Chapter 4: Satellite Estimate of Global Aerosol Indirect Forcing by Marine Warm
4.7 Bibliography
Ackerman, A. S., Kirkpatrick, M. P., Stevens, D. E., and Toon, O. B.: The impact of humidity above stratiform clouds on indirect aerosol climate forcing, Nature, 432, 1014-1017, 2004.
Albrecht, B.: Aerosols, cloud microphysics, and fractional cloudiness, Science, 245, 1227-1230, 1989.
Bellouin, N., Boucher, O., Haywood, J., and Reddy, M. S.: Global estimate of aerosol direct radiative forcing from satellite measurements, Nature, 438, 1138–1141, 2005.
Chen, Y.-C., Xue, L., Lebo, Z. J., Wang, H., Rasmussen, R. M., and Seinfeld, J. H.: A comprehensive numerical study of aerosol-cloud-precipitation interactions in marine stratocumulus, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 9749–9769, doi:10.5194/acp-11-9749-2011, 2011.
Chen, Y.-C., Christensen, M. W., Xue, L., Sorooshian, A., Stephens, G. L., Rasmussen, R. M., and Seinfeld, J. H.: Occurrence of lower cloud albedo in ship tracks, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 8223–
8235, doi:10.5194/acp-12-8223-2012, 2012
Christensen, M. W. and Stephens, G. L.: Microphysical and macrophysical responses of marine stratocumulus polluted by underlying ships: Evidence of cloud deepening, J. Geophys. Res., 116, D03201, doi:10.1029/2010JD014638, 2011.
Christensen, M. W. and Stephens, G. L.: Microphysical and macrophysical responses of marine stratocumulus polluted by underlying ships. Part 2: Impacts of haze on precipitating clouds, J.
Geophys. Res., 117, D11203, doi:10.1029/2011JD017125, 2012.
Christensen, M. W., G. Carrio, G. Stephens, W. Cotton, Radiative impact of cirrus on the properties of marine stratocumulus, J. Atmos. Sci, (in press), 2013.
Coakley, J. A. Jr., M. A. Friedman, and W. R. Tahnk: Retrievals of cloud properties for partly cloudy imager pixels. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 22, 3–17, 2005.
Grandey, B. S., Stier, P., and Wagner, T. M.: Investigating relationships between aerosol optical depth and cloud fraction using satellite, aerosol reanalysis and general circulation model data, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 3177-3184, doi:10.5194/acp-13-3177-2013, 2013.
Hartmann, D. L., Ockert-Bell, M. E. and Michelsen, M. L.: The effect of cloud type on earth’s energy balance—Global analysis. J. Climate, 5, 1281–1304, 1992.
Haynes, J. M., T. S. L'Ecuyer, G. L. Stephens, S. D. Miller, C. Mitrescu, N. B. Wood, and S.
Tanelli: Rainfall retrieval over the ocean with spaceborne W-band radar. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D00A22, doi:10.1029/2008JD009973, 2009.
Henderson, David S., Tristan L’Ecuyer, Graeme Stephens, Phil Partain, Miho Sekiguchi, 2013: A multisensor perspective on the radiative impacts of clouds and aerosols. J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 52, 853–871, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-12-025.1, 2013.
IPCC: Summary for policymakers, in: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K. B., Tignor, M., and Miller, H. L., Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Kato, S., and coauthors : Relation of cloud occurrence frequency, overlap, and effective thickness derived from CALIPSO and CloudSat merged cloud vertical profiles. J. Geophys. Res., 115, D00H28, doi:10.1029/2009JD012234, 2010.
Kaufman, Y. J., Koren, I., Remer, L., Rosenfeld, D., and Rudich, I.: The effect of smoke, dust, and pollution aerosol on shallow cloud development over the Atlantic Ocean, P. Natl. Acad. Sci., 102, 11207–11212, 2005.
