Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Disproportionate control on aerosol burden by light rain

Abstract

Atmospheric aerosols are of great climatic and environmental importance due to their effects on the Earth’s radiative energy balance and air quality. Aerosol concentrations are strongly influenced by rainfall via wet removal. Global climate models have been used to quantify their climate and health effects. However, they commonly suffer from a well-known problem of ‘too much light rain and too little heavy rain’. The impact of simulated rainfall intensities on aerosol burden at the global scale is still unclear. Here we show that rainfall intensity has profound impacts on aerosol burden, and light rain has a disproportionate control on it. By improving the representation of convection, the light-rain (1–20 mm d−1) frequency in two state-of-the-art global climate models is reduced. As a result, the aerosol burden is increased globally, especially over the tropics and subtropics, by as much as 0.3 in aerosol optical depth in tropical rain belts. It is attributed to the dominant contribution of light rain to the accumulated wet removal by its frequent occurrence despite its weak intensity. The implication of these findings is that understanding the nature of aerosol scavenging by rainfall is critical to aerosol–climate interaction and its impact on climate.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Rainfall intensity spectrum and aerosol wet removal as functions of rain rates.
Fig. 2: Rainfall and wet removal amount.
Fig. 3: AOD at 550 nm.
Fig. 4: Changes of light-rain frequency.

Data availability

GPM data can be accessed online at https://pmm.nasa.gov/data-access/downloads/gpm. TRMM data are available from https://disc2.gesdisc.eosdis.nasa.gov/opendap/TRMM_L3/. MODIS data can be obtained at https://search.earthdata.nasa.gov and AERONET data are available at https://aeronet.gsfc.nasa.gov/new_web/data.html. The CAM and EAMv1 simulation data are provided in an open repository, Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4259554).

Code availability

The CESM1.2.1-CAM5.3 source code can be downloaded from the CESM official website: http://www2.cesm.ucar.edu. The E3SM-EAMv1 source code is available from the E3SM official website: https://e3sm.org/. The stochastic deep-convection code is available from the corresponding author upon request.

References

  1. 1.

    Abdul-Razzak, H. & Ghan, S. J. A parameterization of aerosol activation: 2. multiple aerosol types. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 105, 6837–6844 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Wang, Y., Liu, X., Hoose, C. & Wang, B. Different contact angle distributions for heterogeneous ice nucleation in the Community Atmospheric Model version 5. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 14, 10411–10430 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Wang, Y. & Liu, X. Immersion freezing by natural dust based on a soccer ball model with the Community Atmospheric Model version 5: climate effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 124020 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Carslaw, K. et al. A review of natural aerosol interactions and feedbacks within the Earth system. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10, 1701–1737 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Raes, F., Liao, H., Chen, W. T. & Seinfeld, J. H. Atmospheric chemistry–climate feedbacks. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 115, D12121 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Myhre, G. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) Ch. 8 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  7. 7.

    Boucher, O. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 571–657 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  8. 8.

    Forouzanfar, M. H. et al. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks in 188 countries, 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet 386, 2287–2323 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Xing, Y., Xu, Y., Shi, M. & Lian, Y. The impact of PM2.5 on the human respiratory system. J. Thorac. Dis. 8, 69–74 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Chowdhury, S., Dey, S. & Smith, K. R. Ambient PM2.5 exposure and expected premature mortality to 2100 in India under climate change scenarios. Nat. Commun. 9, 318 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Park, S., Allen, R. J. & Lim, C. H. A likely increase in fine particulate matter and premature mortality under future climate change. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 13, 143–151 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Silva, R. A. et al. Future global mortality from changes in air pollution attributable to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 647–651 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Rasch, P. J., Barth, M. C., Kiehl, J. T., Schwartz, S. E. & Benkovitz, C. M. A description of the global sulfur cycle and its controlling processes in the National Center for Atmospheric Research community climate model, version 3. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 105, 1367–1385 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Jacob, D. J. & Winner, D. A. Effect of climate change on air quality. Atmos. Environ. 43, 51–63 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Fang, Y. et al. The impacts of changing transport and precipitation on pollutant distributions in a future climate. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 116, D18303 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Mahowald, N., Albani, S., Engelstaedter, S., Winckler, G. & Goman, M. Model insight into glacial–interglacial paleodust records. Quat. Sci. Rev. 30, 832–854 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Racherla, P. N. & Adams, P. J. Sensitivity of global tropospheric ozone and fine particulate matter concentrations to climate change. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 111, D24103 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Avise, J. et al. Attribution of projected changes in summertime US ozone and PM2.5 concentrations to global changes. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 9, 1111–1124 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Kirtman, B. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 953–1028 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  20. 20.

