Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 940

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Improving our fundamental understanding of the role of aerosol−cloud interactions in the climate system

Open access
Seinfeld, John H., Bretherton, Christopher, Carslaw, Kenneth S., Coe, Hugh, DeMott, Paul J., Dunlea, Edward J., Feingold, Graham, Ghan, Steven, Guenther, Alex B., Kahn, Ralph, Kraucunas, Ian, Kreidenweis, Sonia M., Molina, Mario J., Nenes, Athanasios, Penner, Joyce E., Prather, Kimberly A., Ramanathan, V., Ramaswamy, Venkatachalam, Rasch, Philip J., Ravishankara, A. R., Rosenfeld, Daniel, Stephens, Graeme, Wood, Robert·2016·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

The effect of an increase in atmospheric aerosol concentrations on the distribution and radiative properties of Earth’s clouds is the most uncertain component of the overall global radiative forcing from preindustrial time. General circulation models (GCMs) are the tool for predicting future climate, but the treatment of aerosols, clouds, and aerosol−cloud radiative effects carries large uncertainties that directly affect GCM predictions, such as climate sensitivity. Predictions are hampered by the large range of scales of interaction between various components that need to be captured. Observation systems (remote sensing, in situ) are increasingly being used to constrain predictions, but significant challenges exist, to some extent because of the large range of scales and the fact that the various measuring systems tend to address different scales. Fine-scale models represent clouds, aerosols, and aerosol−cloud interactions with high fidelity but do not include interactions with the larger scale and are therefore limited from a climatic point of view. We suggest strategies for improving estimates of aerosol−cloud relationships in climate models, for new remote sensing and in situ measurements, and for quantifying and reducing model uncertainty.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.1514043113

Cites

72 of 72 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 72 references

Cited by

See all 940

Metadata

Authors
Seinfeld, J. H., Bretherton, C., Carslaw, K. S., Coe, H., DeMott, P. J., Dunlea, E. J., Feingold, G., Ghan, S., Guenther, A. B., Kahn, R., Kraucunas, I., Kreidenweis, S. M., Molina, M. J., Nenes, A., Penner, J. E., Prather, K. A., Ramanathan, V., Ramaswamy, V., Rasch, P. J., Ravishankara, A. R., Rosenfeld, D., Stephens, G., & Wood, R.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2016-05-24
Volume
113
Issue
21
Pages
5781-5790
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2405493398
Cited by
940
References
72
FWCI
37.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Improving our fundamental understanding of the role of aerosol−cloud interactions in the climate system. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1514043113
The paper
Seinfeld, J. H., Bretherton, C., Carslaw, K. S., Coe, H., DeMott, P. J., Dunlea, E. J., Feingold, G., Ghan, S., Guenther, A. B., Kahn, R., Kraucunas, I., Kreidenweis, S. M., Molina, M. J., Nenes, A., Penner, J. E., Prather, K. A., Ramanathan, V., Ramaswamy, V., Rasch, P. J., . . . Wood, R. (2016). Improving our fundamental understanding of the role of aerosol−cloud interactions in the climate system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1514043113

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.