Cited by 121Atmospheric aerosols and cloudsAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations

Eastern Pacific Emitted Aerosol Cloud Experiment

Open access
Russell, Lynn M., Sorooshian, Armin, Seinfeld, John H., Albrecht, Bruce A., Nenes, Athanasios, Ahlm, Lars, Chen, Yi-Chun, Coggon, Matthew +14 more·2013·Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

Abstract

Aerosol–cloud–radiation interactions are widely held to be the largest single source of uncertainty in climate model projections of future radiative forcing due to increasing anthropogenic emissions. The underlying causes of this uncertainty among modeled predictions of climate are the gaps in our fundamental understanding of cloud processes. There has been significant progress with both observations and models in addressing these important questions but quantifying them correctly is nontrivial, thus limiting our ability to represent them in global climate models. The Eastern Pacific Emitted Aerosol Cloud Experiment (E-PEACE) 2011 was a targeted aircraft campaign with embedded modeling studies, using the Center for Interdisciplinary Remotely-Piloted Aircraft Studies (CIRPAS) Twin Otter aircraft and the research vessel Point Sur in July and August 2011 off the central coast of California, with a full payload of instruments to measure particle and cloud number, mass, composition, and water uptake distributions. EPEACE used three emitted particle sources to separate particle-induced feedbacks from dynamical variability, namely 1) shipboard smoke-generated particles with 0.05–1-μm diameters (which produced tracks measured by satellite and had drop composition characteristic of organic smoke), 2) combustion particles from container ships with 0.05–0.2-μm diameters (which were measured in a variety of conditions with droplets containing both organic and sulfate components), and 3) aircraft-based milled salt particles with 3–5-μm diameters (which showed enhanced drizzle rates in some clouds). The aircraft observations were consistent with past large-eddy simulations of deeper clouds in ship tracks and aerosol– cloud parcel modeling of cloud drop number and composition, providing quantitative constraints on aerosol effects on warm-cloud microphysics.

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 · 10.1175/bams-d-12-00015.1

Cites

89 of 89 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The first MCB field trial (E-PEACE) took place in 2011.

    “the first MCB field trial (E-PEACE) took place in 2011”

    From Past Field Experiments of Solar Radiation Modification: A Review of the Scientific and Technical Aspects for Governance (2026) · cites this paper as Russell et al., 2013

    The E-PEACE section describes a field campaign in July and August 2011 that released particles to study their effects on marine clouds. The paper does not identify E-PEACE as the first MCB field trial, so it supports the date and nature of the campaign but not the priority claim. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • E-PEACE reported variability in droplet activation efficiency due to uncertainties in organic aerosol hygroscopicity and chemical aging processes.

    “E-PEACE reported variability in droplet activation efficiency due to uncertainties in organic aerosol hygroscopicity and chemical aging processes (Russell et al., 2013)”

    From Past Field Experiments of Solar Radiation Modification: A Review of the Scientific and Technical Aspects for Governance (2026) · cites this paper as Russell et al., 2013

    The introduction (page unavailable) says cloud processing can alter organic and inorganic aerosol fractions, producing different hygroscopic properties that affect particles’ ability to serve as cloud condensation nuclei. The smoke-generator section reports differences in cloud droplets associated with particle number, size, and updraft velocity. It does not report variability in droplet activation efficiency caused by uncertainty in organic-aerosol hygroscopicity or chemical aging. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • E-PEACE highlighted discrepancies in simulating aerosol-cloud interactions, particularly in resolving how particle composition and updraft variability modulate droplet activation and the non-linear feedback between aerosol-induced precipitation changes and boundary layer dynamics.

    “E-PEACE highlighted discrepancies in simulating aerosol-cloud interactions, particularly in resolving how particle composition and updraft variability modulate droplet activation and the non-linear feedback between aerosol-induced precipitation changes and boundary layer dynamics (Russell et al., 2013)”

    From Past Field Experiments of Solar Radiation Modification: A Review of the Scientific and Technical Aspects for Governance (2026) · cites this paper as Russell et al., 2013

    The E-PEACE overview identifies aerosol composition and cloud activation as challenges for models; the “Tailor-Made Particles” section links observed droplet differences to particle properties and updraft velocities. The paper also discusses drizzle-related cloud adjustments and boundary-layer feedbacks, but these passages do not establish a nonlinear feedback or report the specific simulation discrepancies claimed. It says further ACP simulations of the observed differences were forthcoming (page numbers unavailable in our copy). (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Scalability was a shared consideration, with E-PEACE and GBR trials testing incremental deployment strategies and the UoW systematically scaling nozzle arrays to assess operational feasibility.

    “Furthermore, scalability was a shared consideration, with E-PEACE and GBR trials testing incremental deployment strategies (e.g., earlier small-scale spray systems for GBR) and the UoW systematically scaling nozzle arrays to assess operational feasibility (Russell et al., 2013; Wood et al., 2024)”

    From Past Field Experiments of Solar Radiation Modification: A Review of the Scientific and Technical Aspects for Governance (2026) · cites this paper as Russell et al., 2013

    The E-PEACE section describes controlled particle releases over small areas, and Summary and Outlook proposes extending the observations to global models. These passages support a small-scale experiment with broader implications, but they do not describe E-PEACE as testing an incremental deployment strategy or assessing operational scalability. This verdict concerns Russell et al.; the GBR and UoW claims are not assessed against it. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.80)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • E-PEACE relied on localized, crosswind plumes of emitted particles to minimize lasting impacts.

    “E-PEACE relied on localized, crosswind plumes of emitted particles to minimize lasting impacts (Russell et al., 2013)”

    From Past Field Experiments of Solar Radiation Modification: A Review of the Scientific and Technical Aspects for Governance (2026) · cites this paper as Russell et al., 2013

    The E-PEACE section says particles were emitted at high concentrations over small areas in crosswind directions, supporting the description of localized, crosswind emissions. It says this design helped separate particle effects on clouds from meteorology, not that it was intended to minimize lasting impacts. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

11 of the 100 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Russell, L. M., Sorooshian, A., Seinfeld, J. H., Albrecht, B. A., Nenes, A., Ahlm, L., Chen, Y.-C., Coggon, M., Craven, J. S., Flagan, R. C., Frossard, A. A., Jonsson, H., Jung, E., Lin, J. J., Metcalf, A. R., Modini, R., Mülmenstädt, J., Roberts, G., Shingler, T., Song, S., Wang, Z., & Wonaschütz, A.
Affiliations
  • Scripps Institution of Oceanography (US)
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
  • University of Miami (US)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
  • Center for Interdisciplinary Remotely-Piloted Aerosol Studies, Marina, California
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Venue
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Published
2013-05-01
Volume
94
Issue
5
Pages
709-729
ISSN
  • 0003-0007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-0477
OpenAlex
W2124476609
Cited by
121
References
100
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 2
FWCI
7.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (publishedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Calhoun: The Naval Postgraduate School Institutional Archive (Naval Postgraduate School) (submittedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0744636, 0349015, 1013319, 1008848, 1013381, 1013423, 0821599)
  • Office of Naval Research (N00014-10-1-0811, N00014-11-1-0783, N00014-10-1-0200, N00014)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric aerosols and clouds
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Atmospheric chemistry and aerosols
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Keywords
aerosol-cloud interactions, aerosol-cloud-radiation interactions, ship track, marine boundary layer clouds, warm cloud microphysics, cloud droplet number concentration, drizzle, combustion particles, sulfate, water absorption, radiative forcing, aircraft observations, large eddy simulation

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