Aerosols results from NorESM2.0 through NorESM2.3 until NorESM2.5

[oyvindseland]

I have compared aerosols in NorESM2.0, NorESM2.3 and NorESM2.5 and tried to understand some of the differences.
https://ns2345k.web.sigma2.no/datalake/oyvinds/ModIvsModII/N1850frc2.f09_tn14_checkaer2.3.20240909vsN1850frc2_f09_tn14_20191001/ModIvsModII.htm (NorESM2.3 vs NorESM2.0)
and
https://ns2345k.web.sigma2.no/datalake/oyvinds/ModIvsModII/n1850.ne30_tn14.hybrid.20240822vsN1850frc2.f09_tn14_checkaer2.3.20240909/ModIvsModII.htm

The changes in aerosols from NorESM2.0 to NorESM2.3 is an increase in the column burden of sea-salt and mineral dust (30 and 60 %) This is likely mostly connected to the error in dry deposition in NorESM2.0 but there is also a 10 % increase in mineral dust emissions.
The changes in column burden of sulphur and BC aerosols as well as concentration of SO2 is very small both with respect to column burden and zonal averages.
OM column burden is reduced by 10 % without any obvious explanation. There is also a decrease in cloud ice.

Going to NorESM2.5 both there is a doubling of both mineral dust emissions and burden, i.e. no global change in lifetime.
Seasalt burden increase less than the emissions increase (20 vs 40 %)

As seen earlier when comparing 2.0 and 2.5 there is a large increase in SO2 and sulphate burden. My main hypothesis is till that there is something going on in aqueous phase chemistry, but at least it is not caused by the rewriting of the aerosol code.

There is also 30 % increase in organic matter. A large part of is likely caused by an increase in BVOC emissions. Is it possible that just as for mineral dust there may be some regridding issues?

[mvertens]

@oyvindseland - what do you mean by regridding issues? Can you clarify.

[oyvindseland]

If I did not misunderstood what Rosie said, there is a number of inputdata that had to be regridded, e.g. specified phenology and soil types? which did not match entirely to each other due to regridding issues?

[mvertens]

@Øyvind Seland ***@***.***> - this would only be relevant for the FATES run I believe. Maybe a chat would be helpful. man. 16. sep. 2024 kl. 13:31 skrev oyvindseland ***@***.***>:

…

If I did not misunderstood what Rosie said, there is a number of inputdata that had to be regridded, e.g. specified phenology and soil types? which did not match entirely to each other due to regridding issues? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#563 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB4XCE6UFGFKAGAJTM4E5XDZW26SXAVCNFSM6AAAAABOJBBH6WVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43URDJONRXK43TNFXW4Q3PNVWWK3TUHMYTANRVHA2DONA> . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[oyvindseland]

Can join a chat , although if it is just a misunderstanding on my part and a very vague one to boot, it likely need more checking before it can be wrked on.
I think that the main outcome of my simulation is that the main changes in aerosols from 2.0 to 2.3 can be explained so surprising results in 2.5 comes from the update from 2.3 to 2.5, i.e increase in emissions of mineral (dust and BVOC) as well as the strong increase in the concentration of SO2 and SO4.