Accuracy of cloud parametrization in ECHAM5-HAM

Sjors Provoost Erik Methorst

s.provoost@phys.uu.nl e.w.a.methorst@phys.uu.nl
February 6, 2008

Abstract
We compare the cloud droplet number concentration (CDNC) prediction of the cloud processing pa-
rameterization developed by Roelofs e.a for the global aerosol-climate model ECHAM5-HAM, to a
microphysical cloud parcel model. We investigate under which circumstances their parametrization
needs some improvement. We find a good fit for aerosols in coarse mode, some deviation for accu-
mulation mode and more for Aitken mode. Updraft speeds below 0.25 m/s account for most of the
deviations, whereas aerosol radius and concentration or mass of the different components does not.
We also perform a sensitivity analysis of the cloud parcel model and suggest an alternative method
to create a parameterization.

1 Introduction ues. We obtained a set of 271 cloud samples

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report states that
the cloud albedo effect is the most uncertain con-
tribution to radiative forcing. Intensive research is
needed to allow accurate modelling of this effect in
global circulation models. This requires a greater
understanding of the application of microphysics
on a large spatial scale. At present large-scale
atmospheric models like ECHAM5-HAM cannot
simulate cloud microphysics in detail. This is be-
cause the spatial scales as well as the time scales in
global circulation models and cloud microphysics
models differ several orders of magnitude. To run
a large-scale atmospheric model in limited time, a
good parametrization is needed for the cloud mi-
crophysics.
Roelofs et al. (2006) developed a cloud process-
ing parametrization for the aerosol-climate model
ECHAM5-HAM. It uses aerosol size and chemical
composition to produce the cloud droplet num-
ber concentration (CDNC) value. The values for
the albedo and optical thickness are derived from
CDNC. Another way to determine the CDNC
value corresponding to a certain size and chem-
ical composition is to use a detailed microphysical
model, a cloud parcel model.
2 Method
We compare the CDNC values produced by the
paramterization in ECHAM5-HAM to the CDNC
values produced by the cloud parcel model, for
the same size and chemical composition input val-
from ECHAM5-HAM, in the simulated year 1979.
The output of each sample consists of the sim-
ulation date, the air density, the updraft speed
and for each mode the concentration of sulfer ox-
ides, organic carbons and sea salt. A mode is
size range for the aersols. It also contains the
cloud droplet number concentrations (CDNC) for
three modes i.e. Aitken (< 0.01µm), accumula-
tion (0.01 − 0.1µm) and coarse (1 − 10µm) mode.
We used Mathematica to import, process and ex-
port data and to make plots.
2.1 Compare ECHAM5-HAM to
CPM
The output parameters of ECHAM5-HAM were
compared to the cloud parcel model output.
These parameters are the air density, updraft
speed and concentrations of sulfer, organic car-
bon, sea salt in Aitken, accumulation and coase
mode. We calculate the ratio between the output
of ECHAM5-HAM and the cloud parcel model
and investigate which parameters are correlated
with deviations between the two models.
2.2 Sensitivity analysis of parcel
model
We choose 10 random samples from the GCM
output (see table 1) and performed a sensitivity
analyses on them. For each sample we studied
13 parameters (air density, updraft speed, sulfur
concentration in Aitken, accumulation and coarse
mode, organic carbon concentration in Aitken, ac-

