arctic Single-Layer Mixed-Phase Clouds in E3SM

Zhang¹,

Xie²,

Liu³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

 EAMv1 simulated Arctic single-layer mixed-phase clouds are overly dominated by 14 supercooled liquid with little ice produced; 15  Insufficient heterogeneous ice nucleation by CNT at warm temperatures is responsible 16 for the underestimation of cloud ice formation; 17  Lacking the ice phase processes in CLUBB and its interaction with stratiform cloud 18 microphysics limits the growth of cloud ice. 19Abstract 20Significant changes are found in the modeled phase partitioning of Arctic mixed-phase clouds in 21 the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) 22Atmosphere Model version 1 (EAMv1) compared to its predecessor, the Community 23Atmosphere Model version 5 (CAM5). In this study, we aim to understand how the changes in 24 modeled mixed-phase cloud properties are attributed to the updates made in the EAMv1 physical 25 parameterizations. Impacts of the Classical Nucleation Theory (CNT) ice nucleation scheme, the 26 Cloud Layer Unified By Binormals (CLUBB) parameterization, and updated Morrison and 27 Gettelman microphysical scheme (MG2) are examined. Sensitivity experiments using the short-28 term hindcast approach are performed to isolate the impact of these new features on simulated 29 mixed-phase clouds. Results are compared to the DOE's Atmospheric Radiation Measurement 30 (ARM) Mixed-Phase Arctic Cloud Experiment (M-PACE) observations. We find that mixed-31 phase clouds simulated in EAMv1 are overly dominated by supercooled liquid and cloud ice 32water is substantially underestimated. The individual change of physical parameterizations is 33 found to decrease cloud ice water mass mixing ratio in EAMv1 simulated single-layer mixed-34 phase clouds. A budget analysis of detailed cloud microphysical processes suggests that the lack 35 of ice particles that participate in the mass growth processes strongly inhibits the mass mixing 36 ratio of cloud ice. The insufficient heterogeneous ice nucleation at temperatures warmer than -37 15℃ in CNT and the negligible ice processes in CLUBB are primarily responsible for the 38 significant underestimation of cloud ice water content in the Arctic single-layer mixed-phase 39 clouds. 40 41 ESSOAr | https://doi.

show abstract

Dust Radiative Effects on Climate by Glaciating Mixed‐Phase Clouds

Cited by 46 publications

References 56 publications

Global Radiative Impacts of Mineral Dust Perturbations Through Stratiform Clouds

Global Radiative Impacts of Mineral Dust Perturbations Through Stratiform Clouds

Contributions of aerosol‐cloud interactions to mid‐Piacenzian seasonally sea ice‐free Arctic Ocean

Toward Understanding the Simulated Phase Partitioning of Arctic Single-Layer Mixed-Phase Clouds in E3SM

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About