    Ackerley, D., Highwood, E. J., Frame, D. J. & Booth, B. B. Changes in the global sulfate burden due to perturbations in global CO2 concentrations. J. Clim. 22, 5421–5432 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Kloster, S. et al. A GCM study of future climate response to aerosol pollution reductions. Clim. Dyn. 34, 1177–1194 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Xu, Y. & Lamarque, J.-F. Isolating the meteorological impact of 21st century GHG warming on the removal and atmospheric loading of anthropogenic fine particulate matter pollution at global scale. Earths Future 6, 428–440 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Allen, R. J., Landuyt, W. & Rumbold, S. T. An increase in aerosol burden and radiative effects in a warmer world. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 269–274 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Allen, R. J., Hassan, T., Randles, C. A. & Su, H. Enhanced land–sea warming contrast elevates aerosol pollution in a warmer world. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 300–305 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Golaz, J.-C. et al. Sensitivity of the aerosol indirect effect to subgrid variability in the cloud parameterization of the GFDL atmosphere general circulation model AM3. J. Clim. 24, 3145–3160 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Jing, X. & Suzuki, K. The impact of process‐based warm rain constraints on the aerosol indirect effect. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 10729–10737 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Na, Y., Fu, Q. & Kodama, C. Precipitation probability and its future changes from a global cloud-resolving model and CMIP6 simulations. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 125, e2019JD031926 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Wang, Y., Zhang, G. J. & Craig, G. C. Stochastic convective parameterization improving the simulation of tropical precipitation variability in the NCAR CAM5. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 6612–6619 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Wang, Y., Zhang, G. J. & He, Y. J. Simulation of precipitation extremes using a stochastic convective parameterization in the NCAR CAM5 under different resolutions. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 122, 12875–12891 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Wang, Y., Zhang, G. J. & Jiang, Y. J. Linking stochasticity of convection to large-scale vertical velocity to improve Indian summer monsoon simulation in the NCAR CAM5. J. Clim. 31, 6985–7002 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Dai, A. Precipitation characteristics in eighteen coupled climate models. J. Clim. 19, 4605–4630 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Deng, Y., Bowman, K. P. & Jackson, C. Differences in rain rate intensities between TRMM observations and community atmosphere model simulations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L01808 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Wang, Y. & Zhang, G. J. Global climate impacts of stochastic deep convection parameterization in the NCAR CAM 5. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 8, 1641–1656 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Plant, R. & Craig, G. C. A stochastic parameterization for deep convection based on equilibrium statistics. J. Atmos. Sci. 65, 87–105 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Zhang, G. J. & McFarlane, N. A. Sensitivity of climate simulations to the parameterization of cumulus convection in the Canadian Climate Centre general circulation model. Atmos. Ocean 33, 407–446 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Neale, R. B., Richter, J. H. & Jochum, M. The impact of convection on ENSO: from a delayed oscillator to a series of events. J. Clim. 21, 5904–5924 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Park, S. & Bretherton, C. S. The University of Washington shallow convection and moist turbulence schemes and their impact on climate simulations with the Community Atmosphere Model. J. Clim. 22, 3449–3469 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Bretherton, C. S. & Park, S. A new moist turbulence parameterization in the Community Atmosphere Model. J. Clim. 22, 3422–3448 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Morrison, H. & Gettelman, A. A new two-moment bulk stratiform cloud microphysics scheme in the Community Atmosphere Model, version 3 (CAM3). Part I: description and numerical tests. J. Clim. 21, 3642–3659 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Iacono, M. J. et al. Radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases: calculations with the AER radiative transfer models. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 113, D13103 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Liu, X. et al. Toward a minimal representation of aerosols in climate models: description and evaluation in the Community Atmosphere Model CAM5. Geosci. Model Dev. 5, 709–739 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Xie, S. et al. Understanding cloud and convective characteristics in version 1 of the E3SM atmosphere model. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 10, 2618–2644 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Zhang, Y. et al. Evaluation of clouds in version 1 of the E3SM atmosphere model with satellite simulators. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 11, 1253–1268 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Golaz, J.-C., Larson, V. E. & Cotton, W. R. A PDF-based model for boundary layer clouds. Part I: method and model description. J. Atmos. Sci. 59, 3540–3551 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Larson, V. E. & Golaz, J.-C. Using probability density functions to derive consistent closure relationships among higher-order moments. Mon. Weather Rev. 133, 1023–1042 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Gettelman, A., Morrison, H., Santos, S., Bogenschutz, P. & Caldwell, P. Advanced two-moment bulk microphysics for global models. Part II: global model solutions and aerosol–cloud interactions. J. Clim. 28, 1288–1307 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Liu, X. et al. Description and evaluation of a new four-mode version of the modal aerosol module (MAM4) within version 5.3 of the Community Atmosphere Model. Geosci. Model Dev. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-505-2016 (2016).