1
cumulation and coarse mode, sea salt concentra-
tion in accumulation and coarse mode and num-
ber concentrations in Aitken, accumulation and
coarse mode). For each parameter we determined
its range by taking the minimum and maximum
values produced by ECHAM5-HAM. For this we
used all 271 samples and we ignored 5% of the
highest and lowest values. We varied each param-
eter in 100 exponentially increasing steps between
this minimum and maximum value, while keep-
ing all other parameters in the sample constant.
In this way we obtained for each sample 13 cross
sections of the parameter space.
3 Results
3.1 Compare ECHAM5-HAM to
CPM
Figure 1 shows the cloud droplet number concen-
tration (CDNC) for the three modes, as well as
all modes combined. It also shows the desired
1:1 ratio and the least square fit gradient for all
four seasons. Red colored lines and dots repre-
sent summer data, blue winter, green spring and
brown autumn data. In coarse mode the mean
ratio is well within the 0.5 - 2 range. The largest
deviation from the 1:1 ratio is the summer data
in coarse mode with a mean ratio of 0.85. The
other modi have a ratio significantly higher than
1, which means ECHAM5-HAM underestimates
CDNC values. The mode with the highest devia-
tions is the accumulation mode. Table 4 gives the
other mean ratios.
We seperated CDNC values of zero in the ratio
calculations. This mainly occurs for the CDNC in
Aitken mode, when all cloud droplets were formed
already within the accumulation and coarse mode.
Table 3 shows these data points. We ignored two
cloud samples from ECHAM5-HAM that caused
cloud parcel model run errors. The numerical in-
stability in these sets of parameters is beyond the
scope of our research.
We studied the values of the CDNC ratio out-
side the arbitrary range of 0.5 to 2 seperately. The
majority of this population has ratios higher than
5. The highest percentage of deviating ratios can
be found in summer i.e. 29.7% (see table 2). Also
in spring and autumn we find similar percentages.
Figure 2 shows the CDNC ratio as a function
of the updraft speed. For updraft speeds above
0.25 m/s the ratio is in the 0.5 - 2 range, but for
lower speeds a significant part of the ratios lies
between 2 and 4.
In figure 3 there appears to be no correlation
between the ratio and the aerosol radius. Also
2
a plot of the ratio and the differences in radius
between two modes (figure 4) shows no obvious
correlation.
To see whether the parametrization is sensi-
tive to a particular chemical component, we plot-
ted the fractions of chemical components in each
mode againt the ratio. No obvious distribution of
data is found, except for the sea salt fraction in the
accumulation mode. Sea salt fractions above 0.12
mainly yield ratios in the 0.5 - 2 range. When the
actual mass is plotted instead of fractions of the
chemical components, no clear distribution can be
seen.
3.2 Sensitivity analysis of model
The results are shown in figures 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.
Each color represents a different sample, table 1.
In the observed air density range (1.02 - 1.28
kg air m−3 ) the CDNC in each mode increases in
a linear fashion, figure 7. In aitken mode however,
figure 7(a), several samples show a discontinuity.
Figure 8 shows that updraft speed (0.001 - 1.1
ms−1 ) leads to a stepwise increase in CDNC in
the aitken mode, has no effect in the accumula-
tion mode and leads to a small increase in the
coarse mode.
Sulfur concentration, figure 9, has no effect on
the CDNC in the accumulation mode, little to no
effect on the CDNC in the coarse mode. However
CDNC in the aitken mode increases strongly with
the sulfur concentration in the aitken mode, fig-
ure 9(a), but decreases with sulfur concentration
in the accumulation mode as shown in figure 9(d).
Figure 10 shows that, similar to sulfur concen-
tration, the organic carbon concentration in the
aitken mode leads to an increase of CDNC in the
aitken mode, whereas the organic carbon concen-
tration in the accumulation mode leads to a de-
crease. However, the effects are much smaller.
Figure 11 shows that the effect of sea salt con-
centration is small compared to the effect of sulfur
and organic carbon.
Figure 12 shows the effect of the number con-
centration of each mode on the CDNC of each
mode. The effect of CDNC in the aitken mode
varies qualitatively per sample; for some sam-
ples it decreases, for others there appears to be
a parabolic relation. The CDNC in the aitken
mode decreases with number concetration in the
accumulation and coarse mode. The number con-
centration in the accumulation mode increases the
CDNC in the accumulation mode, but has no ef-
fect on the CDNC in the other modes. Finally,
the number concentration in the coarse mode in-
creases the CDNC in the coarse mode and also
has no effect on the other modes.
Color Red Blue Green Yellow Brown Cyan Orange Purple Pink Light blue
Zrho 1.222 1.104 1.055 1.118 1.208 1.245 1.219 1.181 1.124 1.076
Updraft 0.827 0.04 0.001 0.371 0.321 0.144 0.223 0.451 0.424 0.032
Sulfur Ait. 11.4 1.67 1.42 5.51 0.036 7.02 4.27 0.27 0.73 0.88
Sulfur Acc. 643 461 715 368 278 891 115 187 613 238
Sulfur Crs. 130 71 416 88 141 66 15 29 38 49
OC Aitken 23 5 10 44 18 68 0.8 24 19 4
OC Acc. 184 81 60 450 617 819 30 319 318 188
OC Coarse 42 28 51 41 74 64 13 59 28 64
SS Acc. 13 32 8 28 88 8 316 163 102 31
SS Coarse 1.38 1.55 0.7 1.03 5.43 1.77 1.53 6.62 5.07 5.0
Aitken conc 610 249 493 872 365 1576 32 350 429 174
Acc. conc. 159 121 101 362 275 626 48 165 201 173
Coarse conc 0.9 1.69 1.1 1 8.78 2.3 5.39 6.05 2.02 2.26

