CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 54Atmospheric aerosols and cloudsAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsClimate variability and models

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

Uncertainty in aerosol–cloud radiative forcing is driven by clean conditions

Open access
Gryspeerdt, Edward, Povey, Adam C., Grainger, Roy G., Hasekamp, Otto, Hsu, N. Christina, Mulcahy, Jane P., Sayer, Andrew M., Sorooshian, Armin·2023·Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
DOI 10.5194/acp-23-4115-2023

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Atmospheric aerosols and their impact on cloud properties remain the largest uncertainty in the human forcing of the climate system. By increasing the concentration of cloud droplets ( N d ), aerosols reduce droplet size and increase the reflectivity of clouds (a negative radiative forcing). Central to this climate impact is the susceptibility of cloud droplet number to aerosol ( β ), the diversity of which explains much of the variation in the radiative forcing from aerosol–cloud interactions (RFaci) in global climate models. This has made measuring β a key target for developing observational constraints of the aerosol forcing. While the aerosol burden of the clean, pre-industrial atmosphere has been demonstrated as a key uncertainty for the aerosol forcing, here we show that the behaviour of clouds under these clean conditions is of equal importance for understanding the spread in radiative forcing estimates between models and observations. This means that the uncertainty in the aerosol impact on clouds is, counterintuitively, driven by situations with little aerosol. Discarding clean conditions produces a close agreement between different model and observational estimates of the cloud response to aerosol but does not provide a strong constraint on the RFaci. This makes constraining aerosol behaviour in clean conditions an important goal for future observational studies.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5194/acp-23-4115-2023

