Journal Article

A Model Intercomparison Study of Aerosol‐Cloud‐Turbulence Interactions in a Cloud Chamber: 1. Model Results

Cantrell, Will, Dziekan, Piotr, Enokido, Kotaro, Schmalfuß, Silvio, Shaw, Raymond A., Chen, Sisi, Niedermeier, Dennis, Shima, Shin‐ichiro, Richter, David, MacMillan, Theodore, Yang, Fan, Krueger, Steven K., Anderson, Jesse C., Stratmann, Frank

2025

Overview

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. Plain Language Summary Understanding how tiny particles (aerosols) interact with clouds and turbulence is essential for improving weather forecasts and climate predictions, as these interactions play a crucial role in determining the properties and evolution of clouds. In this study, we compared different numerical cloud models that simulate these interactions within a controlled laboratory environment, the Pi Chamber at Michigan Technological University. We examined how these models simulated the formation and growth of cloud droplets when aerosols were injected at different rates into the chamber. Our findings show that while all models generally captured the expected trends in cloud droplet size and number concentrations, there were significant quantitative differences. These differences suggest that model results are sensitive to the different model treatments on how droplets are formed and removed, as well as how fluxes from the chamber walls are represented. Despite these differences, the models generally agreed on the overall relationships between aerosol amounts and cloud properties, matching laboratory observations. This study highlights the value of using cloud chamber experiments to test and improve these models. We suggest that to reduce model uncertainties, future research should focus on better defining the conditions at the chamber walls and investigating how particles are removed from the chamber. Key Points This study presents the first model intercomparison to study aerosol‐cloud‐turbulence interactions in a convection‐cloud chamber All models capture the observed microphysical response to varying aerosol injection rates, but large inter‐model discrepancies are present The study underscores the importance of laboratory experiments for validating and improving microphysical representation in cloud models

• Publisher: John Wiley & Sons, Inc,American Geophysical Union (AGU)
• Subject: Aerosols / aerosol‐cloud interactions / Boundary conditions / cloud chamber / Cloud chambers / Cloud microphysics / Clouds / Convection / DNS / Droplets / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES / Experiments / Geometry / Humidity profiles / Intercomparison / LES / Liquid water content / Microphysics / model intercomparison / Moisture content / Relative humidity / Simulation / Thermodynamics / Turbulence / Turbulence models / warm clouds / Water content