The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Global assessment of marine boundary layer cloud droplet number concentration from satellite
Abstract
Global satellite data are used to infer the droplet number concentration of marine boundary layer clouds. In a first step, two and a half years (July 2002 to December 2004) of Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS, on board NASA's Aqua satellite) level 3 data estimates of cloud effective radius and optical thickness are used to derive cloud droplet number concentration N and cloud geometrical thickness H under the assumption of adiabatically stratified clouds. Theoretical error estimates show that for a liquid water path higher than 30 g/m 2 and a cloud fraction higher than 0.8, H (N) can be derived with a relative uncertainty of better than 20% (80%). To further validate the estimates of N and H, cloud liquid water path is calculated and compared to independent observations of cloud liquid water path from the passive microwave Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR‐E), also on board Aqua. Good agreement between the two different data sets is found. In a second step, the global distribution of cloud droplet number concentration in stratiform boundary layer clouds is evaluated. The data are separated into observations that are likely to be drizzling and drizzle‐free using published relations between drizzle rate and N and H. It is found that the mean droplet number concentration over remote Northern Hemisphere oceans is higher than over the southern oceans (64–89 cm−3 in the Northern Hemisphere and 40–67 cm−3 in the Southern Hemisphere). Leeward of the major continents cloud droplet number concentration is generally high with maximum values close to the coasts. On the Southern Hemisphere, especially over the east Pacific Ocean, microphysical conditions were almost constant through the entire observation period. Over the southeast Atlantic Ocean, the cloud microphysical variability appears to be strongly influenced by the dry biomass burning season in Africa.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A well‐calibrated ocean algorithm for special sensor microwave / imager
Wentz, F. J. (1997) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans · doi:10.1029/96jc01751 · Cited by 837
Cited by
Wood, R., Mechoso, C. R., Bretherton, C. S., Weller, R. A., Huebert, B., Straneo, F., Albrecht, B. A., Coe, H., Allen, G., Vaughan, G., et al. (2011) · Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics · doi:10.5194/acp-11-627-2011 · Cited by 304
Lauer, A., Eyring, V., Hendricks, J., Jöckel, P., & Lohmann, U. (2007) · Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics · doi:10.5194/acp-7-5061-2007 · Cited by 234
Latham, J., Bower, K., Choularton, T., Coe, H., Connolly, P., Cooper, G., Craft, T., Foster, J., Gadian, A., Galbraith, L., et al. (2012) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1098/rsta.2012.0086 · Cited by 232
Wood, R. (2021) · Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics · doi:10.5194/acp-21-14507-2021 · Cited by 104
Metadata
- Authors
- Bennartz, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2007-01-18
- Volume
- 112
- Issue
- D2
- ISSN
- 0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2091803649
- Cited by
- 372
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 16.25
- 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: Global assessment of marine boundary layer cloud droplet number concentration from satellite. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2006jd007547
- The paper
- Bennartz, R. (2007). Global assessment of marine boundary layer cloud droplet number concentration from satellite. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006jd007547
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.