Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 242

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Analysis of smoke impact on clouds in Brazilian biomass burning regions: An extension of Twomey's approach

Feingold, Graham, Remer, Lorraine A., Ramaprasad, Jaya, Kaufman, Yoram J.·2001·Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

Abstract

Satellite remote sensing of smoke aerosol‐cloud interaction during the recent Smoke, Clouds, and Radiation‐Brazil (SCAR‐B) experiment is analyzed to explore the factors that determine the magnitude of the cloud response to smoke aerosol. Analysis of 2 years worth of data revealed that the response is greatest in the north of Brazil where aerosol optical depth is smallest, and tends to decrease as one moves southward, and as aerosol optical depth increases. Saturation in this response occurs at an aerosol optical depth of 0.8 in 1987 and 0.4 in 1995. To explore the reasons for this, a framework is developed in which the satellite‐measured response can be compared to simple analytical models of this response and to numerical models of smoke aerosol‐cloud interaction. Three types of response are identified: (1) cloud droplet concentrations increase with increasing aerosol loading, followed by saturation in the response at high concentrations; (2) as in type 1, followed by increasing droplet concentrations with further increases in aerosol loading. This increase in droplet concentration is due to the suppression of supersaturation by abundant large particles, which prevents the activation of smaller particles. This enables renewed activation of larger particles when smoke loadings exceed some threshold; (3) as in type 1, followed by a decrease in droplet number concentrations with increasing aerosol loading as intense competition for vapor evaporates the smaller droplets. The latter implies an unexpected increase in drop size with increasing smoke loading. The conditions under which each of these responses are expected to occur are discussed. It is shown that although to first‐order smoke optical depth is a good proxy for aerosol indirect forcing, under some conditions the size distribution and hygroscopicity can be important factors. We find no evidence that indirect forcing depends on precipitable water vapor.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/2001jd000732

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 242

Metadata

Authors
Feingold, G., Remer, L. A., Ramaprasad, J., & Kaufman, Y. J.
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
Published
2001-10
Volume
106
Issue
D19
Pages
22907-22922
ISSN
0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2080354714
Cited by
242
References
2
FWCI
5.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Analysis of smoke impact on clouds in Brazilian biomass burning regions: An extension of Twomey's approach. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2001jd000732
The paper
Feingold, G., Remer, L. A., Ramaprasad, J., & Kaufman, Y. J. (2001). Analysis of smoke impact on clouds in Brazilian biomass burning regions: An extension of Twomey's approach. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001jd000732

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.