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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 89 of the 100 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Eastern Pacific Emitted Aerosol Cloud Experiment

Open access

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.

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 · 10.1175/bams-d-12-00015.1

Cites

89 of 89 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

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?

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 100 references

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Coakley, 2000, The appearance and disappearance of ship tracks on large spatial scales, J. Atmos. Sci., 57, 2765, 10.1175/1520-0469(2000)057<2765:TAADOS>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  2. Durkee, 2000, Composite ship track characteristics, J. Atmos. Sci., 57, 2542, 10.1175/1520-0469(2000)057<2542:CSTC>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  3. Durkee, 2000, The impact of ship-produced aerosols on the microstructure and albedo of warm marine stratocumulus clouds: A test of MAST hypotheses 1i and 1ii, J. Atmos. Sci., 57, 2554, 10.1175/1520-0469(2000)057<2554:TIOSPA>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  4. Durkee, 2000, The Monterey Area Ship Track Experiment, J. Atmos. Sci., 57, 2523, 10.1175/1520-0469(2000)057<2523:TMASTE>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  5. Ferek, 2000, Drizzle suppression in ship tracks, J. Atmos. Sci., 57, 2707, 10.1175/1520-0469(2000)057<2707:DSIST>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  6. Frick, 2000, Airship measurements of ship's exhaust plumes and their effect on marine boundary layer clouds, J. Atmos. Sci., 57, 2625, 10.1175/1520-0469(2000)057<2625:AMOSSE>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  7. Hobbs, 2000, Emissions from ships with respect to their effects on clouds, J. Atmos. Sci., 57, 2570, 10.1175/1520-0469(2000)057<2570:EFSWRT>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  8. Noone, 2000, A case study of ship track formation in a polluted marine boundary layer, J. Atmos. Sci., 57, 2748, 10.1175/1520-0469(2000)057<2748:ACSOST>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  9. Noone, 2000, A case study of ships forming and not forming tracks in moderately polluted clouds, J. Atmos. Sci., 57, 2729, 10.1175/1520-0469(2000)057<2729:ACSOSF>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  10. Platnick, 2000, The role of background cloud microphysics in the radiative formation of ship tracks, J. Atmos. Sci., 57, 2607, 10.1175/1520-0469(2000)057<2607:TROBCM>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  11. Schubert, 1979, Marine stratocumulus convection. Part II: Horizontally inhomogeneous solutions, J. Atmos. Sci., 36, 1308, 10.1175/1520-0469(1979)036<1308:MSCPIH>2.0.CO;2 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

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
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