Aerosol effects on clouds are concealed by natural cloud heterogeneity and satellite retrieval errors.

Antti Arola, Antti Lipponen, Pekka Kolmonen, Timo H Virtanen, Nicolas Bellouin, Daniel P Grosvenor, Edward Gryspeerdt, Johannes Quaas, Harri Kokkola
Author Information
  1. Antti Arola: Finnish Meteorological Institute, Kuopio, Finland. antti.arola@fmi.fi. ORCID
  2. Antti Lipponen: Finnish Meteorological Institute, Kuopio, Finland. ORCID
  3. Pekka Kolmonen: Finnish Meteorological Institute, Kuopio, Finland.
  4. Timo H Virtanen: Finnish Meteorological Institute, Kuopio, Finland. ORCID
  5. Nicolas Bellouin: Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, UK. ORCID
  6. Daniel P Grosvenor: School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
  7. Edward Gryspeerdt: Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Imperial College London, London, UK. ORCID
  8. Johannes Quaas: Institute for Meteorology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany. ORCID
  9. Harri Kokkola: Finnish Meteorological Institute, Kuopio, Finland. ORCID

Abstract

One major source of uncertainty in the cloud-mediated aerosol forcing arises from the magnitude of the cloud liquid water path (LWP) adjustment to aerosol-cloud interactions, which is poorly constrained by observations. Many of the recent satellite-based studies have observed a decreasing LWP as a function of cloud droplet number concentration (CDNC) as the dominating behavior. Estimating the LWP response to the CDNC changes is a complex task since various confounding factors need to be isolated. However, an important aspect has not been sufficiently considered: the propagation of natural spatial variability and errors in satellite retrievals of cloud optical depth and cloud effective radius to estimates of CDNC and LWP. Here we use satellite and simulated measurements to demonstrate that, because of this propagation, even a positive LWP adjustment is likely to be misinterpreted as negative. This biasing effect therefore leads to an underestimate of the aerosol-cloud-climate cooling and must be properly considered in future studies.

References

  1. Rev Geophys. 2020 Mar;58(1):e2019RG000660 [PMID: 32734279]
  2. Nat Commun. 2018 Jul 6;9(1):2640 [PMID: 29980669]
  3. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens. 2017 Jan;55(1):502-525 [PMID: 29657349]
  4. Nature. 2004 Dec 23;432(7020):1014-7 [PMID: 15616559]
  5. Rev Geophys. 2018 Jun;56(2):409-453 [PMID: 30148283]
  6. Science. 1989 Sep 15;245(4923):1227-30 [PMID: 17747885]
  7. Nature. 2017 Jun 22;546(7659):485-491 [PMID: 28640263]
  8. Nature. 2019 Aug;572(7767):51-55 [PMID: 31367029]

Grants

  1. 821205/EC | Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation H2020)
  2. 821205/EC | Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation H2020)
  3. 821205/EC | Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation H2020)
  4. 821205/EC | Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation H2020)
  5. 337549/Academy of Finland (Suomen Akatemia)
  6. 337549/Academy of Finland (Suomen Akatemia)
  7. 446279238 / GZ QU 311/27-1/Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation)

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0cloudLWPCDNCsatelliteadjustmentstudiespropagationnaturalerrorsOnemajorsourceuncertaintycloud-mediatedaerosolforcingarisesmagnitudeliquidwaterpathaerosol-cloudinteractionspoorlyconstrainedobservationsManyrecentsatellite-basedobserveddecreasingfunctiondropletnumberconcentrationdominatingbehaviorEstimatingresponsechangescomplextasksincevariousconfoundingfactorsneedisolatedHoweverimportantaspectsufficientlyconsidered:spatialvariabilityretrievalsopticaldeptheffectiveradiusestimatesusesimulatedmeasurementsdemonstrateevenpositivelikelymisinterpretednegativebiasingeffectthereforeleadsunderestimateaerosol-cloud-climatecoolingmustproperlyconsideredfutureAerosoleffectscloudsconcealedheterogeneityretrieval

Similar Articles

Cited By