pith. sign in

arxiv: 2507.01319 · v2 · submitted 2025-07-02 · ⚛️ physics.ao-ph

Cloud-aerosol interactions in subtropical marine stratocumulus weaken in a warmer climate

Hongwei Sun , Peter Blossey , Robert Wood , Ehsan Erfani , Sarah Doherty , Je-Yun Chun This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 07:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.ao-ph
keywords aerosol-cloud interactionsmarine stratocumuluscloud radiative effectclimate changelarge-eddy simulationTwomey effectcloud fraction adjustment
0
0 comments X

The pith

Doubling CO2 reduces the cooling effect of aerosols on subtropical marine stratocumulus clouds by more than 30 percent.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper runs three-day large-eddy simulations of the stratocumulus-to-cumulus transition along a Northeast Pacific trajectory to test how aerosol-cloud interactions respond to a warmer climate. It perturbs boundary-layer aerosol levels under both present-day and doubled-CO2 conditions and measures the resulting changes in cloud properties and radiative effects. Aerosol-driven increases in cloud reflectivity and coverage weaken noticeably when CO2 is doubled, with cloud-fraction adjustments providing the largest contribution to the drop in cooling. The work also finds that low-cloud feedbacks themselves vary with background aerosol concentration, pointing to coupled behavior between forcings and responses.

Core claim

Aerosol-induced cloud changes, including the Twomey effect and adjustments of cloud fraction and liquid water path, are inhibited in a doubled-CO2 climate. Decomposing the aerosol-induced cloud radiative effect change reveals that aerosol-induced cloud fraction changes dominate ΔCRE. Overall, doubling CO2 attenuates aerosol-induced ΔCRE (i.e., cooling) by more than 30 percent in the simulations. Low cloud feedbacks are sensitive to the background aerosol concentration.

What carries the argument

Large-eddy simulations of the stratocumulus-to-cumulus transition along an airmass-following trajectory, with controlled perturbations to boundary-layer aerosol concentrations under present-day and doubled-CO2 boundary conditions, used to isolate and decompose the aerosol-induced change in cloud radiative effect.

If this is right

  • Aerosol-induced cooling from marine stratocumulus is weaker in a doubled-CO2 climate than today.
  • Changes in cloud fraction account for most of the reduction in aerosol radiative effect.
  • Low-cloud feedbacks depend on the amount of background aerosol present.
  • The cooling potential of marine cloud brightening is expected to decline as the climate warms.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Global climate models that fix aerosol-cloud interaction strength may overestimate future aerosol cooling.
  • The reduced sensitivity could alter estimates of how much additional warming occurs when aerosol emissions change.
  • Field campaigns targeting aerosol effects in currently warmer subtropical regions could provide a direct test of the simulated weakening.

Load-bearing premise

The three-day large-eddy simulations along the chosen Northeast Pacific trajectory and with the selected aerosol perturbations capture real-world aerosol-cloud interactions and their climate sensitivity without large biases from subgrid processes or domain limitations.