Table 1: 10 samples. Zrho is the air density in kg air m−3 . Updraft speed in ms−1 . Sulfur concentrations
are given per mode in 10−12 kg N H4 HSO4 kg−1 air. Organic carbon concentrations are given per mode
in 10−12 kg organic carbon kg−1 air. Sea salt concentrations are given in 10−12 kg sea salt kg−1 air for
accumulation mode and 10−9 kg sea salt kg−1 air for coarse mode. Number concentrations are given for each
mode in # aerosols cm−3 air.

Spring Summer Autumn Winter

Number of data points 63 64 77 66
Number outside 0.2 - 2 range 16 19 22 11
Percentage 25.4% 29.7% 28.6% 16.7%

Table 2: Ratios below 0.5 or above 2 for each season.

Spring Summer Autumn Winter

Aitken 40 39 48 43
Accumulation 0 0 1 1
Coarse 0 0 0 1
All modes 0 0 0 1

Table 3: Number of deleted data points because of zero values for each mode and all modes together in
each season.

Spring Summer Autumn Winter

Aitken 1.85 1.53 1.12 1.13
Accumulation 1.68 1.37 1.62 1.54
Coarse 1.01 0.85 1.06 1.07
All modes 1.68 1.38 1.61 1.51

Table 4: Mean ratio for each mode and all modes together for each season.

3
 CDNC_CPM CDNC_CPM

100
1000

10
500

1
200

0.1 100

50
0.01

CDNC_GCM 20 CDNC_GCM
0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0 50.0 100.0 1 5 10 50 100 500

(a) Aitken mode (b) Accumulation mode

CDNC_CPM CDNC_CPM

20.0
1000
10.0

5.0 500

2.0 200

1.0
100
0.5
50

0.2

CDNC_GCM CDNC_GCM
0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0 10 20 50 100 200 500

(c) Coarse mode (d) All modes

Figure 1: CDNC output from ECHAM5-HAM (GCM) versus the CPM. The dashed blue line is the 1:1
ratio.

Ratio CDNC
10.0

5.0

2.0

1.0

0.5

0.2 Updraft speed HmsL

0.10 0.150.20 0.30 0.50 0.70 1.00 1.502.00

Figure 2: The updraft speed versus the CDNC ratio.

4
Ratio CDNC Ratio CDNC
5.0 5.0

2.0 2.0

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.2 Aerosol radius HΜmL 0.2 Aerosol radius HΜmL

0.020 0.030 0.10 0.15

(a) Aitken mode (b) Accumulation mode

Ratio CDNC Ratio CDNC

5.0 5.0

2.0 2.0

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.2 Aerosol radius HΜmL 0.2 Aerosol radius HΜmL

0.30 0.50 0.70 1.00 0.015 0.020 0.030

(c) Coarse mode (d) All modes

Figure 3: The aerosol radius versus the CDNC ratio.

