Published in

European Geosciences Union, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 12(14), p. 6103-6110, 2014

DOI: 10.5194/acp-14-6103-2014

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Effect of water vapor on the determination of aerosol direct radiative effect based on the AERONET fluxes

This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Published version: archiving allowed
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

The aerosol direct radiative effect (ADRE) is defined as the change in the solar radiation flux, F , due to aerosol scattering and absorption. The difficulty in determining ADRE stems mainly from the need to estimate F without aerosols, F 0 , with either radiative transfer modeling and knowledge of the atmospheric state, or regression analysis of radiation data down to zero aerosol optical depth (AOD), if only F and AOD are observed. This paper examines the regression analysis method by using modeled surface data products provided by the Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET). We extrapolated F 0 by two functions: a straight linear line and an exponential nonlinear decay. The exponential decay regression is expected to give a better estimation of ADRE with a few percent larger extrapolated F 0 than the linear regression. We found that, contrary to the expectation, in most cases the linear regression gives better results than the nonlinear. In such cases the extrapolated F 0 represents an unrealistically low water vapor column (WVC), resulting in underestimation of attenuation caused by the water vapor, and hence too large F 0 and overestimation of the magnitude of ADRE. The nonlinear ADRE is generally 40–50% larger in magnitude than the linear ADRE due to the extrapolated F 0 difference. Since for a majority of locations, AOD and WVC have a positive correlation, the extrapolated F 0 with the nonlinear regression fit represents an unrealistically low WVC, and hence too large F 0 . The systematic underestimation of F 0 with the linear regression is compensated by the positive correlation between AOD and water vapor, providing the better result.