What would settle it

Repeating the same trajectory simulations at higher resolution or over longer durations and finding an attenuation of aerosol-induced ΔCRE that is substantially smaller or larger than 30 percent would challenge the central result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01319 by Ehsan Erfani, Hongwei Sun, Je-Yun Chun, Peter Blossey, Robert Wood, Sarah Doherty.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Time series of cloud-related variables. Time series of sea surface temperature (a), MBL-average accumulation-mode aerosol concentration (b), accumulation precipitation (c), in-cloud droplet number concentration (d), cloud-top entrainment rate (e), liquid water path (f), SW cloud radiative effect at the surface, and cloud fraction (h) with (dashed lines) and without (solid lines) aerosol perturbations in th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Cloud and the marine boundary layer. Vertical profile of cloud fraction (shaded) and boundary layer structure, where the black bar indicates inversion height (Zi), the orange bar the lifting condensation level (LCL) of air with properties at height z = 0.9Zi, and the red bar the LCL of air with properties at height z = 0.1Zi. All values are averaged over the whole domain and averaged over daytime (i.e., … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Shortwave (SW) cloud radiative effect (CRE) versus in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Aerosol-cloud interactions, including first (Twomey effect) and second (adjustment of cloud fraction and liquid water path) indirect effects of aerosols. (a) Schematic of aerosol-cloud interactions. (b) Aerosol-induced change in cloud droplet number concentration (△Nc) versus the change in liquid water path (△LWP) between perturbed and control simulations (listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Radiative effects of aerosol-cloud interactions constitute the most uncertain climate forcing of the Earth system, making it important to understand how they may change with climate. We conduct 3-day-long large-eddy simulations of a stratocumulus-to-cumulus transition along an airmass-following trajectory over the Northeast Pacific Ocean. By perturbing boundary layer aerosol concentrations, we simulate aerosol-cloud interactions in both present-day and doubled-CO2 conditions. Aerosol-induced cloud changes, including the Twomey effect and adjustments of cloud fraction and liquid water path, are inhibited in a doubled-CO2 climate. Decomposing the aerosol-induced cloud radiative effect change ($\Delta$CRE) reveals that aerosol-induced cloud fraction changes dominate $\Delta$CRE. Overall, doubling CO2 attenuates aerosol-induced $\Delta$CRE (i.e., cooling) by >30% in our simulations. Our results also show that low cloud feedbacks are sensitive to the background aerosol concentration, highlighting the interplay between climate forcings and feedbacks. These results may aid in predicting the cooling potential of marine cloud brightening in a changing climate.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses 3-day large-eddy simulations of a stratocumulus-to-cumulus transition along an airmass-following trajectory over the Northeast Pacific to compare aerosol perturbations in present-day versus doubled-CO2 conditions. It reports that aerosol-induced changes (Twomey brightening plus adjustments in cloud fraction and liquid water path) are inhibited under doubled CO2, with aerosol-induced ΔCRE attenuated by more than 30%. Cloud-fraction adjustments dominate the ΔCRE response, and low-cloud feedbacks are shown to depend on background aerosol levels.

Significance. If robust, the result implies that the efficacy of marine cloud brightening as a cooling strategy declines in a warmer climate and that aerosol forcing and cloud feedbacks are coupled. The direct forward-simulation approach with explicit aerosol perturbations avoids circularity from fitted parameters and provides a concrete, falsifiable prediction for how ΔCRE changes with climate.

major comments (1)
  1. The central >30% attenuation claim depends on the 3-day integration length being sufficient for full equilibration of cloud-fraction and LWP adjustments in both climates. The stratocumulus-to-cumulus transition involves multi-day boundary-layer decoupling and precipitation processes whose timescales are altered by doubled-CO2 changes in stability and subsidence; without sensitivity tests to longer runs or explicit justification that 3 days captures the climate-dependent adjustment, the reported inhibition of aerosol effects could be an artifact of incomplete sampling rather than a robust sensitivity.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states that cloud-fraction changes dominate ΔCRE but does not quantify the separate contributions from Twomey, cloud-fraction, and LWP terms; adding these percentages would clarify the decomposition.
  2. Specify the exact aerosol number concentrations and size distributions used for the boundary-layer perturbations, including any vertical profile assumptions, to allow reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and insightful comments. We address the major concern regarding simulation duration below and will incorporate revisions to strengthen the justification of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central >30% attenuation claim depends on the 3-day integration length being sufficient for full equilibration of cloud-fraction and LWP adjustments in both climates. The stratocumulus-to-cumulus transition involves multi-day boundary-layer decoupling and precipitation processes whose timescales are altered by doubled-CO2 changes in stability and subsidence; without sensitivity tests to longer runs or explicit justification that 3 days captures the climate-dependent adjustment, the reported inhibition of aerosol effects could be an artifact of incomplete sampling rather than a robust sensitivity.

    Authors: We agree that demonstrating the adequacy of the 3-day integration length is essential for the robustness of the reported >30% attenuation. The 3-day duration was chosen to span the characteristic timescale of the stratocumulus-to-cumulus transition along the Northeast Pacific trajectory, as established by prior observational campaigns and LES studies. In our simulations, the primary adjustments in boundary-layer decoupling, cloud fraction, and LWP occur within the first 48 hours in both climates, after which the evolution slows and the system approaches a quasi-equilibrium state. The aerosol-induced differences in cloud properties emerge early and persist consistently through day 3, rather than being confined to an initial transient. To directly address this comment, we will revise the manuscript to include (i) time series of cloud fraction, LWP, and boundary-layer height for all simulations, (ii) an explicit discussion of adjustment timescales under present-day and doubled-CO2 conditions, and (iii) a statement that the attenuation signal is insensitive to the precise integration end time within the final 24 hours. While additional multi-day sensitivity tests would provide further confirmation, the current results give no indication that extending the runs would alter the sign or magnitude of the climate-dependent inhibition of aerosol effects. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: central result from direct forward simulations

