4.6 Article

Constraining the aerosol influence on cloud fraction

期刊

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES
卷 121, 期 7, 页码 3566-3583

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2015JD023744

关键词

aerosols; clouds; aerosol-cloud interactions; causality

资金

  1. European Research Council under the European Union / ERC [FP7-306284, 218793, 633080]
  2. European Research Council (ERC) [633080] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aerosol-cloud interactions have the potential to modify many different cloud properties. There is significant uncertainty in the strength of these aerosol-cloud interactions in analyses of observational data, partly due to the difficulty in separating aerosol effects on clouds from correlations generated by local meteorology. The relationship between aerosol and cloud fraction (CF) is particularly important to determine, due to the strong correlation of CF to other cloud properties and its large impact on radiation. It has also been one of the hardest to quantify from satellites due to the strong meteorological covariations involved. This work presents a new method to analyze the relationship between aerosoloptical depth (AOD) and CF. By including information about the cloud droplet number concentration (CDNC), the impact of the meteorological covariations is significantly reduced. This method shows that much of the AOD-CF correlation is explained by relationships other than that mediated by CDNC. By accounting for these, the strength of the global mean AOD-CF relationship is reduced by around 80%. This suggests that the majority of the AOD-CF relationship is due to meteorological covariations, especially in the shallow cumulus regime. Requiring CDNC to mediate the AOD-CF relationship implies an effective anthropogenic radiative forcing from an aerosol influence on liquid CF of -0.48Wm(-2) (-0.1 to -0.64Wm(-2)), although some uncertainty remains due to possible biases in the CDNC retrievals in broken cloud scenes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据