Latham, J., Rasch, P., Chen, C.-C., Kettles, L., Gadian, A., Gettelman, A., Morrison, H., Bower, K., and Choularton, T.: Global temperature stabilization via controlled albedo enhancement of low- level maritime clouds, Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, 366, 3969-3987, doi:10.1098/rsta.2008.0137, 2008.
Lebsock, M. D., Stephens, G. L., and Kummerow, C.: Multisensor satellite observations of aerosol effects on warm clouds, J. Geophys. Res., 113, doi:10.1029/2008JD009876, d15205, 2008.
Mangold, A., De Backer, H., De Paepe, B., Dewitte, S., Chiapello, I., Derimian, Y., Kacenelenbogen, M., Leon, J.-F., Huneeus, N., Schulz, M., Ceburnis, D., O'Dowd, C., Flentje, H., Kinne, S., Benedetti, A., Morcrette, J.-J., Boucher, O.: Aerosol analysis and forecast in the European Centre for Medium‐Range Weather Forecasts Integrated Forecast System: 3. Evaluation by means of case studies, J. Geophys. Res., 116, D03302, doi:10.1029/2010JD014864, 2011.
Matsui, T., Masunaga, H., Kreidenweis, S. M., Pielke Sr., R. A., Tao, W.-K., Chin, M., and Kaufman, Y. J.: Satellite-based assessment of marine low cloud variability associated with aerosol, atmospheric stability, and the diurnal cycle, J. Geophys. Res., 111, D17204, doi:10.1029/2005JD006097, 2006.
Penner, J. E., Xu, L., and Wang, M.: Satellite methods underestimate indirect climate forcing by aerosols, P. Natl. Acad. Sci., 108, 13404–13408, doi/10.1073/pnas.1018526108, 2011.
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., Kristjansson, 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., Kirkevag, 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, 2009.
Remer, L. A., Kaufman, Y. J., Tanr´e, D., Mattoo, S., Chu, D. A., Martins, J. V., Li, R. R., Ichoku, C., Levy, R. C., Kleidman, R. G., Eck, T. F., Vermote, E., and Holben, B. N.: The MODIS algorithm, products, and validation, J. Atmos. Sci., 62, 947–973, doi:10.1175/JAS3385.1, 2005.
Sekiguchi, M., Nakajima, T., Suzuki, K., Kawamoto, K., Higurashi, A., Rosenfeld, D., Sano, I., and Mukai, S.: A study of the direct and indirect effects of aerosols using global satellite data sets of aerosol and cloud parameters, J. Geophys. Res., 108(D22), 4699, doi:10.1029/2002JD003359, 2003.
Stevens, B. and Brenguier, J.-L.: Cloud controlling factors: low clouds. Clouds in the perturbed climate system, Heintzenberg, J. and Charlson, R. J., The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 173-196, 2009.
Storelvmo, T., Kristj´ansson, J. E., Myhre, G., Johnsrud, M., and Stordal, F.: Combined observational and modeling based study of the aerosol indirect effect, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 3583–3601, 2006.
Wentz, F. J. and R. W. Spencer: SSMI rain retrievals within a unified all-weather ocean algorithm.
J. Atmos. Sci., 55, 1613-1627, 1998.
Wilcox, E. M.: Stratocumulus cloud thickening beneath layers of absorbing smoke aerosol. Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 10, 11769–11777, doi:10.5194/acp-10-11769-2010, 2010.
Wood, R.: Cancellation of aerosol indirect effects in marine stratocumulus through cloud thinning, J. Atmos. Sci., 64, 2657-2669, 2007.
Yuan T., Li, Z., Zhang, R., and Fan, J.: Increase of cloud droplet size with aerosol optical depth: an observational and modeling study, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D04201, doi:10.1029/2007JD008632, 2008.
Table 4.1 Sensors and corresponding parameters used in the analysis, along with the spatial resolution. All sensors were matched to the nearest CloudSat footprint.
Sensor Parameter Spatial Resolution
CloudSat Precipitation flag 1.4 × 2.5 km
MODIS 3.7µm cloud effective radius, cloud optical depth Cloud top pressure/ temperature
Aerosol index, aerosol fine mode fraction, cloud fraction
1 × 1 km 5 × 5 km 1° × 1°
CALIPSO Cloud top height, cloud layer flag, aerosol top/base heights
5 × 5 km
(30 m vertically) ECMWF Pressure, temperature, humidity, SST, surface wind
speed
2.5° × 2.5°
GEMS Aerosol species, AOD 120 × 120 km
CERES Clear/cloudy sky albedo, cloud fraction, cold/warm cloud number
20 × 20 km AMSR-E Cloud liquid water path, column water vapor 13 km / 21 km
NCEP Omega 2.5° × 2.5°
Table 4.2 Screening procedures and resultant data reductions
Criteria Percent
Warm ocean clouds (MODIS cloud top pressure/temperature), valid MODIS cloud parameter (Re, τ > 0), and valid CERES radiation
100%
Above and single cloud layer (CALIPSO) 69.1%
Above and CERES criteria for no cold cloud and 𝑐𝑓> 0 49.5%
Above and valid aerosol index (AI) 28.4%
Above and valid derived CERES cloudy sky albedo 20.5% (~3.7 million)
Table 4.3 Slope of linear fit between cloud properties and log10(AI), for non-precipitating, drizzling, and precipitating clouds.
Re [micron]
LWP [g m-2] (AMSR-E)
LWP [g m-2] (MODIS)
H [m] τ ACLD Non-
precipitating
-2.83 -3.34 6.08 -185.2 2.57 0.057
Drizzling -1.03 2.84 30.08 -163.8 4.60 0.072
Precipitating -1.39 17.49 20.96 40.0 4.81 0.084
Table 4.4 The estimated aerosol indirect radiative forcing using Eq. (4.4) and (4.5) for shortwave (SW) and longwave (LW) component, respectively. The anthropogenic aerosol fraction (Afrc) is estimated using GEMS and MODIS. (TOA stands for ‘top of atmosphere’.)
Intrinsic AIE (W m-2) Extrinsic AIE (W m-2) GEMS Afrc MODIS Afrc GEMS Afrc MODIS Afrc
SW TOA -0.49 -0.37 -1.53 -1.45
LW TOA -0.018 -0.026 0.081 0.079
LW surface -0.04 -0.04 0.24 0.26
Figure 4.1 Global relationships between AI and aerosol/cloud parameters for non-precipitating, drizzling, and precipitating clouds. Squares represent the mean values and error bars show the standard deviation.
Figure 4.2 Distribution of the least square fitting slope between cloud parameters and log10(AI) with 4°×4° gridded regions. The cloud parameters are: (A) Cloud effective radius, (B) LWP, (C) Cloud thickness, and (D) cloud optical depth.
Figure 4.3 Distribution of environmental conditions and GEMS anthropogenic aerosol fraction.
The environmental variables include: (A) AMSR-E column water vapor, (C) Probability of precipitation, (D) Free tropospheric humidity, (E) Lower tropospheric stability, and (F) 500 mb vertical velocity (represented as omega). GEMS anthropogenic aerosol fraction is shown in (B).
Figure 4.4 Slope of (A) LWP versus log10(AI) and (B) Cloud optical depth (τ) versus log10(AI) under different environmental conditions for non-precipitating clouds. The x-/y-axis correspond to different free tropospheric relative humidity/lower tropospheric stability, respectively. Each colored pixel represents the slope that is statistically significant at the 95% confidence interval.
Figure 4.5 Slope of (A) Re versus log10(AI), (B) LWP versus log10(AI), (C) Cloud optical depth versus log10(AI), and (D) Cloud albedo versus log10(AI), under different environmental conditions for precipitating (red) and non-precipitating clouds (black).