full rationale

The paper obtains its key result (aerosol-induced ΔCRE attenuated >30% under doubled CO2) via direct large-eddy simulations that perturb boundary-layer aerosol concentrations and integrate the model forward for 3 days in both present-day and doubled-CO2 climates. No parameters are fitted to a subset of outputs and then reused to 'predict' closely related quantities; no equations reduce the reported cloud-fraction or LWP adjustments to prior fits or self-referential definitions; and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against the external benchmark of the LES model runs themselves.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The study rests on the fidelity of LES for representing ACI and the representativeness of the chosen 3-day trajectory and aerosol perturbations; no new physical entities are introduced and the only free parameters are the aerosol concentrations chosen to bracket present-day and future conditions.

free parameters (1)
  • Boundary layer aerosol concentrations
    Perturbed to simulate ACI in present-day and doubled-CO2 runs; specific values chosen to represent realistic conditions but not derived from first principles.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Large-eddy simulation with the chosen microphysics and turbulence closures accurately captures aerosol effects on cloud fraction, LWP, and radiative forcing in the stratocumulus-to-cumulus transition.
    Invoked by the decision to use 3-day LES as the primary tool for quantifying climate dependence of ACI.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5737 in / 1411 out tokens · 31847 ms · 2026-05-19T07:11:41.979145+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Rosenfeld et al., Global observations of aerosol-cloud-precipitation-climate interactions

    D. Rosenfeld et al., Global observations of aerosol-cloud-precipitation-climate interactions. Reviews of Geophysics 52, 750-808 (2014)

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Bony et al., Clouds, circulation and climate sensitivity

    S. Bony et al., Clouds, circulation and climate sensitivity. Nature Geoscience 8, 261-268 (2015)

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Ceppi, F

    P. Ceppi, F. Brient, M. D. Zelinka, D. L. Hartmann, Cloud feedback mechanisms and their representation in global climate models. WIREs Climate Change 8, e465 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    C. J. Williamson et al., A large source of cloud condensation nuclei from new particle formation in the tropics. Nature 574, 399-403 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Zheng et al., New particle formation in the remote marine boundary layer

    G. Zheng et al., New particle formation in the remote marine boundary layer. Nature Communications 12, 527 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Twomey, The Influence of Pollution on the Shortwave Albedo of Clouds

    S. Twomey, The Influence of Pollution on the Shortwave Albedo of Clouds. Journal of Atmospheric Sciences 34, 1149-1152 (1977)

    work page 1977

  7. [7]

    Platnick, S

    S. Platnick, S. Twomey, Determining the Susceptibility of Cloud Albedo to Changes in Droplet Concentration with the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer. J Appl Meteorol Clim 33, 334-347 (1994)

    work page 1994

  8. [8]

    M. F. Khairoutdinov, D. A. Randall, Cloud Resolving Modeling of the ARM Summer 1997 IOP: Model Formulation, Results, Uncertainties, and Sensitivities. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 60, 607-625 (2003)

    work page 1997

  9. [9]

    Gettelman et al., Has Reducing Ship Emissions Brought Forward Global Warming? Geophysical Research Letters 51, e2024GL109077 (2024)

    A. Gettelman et al., Has Reducing Ship Emissions Brought Forward Global Warming? Geophysical Research Letters 51, e2024GL109077 (2024)

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    Jordan, M

    G. Jordan, M. Henry, IMO2020 Regulations Accelerate Global Warming by up to 3 Years in UKESM1. Earth's Future 12, e2024EF005011 (2024)

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Quaglia, D

    I. Quaglia, D. Visioni, Modeling 2020 regulatory changes in international shipping emissions helps explain 2023 anomalous warming. EGUsphere 2024, 1-19 (2024)

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    Yuan et al., Abrupt reduction in shipping emission as an inadvertent geoengineering termination shock produces substantial radiative warming

    T. Yuan et al., Abrupt reduction in shipping emission as an inadvertent geoengineering termination shock produces substantial radiative warming. Communications Earth & Environment 5, 281 (2024)

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    J. Fan, Y . Wang, D. Rosenfeld, X. Liu, Review of Aerosol–Cloud Interactions: Mechanisms, Significance, and Challenges. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 73, 4221- 4252 (2016)

    work page 2016

  14. [14]

    J. H. Seinfeld et al., Improving our fundamental understanding of the role of aerosol−cloud interactions in the climate system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, 5781-5790 (2016)

    work page 2016

  15. [15]

    Morrison et al., Confronting the Challenge of Modeling Cloud and Precipitation Microphysics

    H. Morrison et al., Confronting the Challenge of Modeling Cloud and Precipitation Microphysics. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 12, e2019MS001689 (2020)

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    Mülmenstädt et al., Reducing the aerosol forcing uncertainty using observational constraints on warm rain processes

    J. Mülmenstädt et al., Reducing the aerosol forcing uncertainty using observational constraints on warm rain processes. Science Advances 6, eaaz6433 (2020)

    work page 2020

  17. [17]

    McFarlane, Parameterizations: representing key processes in climate models without resolving them

    N. McFarlane, Parameterizations: representing key processes in climate models without resolving them. WIREs Climate Change 2, 482-497 (2011)

    work page 2011

  18. [18]

    Thayer-Calder et al., A unified parameterization of clouds and turbulence using CLUBB and subcolumns in the Community Atmosphere Model

    K. Thayer-Calder et al., A unified parameterization of clouds and turbulence using CLUBB and subcolumns in the Community Atmosphere Model. Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 3801-3821 (2015)

    work page 2015

  19. [19]

    X. Shi, H. L. Hagen, F. K. Chow, G. H. Bryan, R. L. Street, Large-Eddy Simulation of the Stratocumulus-Capped Boundary Layer with Explicit Filtering and Reconstruction Turbulence Modeling. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 75, 611-637 (2018)

    work page 2018

  20. [20]

    R. L. Atlas et al., How Well Do Large-Eddy Simulations and Global Climate Models Represent Observed Boundary Layer Structures and Low Clouds Over the Summertime Southern Ocean? Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 12, e2020MS002205 (2020)

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    Seifert, T

    A. Seifert, T. Heus, Large-eddy simulation of organized precipitating trade wind cumulus clouds. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 13, 5631-5645 (2013)

    work page 2013

  22. [22]

    X. Zhou, C. S. Bretherton, The Correlation of Mesoscale Humidity Anomalies With Mesoscale Organization of Marine Stratocumulus From Observations Over the ARM Eastern North Atlantic Site. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 124, 14059- 14071 (2019)

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    Narenpitak, J

    P. Narenpitak, J. Kazil, T. Yamaguchi, P. Quinn, G. Feingold, From Sugar to Flowers: A Transition of Shallow Cumulus Organization During ATOMIC. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 13, e2021MS002619 (2021)

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    P. N. Blossey et al., Marine low cloud sensitivity to an idealized climate change: The CGILS LES intercomparison. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 5, 234-258 (2013)

    work page 2013

  25. [25]

    P. N. Blossey et al., CGILS Phase 2 LES intercomparison of response of subtropical marine low cloud regimes to CO2 quadrupling and a CMIP3 composite forcing change. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 8, 1714-1726 (2016)

    work page 2016

  26. [26]

    Zhang et al., CGILS: Results from the first phase of an international project to understand the physical mechanisms of low cloud feedbacks in single column models

    M. Zhang et al., CGILS: Results from the first phase of an international project to understand the physical mechanisms of low cloud feedbacks in single column models. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 5, 826-842 (2013)

    work page 2013

  27. [27]

    S. K. Krueger, G. T. McLean, Q. Fu, Numerical Simulation of the Stratus-to-Cumulus Transition in the Subtropical Marine Boundary Layer. Part I: Boundary-Layer Structure. Journal of Atmospheric Sciences 52, 2839-2850 (1995)

    work page 1995

  28. [28]

    M. C. Wyant, C. S. Bretherton, H. A. Rand, D. E. Stevens, Numerical Simulations and a Conceptual Model of the Stratocumulus to Trade Cumulus Transition. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 54, 168-192 (1997)

    work page 1997

  29. [29]

    Yamaguchi, G

    T. Yamaguchi, G. Feingold, J. Kazil, A. McComiskey, Stratocumulus to cumulus transition in the presence of elevated smoke layers. Geophysical Research Letters 42, 10,478- 410,485 (2015)

    work page 2015

  30. [30]

    Wood et al., Ultraclean Layers and Optically Thin Clouds in the Stratocumulus-to- Cumulus Transition

    R. Wood et al., Ultraclean Layers and Optically Thin Clouds in the Stratocumulus-to- Cumulus Transition. Part I: Observations. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 75, 1631- 1652 (2018)

    work page 2018

  31. [31]

    Sarkar et al., Observations Pertaining to Precipitation within the Northeast Pacific Stratocumulus-to-Cumulus Transition

    M. Sarkar et al., Observations Pertaining to Precipitation within the Northeast Pacific Stratocumulus-to-Cumulus Transition. Monthly Weather Review 148, 1251-1273 (2020)

    work page 2020

  32. [32]

    J. Y . Chun, R. Wood, P. N. Blossey, S. J. Doherty, Impact on the stratocumulus-to-cumulus transition of the interaction of cloud microphysics and macrophysics with large-scale circulation. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 25, 5251-5271 (2025)

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    Prabhakaran, F

    P. Prabhakaran, F. Hoffmann, G. Feingold, Effects of intermittent aerosol forcing on the stratocumulus-to-cumulus transition. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 24, 1919-1937 (2024)

    work page 1919

  34. [34]

    Sandu, B

    I. Sandu, B. Stevens, On the Factors Modulating the Stratocumulus to Cumulus Transitions. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 68, 1865-1881 (2011)

    work page 2011

  35. [35]

    Erfani et al., Simulating Aerosol Lifecycle Impacts on the Subtropical Stratocumulus- to-Cumulus Transition Using Large-Eddy Simulations

    E. Erfani et al., Simulating Aerosol Lifecycle Impacts on the Subtropical Stratocumulus- to-Cumulus Transition Using Large-Eddy Simulations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 127, e2022JD037258 (2022)

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    C. S. Bretherton, P. N. Blossey, Low cloud reduction in a greenhouse-warmed climate: Results from Lagrangian LES of a subtropical marine cloudiness transition. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 6, 91-114 (2014)

    work page 2014

  37. [37]

    A. H. Berner, C. S. Bretherton, R. Wood, A. Muhlbauer, Marine boundary layer cloud regimes and POC formation in a CRM coupled to a bulk aerosol scheme. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 13, 12549-12572 (2013)

    work page 2013

  38. [38]

    H. Wang, G. Feingold, Modeling Mesoscale Cellular Structures and Drizzle in Marine Stratocumulus. Part II: The Microphysics and Dynamics of the Boundary Region between Open and Closed Cells. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 66, 3257-3275 (2009)

    work page 2009

  39. [39]

    J. Y . Chun, R. Wood, P. Blossey, S. J. Doherty, Microphysical, macrophysical, and radiative responses of subtropical marine clouds to aerosol injections. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 23, 1345-1368 (2023)

    work page 2023

  40. [40]

    C. S. Bretherton et al., Cloud, Aerosol, and Boundary Layer Structure across the Northeast Pacific Stratocumulus–Cumulus Transition as Observed during CSET. Monthly Weather Review 147, 2083-2103 (2019)

    work page 2083

  41. [41]

    Twomey, Pollution and the planetary albedo

    S. Twomey, Pollution and the planetary albedo. Atmospheric Environment (1967) 8, 1251- 1256 (1974)

    work page 1967

  42. [42]

    Quaas et al., Aerosol indirect effects – general circulation model intercomparison and evaluation with satellite data

    J. Quaas et al., Aerosol indirect effects – general circulation model intercomparison and evaluation with satellite data. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 9, 8697-8717 (2009)

    work page 2009

  43. [43]

    B. A. Albrecht, Aerosols, Cloud Microphysics, and Fractional Cloudiness. Science 245, 1227-1230 (1989)

    work page 1989

  44. [44]

    Glassmeier et al., Aerosol-cloud-climate cooling overestimated by ship-track data

    F. Glassmeier et al., Aerosol-cloud-climate cooling overestimated by ship-track data. Science 371, 485-489 (2021)

    work page 2021

  45. [45]

    Schneider, C

    T. Schneider, C. M. Kaul, K. G. Pressel, Possible climate transitions from breakup of stratocumulus decks under greenhouse warming. Nature Geoscience 12, 163-167 (2019)

    work page 2019

  46. [46]