  48. 48.

    Rasch, P. et al. An overview of the atmospheric component of the energy exascale Earth system model. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 11, 2377–2411 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Hsu, J. & Prather, M. J. Stratospheric variability and tropospheric ozone. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 114, D06102 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    McLinden, C. et al. Stratospheric ozone in 3-D models: a simple chemistry and the cross‐tropopause flux. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 105, 14653–14665 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China grants 2017YFA0604000 and the National Natural Science Foundation of China grants 41975126 and 41605074. G.J.Z. is supported by the US Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research Program (BER) under award numbers DE-SC19373 and DE-SC0016504. Part of the E3SM model simulation was done during Y.W.’s visit to LLNL. Work at LLNL was performed under the auspices of the US DOE by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract no. DE-AC52-07NA27344. S.X., X.L. and Q.T. are supported by the DOE Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) project and H.-Y.M. is funded by the DOE Regional and Global Model Analysis program area (RGMA) and ASR’s Cloud-Associated Parameterizations Testbed (CAPT) project. This research used resources of the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, a DOE Office of Science User Facility supported by the Office of Science of the US DOE under contract no. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Y.W. and G.J.Z. conceived the idea and led the study. S.X. contributed to the initial research plan. Y.W. conducted the model simulations. Y.W. and W.X. performed the analysis. Y.W., G.J.Z. and S.X. interpreted the results. Y.W. and G.J.Z. wrote the paper with contributions from X.L. and S.X. All authors participated in the revision and editing of the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guang J. Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Geoscience thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editors: Clare Davis; Xujia Jiang.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Convective and large-scale rainfall intensity spectrum.

Frequency distributions of (a) convective and (b) large-scale rainfall intensity over the tropics (20°S-20°N) in the CAM5 and STOC runs respectively.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Occurrence frequency of rainfall as functions of rain rates.

Frequency distributions of (a) total, (b) convective and (c) large-scale rainfall intensity over the tropics (20°S-20°N). Results from Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM), Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM), EAMv1 and EAMv1_STOC are denoted by gray, black, blue and red lines respectively.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Rainfall and wet removal amount.

Amount distributions of (a) total rainfall and (b) wet removal of all aerosols by different rainfall intensities over (20°N, 50°N). GPM, TRMM, CAM5 and STOC are denoted by gray, black, blue and red lines, respectively. The total rainfall rate in the range from 0.1 to 1000 mm d−1 is logarithmically scaled, with equal bin width of \({\Delta}\ln \left( R \right) = {\Delta}R/R = 0.1\). Numbers in parentheses are regional mean aerosol wet deposition rates, which equal areas under respective curves.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Contributions of wet removal for different aerosol species.

Contributions of wet removal by different rainfall intensities to the total wet removal for (a) sulfate, (b) sea salt, (c) dust, (d) black carbon, (e) POM and (f) SOA in the CAM5 (blue) and STOC (red) runs.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Cumulative contributions of wet removal for different aerosol species.

Cumulative contributions of wet removal by different rainfall intensities to the total wet removal for (a) sulfate, (b) sea salt, (c) dust, (d) black carbon, (e) POM and (f) SOA in the CAM5 (blue) and STOC (red) runs.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Contributions of wet removal for different aerosol species.

Same as Extended Data Fig. 4, but for the EAMv1 (blue) and EAMv1_STOC (red) runs.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Cumulative contributions of wet removal for different aerosol species.

Same as Extended Data Fig. 5, but for the EAMv1 (blue) and EAMv1_STOC (red) runs.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Aerosol lifetime.

Aerosol lifetime (days) and relative changes (%) between the CAM5 and STOC simulations for different aerosol species.

Extended Data Fig. 9 Comparison of simulated aerosol optical depth with observations.

Observed and simulated AOD at AERONET sites over (a) (30°N-60°N) and (b) (60°N-90°N). Circles represent the modeled AOD average in each AERONET observed AOD bin with an interval of 0.05.

Extended Data Fig. 10 Changes in rainfall and light rain frequency.

Global distributions of changes in (a) total, (b) convective, (c) large-scale rainfall and (d) the occurrence frequency of total rainfall intensity smaller than 10 mm d−1 between the STOC and CAM5 runs. Areas in (a–c) exceeding 95% t-test confidence level are stippled.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Table 1 and Figs. 1–4.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, Y., Xia, W., Liu, X. et al. Disproportionate control on aerosol burden by light rain. Nat. Geosci. 14, 72–76 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-00675-z

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing