<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="no"?>
<!DOCTYPE article SYSTEM "http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/inc/acpd/copernicus.dtd">
<article language="en">
	<journal>
		<journal_title>Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions</journal_title>
		<journal_url>www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net</journal_url>
		<issn>1680-7367</issn>
		<eissn>1680-7375</eissn>
		<volume_number>6</volume_number>
		<issue_number>1</issue_number>
		<publication_year>2006</publication_year>
	</journal>
	<doi>10.5194/acpd-6-1579-2006</doi>
	<article_url>http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/6/1579/2006/</article_url>
	<abstract_html>http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/6/1579/2006/acpd-6-1579-2006.html</abstract_html>
	<fulltext_pdf>http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/6/1579/2006/acpd-6-1579-2006.pdf</fulltext_pdf>
	<start_page>1579</start_page>
	<end_page>1617</end_page>
	<publication_date>2006-02-28</publication_date>
	<article_title content_type="html">Model intercomparison of indirect aerosol effects</article_title>
	<authors>
		<author numeration="1" affiliations="1">
			<name>J. E. Penner</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="2" affiliations="2,6">
			<name>J. Quaas</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="3" affiliations="3">
			<name>T. Storelvmo</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="4" affiliations="4">
			<name>T. Takemura</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="5" affiliations="5,7">
			<name>O. Boucher</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="6" affiliations="1">
			<name>H. Guo</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="7" affiliations="3">
			<name>A. Kirkevåg</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="8" affiliations="3">
			<name>J. E. Kristjánsson</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="9" affiliations="3">
			<name>Ø. Seland</name>
		</author>
	</authors>
	<affiliations>
		<affiliation numeration="1" content_type="html">University of Michigan, Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences, Ann Arbor, USA</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="2" content_type="html">Laboratoire de M&amp;eacute;t&amp;eacute;orologie Dynamique, CNRS/Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, 4, place Jussieu, 75005 Paris, France</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="3" content_type="html">University of Oslo, Department of Geosciences, Oslo, Norway</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="4" content_type="html">Research Institute for Applied Mechanics, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="5" content_type="html">Laboratoire d’Optique Atmosph&amp;eacute;rique, CNRS / Universite de Lille I, 59655 Villeneuve d’Ascq Cedex, France</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="6" content_type="html">now at: Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Bundesstraße 53, Hamburg, Germany</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="7" content_type="html">now at: Hadley Centre, Met Office, FitzRoy Road, Exeter EX1 3PB, UK</affiliation>
	</affiliations>
	<abstract content_type="html">Modeled differences in predicted effects are increasingly used to help
quantify the uncertainty of these effects. Here, we examine modeled
differences in the aerosol indirect effect in a series of experiments that
help to quantify how and why model-predicted aerosol indirect forcing varies
between models. The experiments start with an experiment in which aerosol
concentrations, the parameterization of droplet concentrations and the
autoconversion scheme are all specified and end with an experiment that
examines the predicted aerosol indirect forcing when only aerosol sources
are specified. Although there are large differences in the predicted liquid
water path among the models, the predicted aerosol indirect effect for the
first experiment is rather similar. Changes to the autoconversion scheme can
lead to large changes in the liquid water path of the models and to the
response of the liquid water path to changes in aerosols. Nevertheless,
these changes do not necessarily lead to large changes in the radiative
forcing. The parameterization of cloud fraction within models is not
sensitive to the aerosol concentration, and, therefore, the response of the
modeled cloud fraction within the present models appears to be smaller than
that which would be associated with model &apos;&apos;noise&apos;&apos;. The prediction of
aerosol concentrations, given a fixed set of sources, leads to some of the
largest differences in the predicted aerosol indirect radiative forcing
among the models. Thus, this aspect of modeling requires significant
improvement in order to improve the prediction of aerosol indirect effects.</abstract>
	<references>
	</references>
</article>

