Abstract:Current global aerosol models use different physical and chemical schemes and parameters, different meteorological fields, and often different emission sources. Since the physical and chemical parameterization schemes are often tuned to obtain results that are consistent with observations, it is difficult to assess the true uncertainty due to meteorology alone. Under the framework of the NASA global modeling initiative (GMI), the differences and uncertainties in aerosol simulations (for sulfate, organic carbon, black carbon, dust, and sea salt) solely due to different meteorological fields are analyzed and quantified. Three meteorological data sets available from the NASA Goddard Data Assimilation Office (DAO) general circulation model (GCM), the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) GCM, version II' and the NASA Goddard Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (GMAO), finite‐volume GCM (FVGCM) are used to drive the same aerosol model. The global sulfate and mineral dust burdens with FVGCM fields are 40% and 20% less than those with DAO and GISS fields, respectively, due to its larger precipitation. Meanwhile, the sea salt burden predicted with FVGCM fields is 56% and 43% higher than those with DAO and GISS, respectively, due to its stronger convection especially over the Southern Hemispheric Ocean. Sulfate concentrations at the surface in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics and in the middle to upper troposphere differ by a factor of 3 between the three meteorological data sets. The agreement between model calculated and observed aerosol concentrations in the surface source regions is similar for all three meteorological data sets. Away from the source regions, however, the comparisons with observations differ greatly for DAO, FVGCM, and GISS, and the performance of the model using different meteorological data sets varies depending on the site and the compared species. Sensitivity simulations with the NASA GEOS‐4 assimilated fields show that the interannual variability of aerosol concentrations can be higher than a factor of 2 depending on the location and season, which is generally, however, smaller than the differences due to using different meteorological data sets. Global annual average aerosol optical depth at 550 nm is 0.120–0.131 for the three meteorological data sets. However, the contributions from different aerosol components to this total optical depth differ significantly, which reflects differences in the aerosol spatial distributions. The global annual average anthropogenic and all‐sky aerosol direct forcing at the top‐of‐the atmosphere is estimated to be −0.75, −0.35, and −0.40 W m−2 for DAO, FVGCM, and GISS fields, respectively. Regional differences can be much larger (by a factor of 4–5) in the tropics over the ocean and in the polar regions.

Quantify contribution of aerosol errors to cloud fraction biases in CMIP5 AMIP simulations: Contribution of AOD simulation errors to CMIP5 AMIP model CF biases

Quantify contribution of aerosol errors to cloud fraction biases in CMIP5 Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project simulations

Biases of Aerosol Simulation in the AerChemMIP Models over China and Impact of Emission Uncertainties

Emission or Atmospheric Processes? an Attempt to Attribute the Source of Large Bias of Aerosols in Eastern China Simulated by Global Climate Models

Compensating Errors in Cloud Radiative and Physical Properties over the Southern Ocean in the CMIP6 Climate Models

Assessment of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) Model Performance in Simulating the Spatial-Temporal Variation of Aerosol Optical Depth over Eastern Central China

A Simplified Method for Retrieving Aerosol Optical Thickness Using Visibility Data Between 1980 and 2014, A Case Study in China.

Improvement of inorganic aerosol component in PM2.5 by constraining aqueous-phase formation of sulfate in cloud with satellite retrievals: WRF-Chem simulations

Assessment of AOD by 16 CMIP6 Models Based on Satellite-Derived Dataset from 2000-2014 over Eastern Center China

Comparisons and Evaluation of Aerosol Burden and Optical Depth in CMIP5 Simulations over East Asia

Diagnosing the Model Bias in Simulating Daily Surface Ozone Variability Using a Machine Learning Method: the Effects of Dry Deposition and Cloud Optical Depth

Incorrect Asian Aerosols Affecting the Attribution and Projection of Regional Climate Change in CMIP6 Models

Satellite-based Estimate of the Variability of Warm Cloud Properties Associated with Aerosol and Meteorological Conditions

Model Bias in Simulating Major Chemical Components of PM2.5 in China

Strong Aerosol Effects on Cloud Amount Based on Long‐Term Satellite Observations over the East Coast of the United States

Uncertainties in Global Aerosol Simulations: Assessment Using Three Meteorological Data Sets

Aerosol as a critical factor causing forecast biases of air temperature in global numerical weather prediction models

Model bias in simulating major chemical components of PM<sub>2.5</sub> in China

Evaluating the Impacts of Cloud Microphysical and Overlap Parameters on Simulated Clouds in Global Climate Models

The role of anthropogenic aerosols in the anomalous cooling from 1960 to 1990 in the CMIP6 Earth system models

Evaluation of Modeled Surface Ozone Biases As a Function of Cloud Cover Fraction