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Andreae, M. and Rosenfeld, D.: Aerosol–cloud–precipitation interactions, Part 1. The nature and sources of cloud-active aerosols, Earth Sci. Rev., 89, 13–41, 10.1016/j.earscirev.2008.03.001, 2008. · DOI
  2. Bennartz, R. and Rausch, J.: Global and regional estimates of warm cloud droplet number concentration based on 13 years of AQUA-MODIS observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 9815–9836, 10.5194/acp-17-9815-2017, 2017. · DOI
  3. Carslaw, K. S., Lee, L. A., Reddington, C. L., Pringle, K. J., Rap, A., Forster, P. M., Mann, G. W., Spracklen, D. V., Woodhouse, M. T., Regayre, L. A., and Pierce, J. R.: Large contribution of natural aerosols to uncertainty in indirect forcing, Nature, 503, 67–71, 10.1038/nature12674, 2013. · DOI
  4. Dubovik, O., Li, Z., Mishchenko, M. I., Tanré, D., Karol, Y., Bojkov, B., Cairns, B., Diner, D. J., Espinosa, W. R., Goloub, P., Gu, X., Hasekamp, O., Hong, J., Hou, W., Knobelspiesse, K. D., Landgraf, J., Li, L., Litvinov, P., Liu, Y., Lopatin, A., Marbach, T., Maring, H., Martins, V., Meijer, Y., Milinevsky, G., Mukai, S., Parol, F., Qiao, Y., Remer, L., Rietjens, J., Sano, I., Stammes, P., Stamnes, S., Sun, X., Tabary, P., Travis, L. D., Waquet, F., Xu, F., Yan, C., and Yin, D.: Polarimetric remote sensing of atmospheric aerosols: Instruments, methodologies, results, and perspectives, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Ra., 224, 474–511, 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2018.11.024, 2019. · DOI
  5. Ghan, S., Wang, M., Zhang, S., Ferrachat, S., Gettelman, A., Griesfeller, J., Kipling, Z., Lohmann, U., Morrison, H., Neubauer, D., Partridge, D. G., Stier, P., Takemura, T., Wang, H., and Zhang, K.: Challenges in constraining anthropogenic aerosol effects on cloud radiative forcing using present-day spatiotemporal variability, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 113, 201514036, 10.1073/pnas.1514036113, 2016. · DOI
  6. Grosvenor, D. P., Sourdeval, O., Zuidema, P., Ackerman, A., Alexandrov, M. D., Bennartz, R., Boers, R., Cairns, B., Chiu, J. C., Christensen, M., Deneke, H., Diamond, M., Feingold, G., Fridlind, A., Hünerbein, A., Knist, C., Kollias, P., Marshak, A., McCoy, D., Merk, D., Painemal, D., Rausch, J., Rosenfeld, D., Russchenberg, H., Seifert, P., Sinclair, K., Stier, P., van Diedenhoven, B., Wendisch, M., Werner, F., Wood, R., Zhang, Z., and Quaas, J.: Remote Sensing of Droplet Number Concentration in Warm Clouds: A Review of the Current State of Knowledge and Perspectives, Rev. Geophys., 56, 409–453, 10.1029/2017RG000593, 2018. · DOI
  7. Gryspeerdt, E. and Stier, P.: Regime-based analysis of aerosol-cloud interactions, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, 21802, 10.1029/2012GL053221, 2012. · DOI
  8. Gryspeerdt, E., Quaas, J., and Bellouin, N.: Constraining the aerosol influence on cloud fraction, J. Geophys. Res., 121, 3566–3583, 10.1002/2015JD023744, 2016. · DOI
  9. Gryspeerdt, E., Quaas, J., Ferrachat, S., Gettelman, A., Ghan, S., Lohmann, U., Morrison, H., Neubauer, D., Partridge, D. G., Stier, P., Takemura, T., Wang, H., Wang, M., and Zhang, K.: Constraining the instantaneous aerosol influence on cloud albedo, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 114, 4899–4904, 10.1073/pnas.1617765114, 2017. · DOI
  10. Gryspeerdt, E., Mülmenstädt, J., Gettelman, A., Malavelle, F. F., Morrison, H., Neubauer, D., Partridge, D. G., Stier, P., Takemura, T., Wang, H., Wang, M., and Zhang, K.: Surprising similarities in model and observational aerosol radiative forcing estimates, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 613–623, 10.5194/acp-20-613-2020, 2020. · DOI
  11. Gryspeerdt, E., Goren, T., and Smith, T. W. P.: Observing the timescales of aerosol–cloud interactions in snapshot satellite images, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 6093–6109, 10.5194/acp-21-6093-2021, 2021. · DOI
  12. Gryspeerdt, E., McCoy, D. T., Crosbie, E., Moore, R. H., Nott, G. J., Painemal, D., Small-Griswold, J., Sorooshian, A., and Ziemba, L.: The impact of sampling strategy on the cloud droplet number concentration estimated from satellite data, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 3875–3892, 10.5194/amt-15-3875-2022, 2022. · DOI
  13. Hamilton, D. S., Lee, L. A., Pringle, K. J., Reddington, C. L., Spracklen, D. V., and Carslaw, K. S.: Occurrence of pristine aerosol environments on a polluted planet, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 111, 18466–18471, 10.1073/pnas.1415440111, 2014. · DOI
  14. Hasekamp, O. P., Gryspeerdt, E., and Quaas, J.: Analysis of polarimetric satellite measurements suggests stronger cooling due to aerosol-cloud interactions, Nat. Commun., 10, 5405, 10.1038/s41467-019-13372-2, 2019. · DOI
  15. Jia, H., Ma, X., Yu, F., and Quaas, J.: Significant underestimation of radiative forcing by aerosol–cloud interactions derived from satellite-based methods, Nat. Commun., 12, 3649, 10.1038/s41467-021-23888-1, 2021. · DOI
  16. Jia, H., Quaas, J., Gryspeerdt, E., Böhm, C., and Sourdeval, O.: Addressing the difficulties in quantifying droplet number response to aerosol from satellite observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 7353–7372, 10.5194/acp-22-7353-2022, 2022. · DOI
  17. Kaufman, Y. J., Gobron, N., Pinty, B., Widlowski, J.-L., and Verstraete, M. M.: Relationship between surface reflectance in the visible and mid-IR used in MODIS aerosol algorithm – theory, Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, 2116, 10.1029/2001GL014492, 2002. · DOI
  18. Koren, I., Dagan, G., and Altaratz, O.: From aerosol-limited to invigoration of warm convective clouds, Science, 344, 1143–1146, 10.1126/science.1252595, 2014. · DOI