Ratio CDNC Ratio CDNC

5.0 5.0

3.0 3.0

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

∆ radius HΜmL ∆ radius HΜmL

0.10 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.50 0.70 1.00

(a) Aitken versus accumulation mode (b) Accumulation versus coarse mode

Figure 4: The differences in aerosol radius between modes versus the CDNC ratio.

5
 Ratio CDNC Ratio CDNC Ratio CDNC

5.0 5.0 5.0

3.0 3.0 3.0

2.0 2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0 1.0

Frac. Sulfur Frac. Sulfur Frac. Sulfur

0.05 0.10 0.20 0.50 1.00 0.30 0.50 0.70 1.00 0.005 0.010 0.050 0.100 0.500 1.000

(a) Sulfur in aitken mode (b) Sulfur in accumulation mode (c) Sulfur in coarse mode

Ratio CDNC Ratio CDNC Ratio CDNC

5.0 5.0 5.0

3.0 3.0 3.0

2.0 2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0 1.0

Frac. OC Frac. OC Frac. OC

0.10 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.50 0.70 1.00 0.005 0.010 0.050 0.100 0.500 0.001 0.002 0.005 0.010 0.020 0.050 0.100

(d) Organic carbon in aitken mode (e) Organic carbon in accumulation (f) Organic carbon in coarse mode
mode
Ratio CDNC Ratio CDNC

5.0 5.0

3.0 3.0

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

Frac. SS Frac. SS
0.02 0.05 0.10 0.20 0.50 1.00 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.20 0.50 1.00

(g) Sea salt in accumulation mode (h) Sea salt in coarse mode

Figure 5: Chemical composition versus the CDNC ratio. Fractions sea salt greater than 0.12 give ratios
between 0.5 and 2.

6
Ratio CDNC Ratio CDNC Ratio CDNC

5.0 5.0 5.0

3.0 3.0 3.0

2.0 2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0 1.0

Mass Sulfur Mass Sulfur Mass Sulfur

-12 -12 -12 -11 -11 -11 -10 -10 -10 -9 -9 -9 -8 -11 -11 -10 -10 -9 -9
1 ´ 10 2 ´ 10 5 ´ 10 1 ´ 10 2 ´ 10 5 ´ 10 1 ´ 10 2 ´ 10 5 ´ 10 1 ´ 10 2 ´ 10 5 ´ 10 1 ´ 10 1 ´ 10 5 ´ 101 ´ 10 5 ´ 10 1 ´ 10 5 ´ 10

(a) Sulfur in Aitken mode (b) Sulfur in accumulation mode (c) Sulfur in coarse mode

Ratio CDNC Ratio CDNC Ratio CDNC

5.0 5.0 5.0

3.0 3.0 3.0

2.0 2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0 1.0

Mass OC Mass OC Mass OC

-13 -12 -12 -11 -11 -11 -10 -9 -12 -11 -11 -10
5 ´ 10 1 ´ 10 5 ´ 10 1 ´ 10 5 ´ 10 10 10 10 5 ´ 10 1 ´ 10 5 ´ 10 1 ´ 10

(d) Organic carbon in Aitken mode (e) Organic carbon in accumulation (f) Organic carbon in coarse mode
mode
Ratio CDNC Ratio CDNC

5.0 5.0

3.0 3.0

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

Mass SS Mass SS
-10 -9 -8 -7 -10 -9 -8 -7
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

(g) Sea salt in accumulation mode (h) Sea salt in coarse mode

Figure 6: Mass of different chemical components versus the CDNC ratio.

700
10.0

100.0 500

50.0 5.0

300
ðaerosols m-3 air

ðaerosols m-3 air

ðaerosols m-3 air

10.0
200
2.0
5.0
150

100 1.0
1.0

0.5
0.5

1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25
Air density Hkg air m-3 L Air density Hkg air m-3 L Air density Hkg air m-3 L

(a) Aitken mode (b) accumulation mode (c) Coarse mode

Figure 7: Air density versus CDNC for ten different parameter values.

