Published in

National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 46(108), 2011

DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1114634108

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Which of satellite- or model-based estimates is closer to reality for aerosol indirect forcing?

Journal article published in 2011 by Johannes Quaas, Olivier Boucher ORCID, Nicolas Bellouin ORCID, Stefan Kinne
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Red circle
Preprint: archiving forbidden
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Upload
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Policy details
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

In their contribution to PNAS, Penner et al. (1) used a climate model to estimate the radiative forcing by the aerosol first indirect effect (cloud albedo effect) in two different ways: first, by deriving a statistical relationship between the logarithm of cloud droplet number concentration, ln Nc, and the logarithm of aerosol optical depth, ln AOD (or the logarithm of the aerosol index, ln AI) for present-day and preindustrial aerosol fields, a method that was applied earlier to satellite data (2), and, second, by computing the radiative flux perturbation between two simulations with and without anthropogenic aerosol sources. They find a radiative forcing that is a factor of 3 lower in the former approach than in the latter [as Penner et al. ] correctly noted, only their “inline” results are useful for the comparison]. This study is a very interesting contribution, but we believe it deserves several clarification.