  19. Ma, P.-L., Rasch, P. J., Chepfer, H., Winker, D. M., and Ghan, S. J.: Observational constraint on cloud susceptibility weakened by aerosol retrieval limitations, Nat. Commun., 9, 2640, 10.1038/s41467-018-05028-4, 2018. · DOI
  20. McCoy, D. T., Bender, F. A.-M., Mohrmann, J. K. C., Hartmann, D. L., Wood, R., and Grosvenor, D. P.: The global aerosol-cloud first indirect effect estimated using MODIS, MERRA, and AeroCom, J. Geophys. Res., 122, 1779–1796, 10.1002/2016JD026141, 2017. · DOI
  21. Nakajima, T., Higurashi, A., Kawamoto, K., and Penner, J. E.: A possible correlation between satellite-derived cloud and aerosol microphysical parameters, Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 1171, 10.1029/2000GL012186, 2001. · DOI
  22. Pitkänen, M. R. A., Mikkonen, S., Lehtinen, K. E. J., Lipponen, A., and Arola, A.: Artificial bias typically neglected in comparisons of uncertain atmospheric data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 10003–10011, 10.1002/2016GL070852, 2016. · DOI
  23. Quaas, J., Boucher, O., and Lohmann, U.: Constraining the total aerosol indirect effect in the LMDZ and ECHAM4 GCMs using MODIS satellite data, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 947–955, 10.5194/acp-6-947-2006, 2006. · DOI
  24. Quaas, J., Boucher, O., Bellouin, N., and Kinne, S.: Satellite-based estimate of the direct and indirect aerosol climate forcing, J. Geophys. Res., 113, 05204, 10.1029/2007JD008962, 2008. · DOI
  25. Quaas, J., Ming, Y., Menon, S., Takemura, T., Wang, M., Penner, J. E., Gettelman, A., Lohmann, U., Bellouin, N., Boucher, O., Sayer, A. M., Thomas, G. E., McComiskey, A., Feingold, G., Hoose, C., Kristjánsson, J. E., Liu, X., Balkanski, Y., Donner, L. J., Ginoux, P. A., Stier, P., Grandey, B., Feichter, J., Sednev, I., Bauer, S. E., Koch, D., Grainger, R. G., Kirkevåg, A., Iversen, T., Seland, Ø., Easter, R., Ghan, S. J., Rasch, P. J., Morrison, H., Lamarque, J.-F., Iacono, M. J., Kinne, S., and Schulz, M.: Aerosol indirect effects – general circulation model intercomparison and evaluation with satellite data, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 8697–8717, 10.5194/acp-9-8697-2009, 2009. · DOI
  26. Quaas, J., Arola, A., Cairns, B., Christensen, M., Deneke, H., Ekman, A. M. L., Feingold, G., Fridlind, A., Gryspeerdt, E., Hasekamp, O., Li, Z., Lipponen, A., Ma, P.-L., Mülmenstädt, J., Nenes, A., Penner, J. E., Rosenfeld, D., Schrödner, R., Sinclair, K., Sourdeval, O., Stier, P., Tesche, M., van Diedenhoven, B., and Wendisch, M.: Constraining the Twomey effect from satellite observations: issues and perspectives, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 15079–15099, 10.5194/acp-20-15079-2020, 2020. · DOI
  27. Reutter, P., Su, H., Trentmann, J., Simmel, M., Rose, D., Gunthe, S. S., Wernli, H., Andreae, M. O., and Pöschl, U.: Aerosol- and updraft-limited regimes of cloud droplet formation: influence of particle number, size and hygroscopicity on the activation of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 7067–7080, 10.5194/acp-9-7067-2009, 2009. · DOI
  28. Rothenberg, D. and Wang, C.: Metamodeling of Droplet Activation for Global Climate Models, J. Atmos. Sci., 73, 1255–1272, 10.1175/JAS-D-15-0223.1, 2016. · DOI
  29. Sayer, A. M., Thomas, G. E., and Grainger, R. G.: A sea surface reflectance model for (A)ATSR, and application to aerosol retrievals, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 3, 813–838, 10.5194/amt-3-813-2010, 2010. · DOI
  30. Twomey, S.: The nuclei of natural cloud formation part II: The supersaturation in natural clouds and the variation of cloud droplet concentration, Geofisica Pura e Applicata, 43, 243–249, 10.1007/BF01993560, 1959. · DOI
  31. Twomey, S.: Pollution and the planetary albedo, Atmos. Environ., 8, 1251–1256, 10.1016/0004-6981(74)90004-3, 1974. · DOI
  32. Zelinka, M. D., Andrews, T., Forster, P. M., and Taylor, K. E.: Quantifying components of aerosol-cloud-radiation interactions in climate models, J. Geophys. Res., 119, 7599–7615, 10.1002/2014JD021710, 2014. · DOI
  33. Zhang, Z., Werner, F., Cho, H.-M., Wind, G., Platnick, S., Ackerman, A. S., Di Girolamo, L., Marshak, A., and Meyer, K.: A framework based on 2-D Taylor expansion for quantifying the impacts of subpixel reflectance variance and covariance on cloud optical thickness and effective radius retrievals based on the bispectral method, J. Geophys. Res., 121, 7007–7025, 10.1002/2016JD024837, 2016. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Gryspeerdt, E., Povey, A. C., Grainger, R. G., Hasekamp, O., Hsu, N. C., Mulcahy, J. P., Sayer, A. M., & Sorooshian, A.
Affiliations
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • NWO-I (NL)
  • Met Office (GB)
  • Goddard Space Flight Center (US)
  • University of Arizona (US)
Corresponding author
Gryspeerdt, Edward
ORCID
Venue
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Published
2023-04-05
Volume
23
Issue
7
Pages
4115-4122
ISSN
  • 1680-7316 (ISSN-L)
  • 1680-7324
DOI
10.5194/acp-23-4115-2023
OpenAlex
W4362609538
Cited by
54
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 9
FWCI
6.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Atmospheric chemistry and physics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Royal Society (URF/R1/191602)
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (80NSSC19K0442)
  • National Centre for Earth Observation (PR140015, NE/R016518/1)
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 › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
Keywords
aerosol-cloud interactions, cloud droplet number concentration, cloud reflectivity, aerosol loading, radiative forcing uncertainty

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