7
 700
10.0

100.0 500

50.0 5.0

300

ðaerosols m-3 air

ðaerosols m-3 air

ðaerosols m-3 air
10.0
200
2.0
5.0
150

100 1.0
1.0

0.5
0.5

0.001 0.005 0.010 0.050 0.100 0.500 1.000 0.001 0.005 0.010 0.050 0.100 0.500 1.000 0.001 0.005 0.010 0.050 0.100 0.500 1.000
Updraft speed HmsL Updraft speed HmsL Updraft speed HmsL

(a) Aitken mode (b) accumulation mode (c) Coarse mode

Figure 8: Updraft speed versus CDNC for ten different parameter values.

4 Conclusions and discussion coarse mode ) appear to have no effect and two pa-
rameters (organic carbon and sea salt concentra-
From the plots it is difficult to conclude which pa- tion in accumulation mode) little effect on CDNC
rameters affect the accuracy of the parametriza- in any of the modes. Also several parameters only
tion. Actually only one parameter, the updraft effect the CDNC in one mode. In the next analysis
speed, clearly correlates to a lower CDNC ra- one should take a closer look at the inner workings
tio deviation for higher wind speeds. This does of the model and the actual physics involved, to
not mean that the deviation is caused by just get a better estimate of the dimensions of param-
one parameter. Probably many parameters have eter space.
their specific influence on the CDNC, some more
We found many discontinuities in CDNC, but
than others. But a good start for improving
they may just be due to discretization within the
the parametrization would be to look at the low
cloud parcel model. If that is the case, it may be
wind speed range. Ultimately the full parameter
possible to create a parameterization of the entire
space should be searched for sensitive parameter
parameter space with a Taylor series. However
regions, but that will take a lot of time.
the parcel model may need to be modified to use
One must be careful not to overrate the com-
a more fine grained discretization.
pletely arbitrary 0.5 - 2 ratio range that we used
as a criterion in this research. How large a devia- We would like to see the creation of a parame-
tion from the 1:1 ratio is acceptable, depends on terization that is based on a state of the art cloud
two factors. First it depends on what one whishes parcel model, either the one studied in this re-
to know from the eventual ECHAM5-HAM model search or another one. It should make as little
runs. Second it depends on the, likely non linear, computation time saving assumptions as possible.
sensitivity of ECHAM5-HAM to inaccuracies in Next a large and well choosen set of parameter
the cloud parcel model parameterization. We rec- value combinations should be choosen. A very
ommend that future research attempts to answer large computer grid can be used to simulate each
these questions in a quantitative sense, so as to of these combination and report back the result.
create a clear criterion for the quality of a param- Based on these results, the next parameter value
eterization. combinations can be choosen, etc. The result can
Several things can learned from the sensitivity be compressed in something like a Taylor series
analysis of the parcel model. We believe that it and ECHAM5-HAM should use this series in stead
may be possible to create a better parametriza- of the current parameterization.
tion if one performs a large scale semi automatic We believe there is a large potential for im-
study of the full parameter space in a more effi- provement of cloud simulation and parameteri-
cient manner than presented above. We provide zation in distributed computing. Anderson and
several suggestions. Fedak (2006) show that for one large existing
We investigated thirteen parameters, but we distributed computing project the host pool of
did not look at the level of independence between 330.000 computers provides processing at a sus-
them. Therefore we can not state that the param- tained rate of 95.5 TFLOPS and a potential stor-
eter space is 13 dimensional. In fact, two param- age space of 7.74 Petabytes that can be accessed at
eters (sulfur and organic carbon concentration in 5.27 Terabytes per second. Because of the present

8
 700
10.0

100.0 500

50.0 5.0

300

ðaerosols m-3 air

ðaerosols m-3 air

ðaerosols m-3 air

10.0
200
2.0
5.0
150

100 1.0
1.0

0.5
0.5

-13 -13 -12 -12 -12 -13 -13 -12 -12 -12 -13 -13 -12 -12 -12
2 ´ 10 5 ´ 10 1 ´ 10 2 ´ 10 5 ´ 10 2 ´ 10 5 ´ 10 1 ´ 10 2 ´ 10 5 ´ 10 2 ´ 10 5 ´ 10 1 ´ 10 2 ´ 10 5 ´ 10
kg HNH4 L HSO4  kg air HAitkenL kg HNH4 L HSO4  kg air HAitkenL kg HNH4 L HSO4  kg air HAitkenL

