A model intercomparison study of aerosol‐cloud‐turbulence interactions in a cloud chamber: 1. Model results
Chen, S., Krueger, S. K., Dziekan, P., Enokido, K., MacMillan, T., et al. (2025). A model intercomparison study of aerosol‐cloud‐turbulence interactions in a cloud chamber: 1. Model results. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2024MS004562
| Title | A model intercomparison study of aerosol‐cloud‐turbulence interactions in a cloud chamber: 1. Model results |
|---|---|
| Genre | Article |
| Author(s) | Sisi Chen, S. K. Krueger, P. Dziekan, K. Enokido, T. MacMillan, D. Richter, S. Schmalfuß, S. Shima, F. Yang, J. Anderson, W. Cantrell, D. Niedermeier, R. A. Shaw, F. Stratmann |
| Abstract | This study presents the first model intercomparison of aerosol‐cloud‐turbulence interactions in a controlled cloudy Rayleigh‐Bénard Convection chamber environment, utilizing the Pi Chamber at Michigan Technological University. We analyzed simulated cloud chamber‐averaged statistics of microphysics and thermodynamics in a warm‐phase, cloudy environment under steady‐state conditions at varying aerosol injection rates. Simulation results from seven distinct models (DNS, LES, and a 1D turbulence model) were compared. Our findings demonstrate that while all models qualitatively capture observed trends in droplet number concentration, mean radius, and droplet size distributions at both high and low aerosol injection rates, significant quantitative differences were observed. Notably, droplet number concentrations varied by over two orders of magnitude between models for the same injection rates, indicating sensitivities to the model treatments in droplet activation and removal and wall fluxes. Furthermore, inconsistencies in vertical relative humidity profiles and in achieving steady‐state liquid water content suggest the need for further investigation into the mechanisms driving these variations. Despite these discrepancies, the models generally reproduced consistent power‐law relationships between the microphysical variables. This model intercomparison underscores the importance of controlled cloud chamber experiments for validating and improving cloud microphysical parameterizations. Recommendations for future modeling studies are also highlighted, including constraining wall conditions and processes, investigating droplet/aerosol removal (including sidewall losses), and conducting simplified experiments to isolate specific processes contributing to model divergence and reduce model uncertainties. |
| Publication Title | Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems |
| Publication Date | Jul 1, 2025 |
| Publisher's Version of Record | https://doi.org/10.1029/2024MS004562 |
| OpenSky Citable URL | https://n2t.net/ark:/85065/d7qv3rz2 |
| OpenSky Listing | View on OpenSky |
| RAL Affiliations | HAP |