(a) Sulfur concentration in Aitken (b) Sulfur concentration in Aitken (c) Sulfur concentration in Aitken
mode versus CDNC in Aitken mode. mode versus CDNC in accumulation mode versus CDNC in Coarse mode.
mode.
700
10.0

100.0 500

50.0 5.0

300
ðaerosols m-3 air

ðaerosols m-3 air

ðaerosols m-3 air

10.0
200
2.0
5.0
150

100 1.0
1.0

0.5
0.5

-10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -9 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -9 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -9
1.0 ´ 10 1.5 ´ 102.0 ´ 10 3.0 ´ 10 5.0 ´ 10 7.0 ´ 10 1.0 ´ 10 1.0 ´ 10 1.5 ´ 102.0 ´ 10 3.0 ´ 10 5.0 ´ 10 7.0 ´ 10 1.0 ´ 10 1.0 ´ 10 1.5 ´ 102.0 ´ 10 3.0 ´ 10 5.0 ´ 10 7.0 ´ 10 1.0 ´ 10
kg HNH4 L HSO4  kg air HAcc.L kg HNH4 L HSO4  kg air HAcc.L kg HNH4 L HSO4  kg air HAcc.L

(d) Sulfur concentration in accumu- (e) Sulfur concentration in accumula- (f) Sulfur concentration in accumu-
lation mode versus CDNC in Aitken tion mode versus CDNC in accumu- lation mode versus CDNC in Coarse
mode. lation mode. mode.
700
10.0

100.0 500

50.0 5.0

300
ðaerosols m-3 air

ðaerosols m-3 air

ðaerosols m-3 air

10.0
200
2.0
5.0
150

100 1.0
1.0

0.5
0.5

-11 -11 -11 -11 -11 -10 -10 -10 -11 -11 -11 -11 -11 -10 -10 -10 -11 -11 -11 -11 -11 -10 -10 -10
1.5 ´ 10
2.0 ´ 10 3.0 ´ 10 5.0 ´ 107.0 ´ 101.0 ´ 10 1.5 ´ 10
2.0 ´ 10 1.5 ´ 10
2.0 ´ 10 3.0 ´ 10 5.0 ´ 107.0 ´ 10 1.0 ´ 10 1.5 ´ 10
2.0 ´ 10 1.5 ´ 10
2.0 ´ 10 3.0 ´ 10 5.0 ´ 107.0 ´ 10 1.0 ´ 10 1.5 ´ 10
2.0 ´ 10
kg HNH4 L HSO4  kg air HCoarseL kg HNH4 L HSO4  kg air HCoarseL kg HNH4 L HSO4  kg air HCoarseL

(g) Sulfur concentration in Coarse (h) Sulfur concentration in Coarse (i) Sulfur concentration in Coarse
mode versus CDNC in Aitken mode. mode versus CDNC in accumulation mode versus CDNC in Coarse mode.
mode.

Figure 9: Sulfur volume fraction of each mode versus CDNC for ten different parameter values.

9
 700
10.0

100.0 500

50.0 5.0

300

ðaerosols m-3 air

ðaerosols m-3 air

ðaerosols m-3 air

10.0
200
2.0
5.0
150

100 1.0
1.0

0.5
0.5

-12 -11 -11 -11 -12 -11 -11 -11 -12 -11 -11 -11
5 ´ 10 1 ´ 10 2 ´ 10 5 ´ 10 5 ´ 10 1 ´ 10 2 ´ 10 5 ´ 10 5 ´ 10 1 ´ 10 2 ´ 10 5 ´ 10
-1 -1 -1
kg OC kg air HAitkenL kg OC kg air HAitkenL kg OC kg air HAitkenL

(a) Organic carbon concentration in (b) Organic carbon concentration in (c) Organic carbon concentration in
Aitken mode versus CDNC in Aitken Aitken mode versus CDNC in accu- Aitken mode versus CDNC in Coarse
mode. mulation mode. mode.
700
10.0

100.0 500

50.0 5.0

300
ðaerosols m-3 air

ðaerosols m-3 air

ðaerosols m-3 air

10.0
200
2.0
5.0
150

100 1.0
1.0

0.5
0.5

-10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10
1.0 ´ 10 1.5 ´ 102.0 ´ 10 3.0 ´ 10 5.0 ´ 10 7.0 ´ 10 1.0 ´ 10 1.5 ´ 102.0 ´ 10 3.0 ´ 10 5.0 ´ 10 7.0 ´ 10 1.0 ´ 10 1.5 ´ 102.0 ´ 10 3.0 ´ 10 5.0 ´ 10 7.0 ´ 10
-1 -1 -1
kg OC kg air HAcc.L kg OC kg air HAcc.L kg OC kg air HAcc.L

(d) Organic carbon concentration in (e) Organic carbon concentration in (f) Organic carbon concentration in
accumulation mode versus CDNC in accumulation mode versus CDNC in accumulation mode versus CDNC in
Aitken mode. accumulation mode. Coarse mode.
700
10.0

100.0 500

50.0 5.0

300
ðaerosols m-3 air

ðaerosols m-3 air

ðaerosols m-3 air

10.0
200
2.0
5.0
150

100 1.0
1.0

0.5
0.5

-11 -11 -11 -11 -11 -11 -10 -11 -11 -11 -11 -11 -11 -10 -11 -11 -11 -11 -11 -11 -10
1.0 ´ 10 1.5 ´ 10 2.0 ´ 10 3.0 ´ 10 5.0 ´ 10 7.0 ´ 10 1.0 ´ 10 1.0 ´ 10 1.5 ´ 10 2.0 ´ 10 3.0 ´ 10 5.0 ´ 10 7.0 ´ 10 1.0 ´ 10 1.0 ´ 10 1.5 ´ 10 2.0 ´ 10 3.0 ´ 10 5.0 ´ 10 7.0 ´ 10 1.0 ´ 10
-1 -1 -1
kg OC kg air HCoarseL kg OC kg air HCoarseL kg OC kg air HCoarseL

(g) Organic carbon concentration in (h) Organic carbon concentration in (i) Organic carbon concentration in
Coarse mode versus CDNC in Aitken Coarse mode versus CDNC in accu- Coarse mode versus CDNC in Coarse
mode. mulation mode. mode.

Figure 10: Organic carbon volume fraction of each mode versus CDNC for ten different parameter values.

10
 700
10.0

100.0 500

50.0 5.0

300

ðaerosols m-3 air

ðaerosols m-3 air

ðaerosols m-3 air

10.0
200
2.0
5.0
150

100 1.0
1.0

0.5
0.5

-11 -11 -11 -11 -11 -11 -10 -11 -11 -11 -11 -11 -11 -10 -11 -11 -11 -11 -11 -11 -10
1.0 ´ 10 1.5 ´ 10
2.0 ´ 10 3.0 ´ 10 5.0 ´ 107.0 ´ 101.0 ´ 10 1.0 ´ 10 1.5 ´ 10
2.0 ´ 10 3.0 ´ 10 5.0 ´ 107.0 ´ 101.0 ´ 10 1.0 ´ 10 1.5 ´ 10
2.0 ´ 10 3.0 ´ 10 5.0 ´ 107.0 ´ 101.0 ´ 10
-1 -1 -1
kg Sea Salt kg air HAcc.L kg Sea Salt kg air HAcc.L kg Sea Salt kg air HAcc.L

(a) Sea salt concentration in accumu- (b) Sea salt concentration in accumu- (c) Sea salt concentration in accumu-
lation mode versus CDNC in Aitken lation mode versus CDNC in accu- lation mode versus CDNC in Coarse
mode. mulation mode. mode.
700
10.0

100.0 500

50.0 5.0

300
ðaerosols m-3 air

ðaerosols m-3 air

ðaerosols m-3 air

10.0
200
2.0
5.0
150

100 1.0
1.0

0.5
0.5

-9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9
1.0 ´ 10 1.5 ´ 10
2.0 ´ 10 3.0 ´ 10 5.0 ´ 107.0 ´ 10 1.0 ´ 10 1.5 ´ 10
2.0 ´ 10 3.0 ´ 10 5.0 ´ 107.0 ´ 10 1.0 ´ 10 1.5 ´ 10
2.0 ´ 10 3.0 ´ 10 5.0 ´ 107.0 ´ 10
-1 -1 -1
kg Sea Salt kg air HCoarseL kg Sea Salt kg air HCoarseL kg Sea Salt kg air HCoarseL

(d) Sea salt concentration in Coarse (e) Sea salt concentration in Coarse (f) Sea salt concentration in Coarse
mode versus CDNC in Aitken mode. mode versus CDNC in accumulation mode versus CDNC in Coarse mode.
mode.

Figure 11: Sea salt volume fraction of each mode versus CDNC for ten different parameter values.

11
 700
10.0

100.0 500

50.0 5.0

300

ðaerosols m-3 air

ðaerosols m-3 air

ðaerosols m-3 air

10.0
200
2.0
5.0
150

100 1.0
1.0

0.5
0.5

150 200 300 500 700 1000 150 200 300 500 700 1000 150 200 300 500 700 1000
ðaerosols cm-3 air HAitkenL ðaerosols cm-3 air HAitkenL ðaerosols cm-3 air HAitkenL

(a) Number concentration in Aitken (b) Number concentration in Aitken (c) Number concentration in Aitken
mode versus CDNC in Aitken mode. mode versus CDNC in accumulation mode versus CDNC in Coarse mode.
mode.
700
10.0

100.0 500

50.0 5.0

300
ðaerosols m-3 air

ðaerosols m-3 air

ðaerosols m-3 air

10.0
200
2.0
5.0
150

100 1.0
1.0

0.5
0.5

100 150 200 300 500 100 150 200 300 500 100 150 200 300 500
ðaerosols cm-3 air HAccL ðaerosols cm-3 air HAccL ðaerosols cm-3 air HAccL

(d) Number concentration in accu- (e) Number concentration in accu- (f) Number concentration in accu-
mulation mode versus CDNC in mulation mode versus CDNC in ac- mulation mode versus CDNC in
Aitken mode. cumulation mode. Coarse mode.
700
10.0

100.0 500

50.0 5.0

300
ðaerosols m-3 air

ðaerosols m-3 air

ðaerosols m-3 air

10.0
200
2.0
5.0
150

100 1.0
1.0

0.5
0.5

1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 5.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 5.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 5.0
ðaerosols cm-3 air HCoarseL ðaerosols cm-3 air HCoarseL ðaerosols cm-3 air HCoarseL

(g) Number concentration in Coarse (h) Number concentration in Coarse (i) Number concentration in Coarse
mode versus CDNC in Aitken mode. mode versus CDNC in accumulation mode versus CDNC in Coarse mode.
mode.

Figure 12: Number concentration in each mode versus CDNC for ten different parameter values.

12
popularity of climate change, the easy to install
software for distributed computing and the large
percentage of people who have not heard about it
yet, we believe it is feasable to harnass a lot of
computer power at a very low cost for this pur-
pose.
References
D. Anderson and G. Fedak. The Computational
and Storage Potential of Volunteer Computing.
13
Proceedings of the IEEE International Sympo-
sium on Cluster Computing and the Grid (CC-
GRID06), 2006.
G. Roelofs, P. Stier, J. Feichter, E. Vignati,
and J. Wilson. Aerosol activation and cloud
processing in the global aerosol-climate model
ECHAM5-HAM. Atmospheric Chemistry and
Physics, 6(9):2389–2399, 2006.