    C. S. Bretherton, Insights into low-latitude cloud feedbacks from high-resolution models. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 373, 20140415 (2015)

    work page 2015

  47. [47]

    Yamaguchi, G

    T. Yamaguchi, G. Feingold, J. Kazil, Stratocumulus to Cumulus Transition by Drizzle. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 9, 2333-2349 (2017)

    work page 2017

  48. [48]

    G. A. Vecchi, B. J. Soden, Global Warming and the Weakening of the Tropical Circulation. Journal of Climate 20, 4316-4340 (2007)

    work page 2007

  49. [49]

    S. M. Kang, Y . Shin, H. Kim, S.-P. Xie, S. Hu, Disentangling the mechanisms of equatorial Pacific climate change. Science Advances 9, eadf5059 (2023)

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    F. F. Malavelle et al., Strong constraints on aerosol–cloud interactions from volcanic eruptions. Nature 546, 485-491 (2017)

    work page 2017

  51. [51]

    J. Mülmenstädt et al., General circulation models simulate negative liquid water path– droplet number correlations, but anthropogenic aerosols still increase simulated liquid water path. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 24, 7331-7345 (2024)

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    A. L. Igel, Processes Controlling the Entrainment and Liquid Water Response to Aerosol Perturbations in Nonprecipitating Stratocumulus Clouds. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 81, 1605-1616 (2024)

    work page 2024

  53. [53]

    Global distribution of total cloud cover and cloud type amounts over the ocean,

    S. G. Warren et al., "Global distribution of total cloud cover and cloud type amounts over the ocean," (USDOE Office of Energy Research, Washington, DC (USA). Carbon Dioxide Research Div.; National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO (USA), United States, 1988)

    work page 1988

  54. [54]

    Wood, Stratocumulus Clouds

    R. Wood, Stratocumulus Clouds. Monthly Weather Review 140, 2373-2423 (2012)

    work page 2012

  55. [55]

    Latham et al., Marine cloud brightening

    J. Latham et al., Marine cloud brightening. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 370, 4217-4262 (2012)

    work page 2012

  56. [56]

    M. S. Diamond et al., To assess marine cloud brightening's technical feasibility, we need to know what to study—and when to stop. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, e2118379119 (2022)

    work page 2022

  57. [57]

    Feingold et al., Physical science research needed to evaluate the viability and risks of marine cloud brightening

    G. Feingold et al., Physical science research needed to evaluate the viability and risks of marine cloud brightening. Science Advances 10, eadi8594 (2024)

    work page 2024

  58. [58]

    Rasch et al., A protocol for model intercomparison of impacts of Marine Cloud Brightening Climate Intervention

    P. Rasch et al., A protocol for model intercomparison of impacts of Marine Cloud Brightening Climate Intervention. EGUsphere 2024, 1-43 (2024)

    work page 2024

  59. [59]

    Quaas et al., Robust evidence for reversal of the trend in aerosol effective climate forcing

    J. Quaas et al., Robust evidence for reversal of the trend in aerosol effective climate forcing. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 22, 12221-12239 (2022)

    work page 2022

  60. [60]

    Gettelman, S

    A. Gettelman, S. C. Sherwood, Processes Responsible for Cloud Feedback. Current Climate Change Reports 2, 179-189 (2016)

    work page 2016

  61. [61]

    R. Wood, M. A. V ogt, I. L. McCoy, Aggressive Aerosol Mitigation Policies Reduce Chances of Keeping Global Warming to Below 2C. Earth's Future 12, e2023EF004233 (2024)

    work page 2024

  62. [62]

    X. Qu, A. Hall, Surface Contribution to Planetary Albedo Variability in Cryosphere Regions. Journal of Climate 18, 5239-5252 (2005)

    work page 2005

  63. [63]

    Donohoe, D

    A. Donohoe, D. S. Battisti, Atmospheric and Surface Contributions to Planetary Albedo. Journal of Climate 24, 4402-4418 (2011)

    work page 2011

  64. [64]

    M. S. Diamond, H. M. Director, R. Eastman, A. Possner, R. Wood, Substantial Cloud Brightening From Shipping in Subtropical Low Clouds. AGU Advances 1, e2019A V000111 (2020)

    work page 2020

  65. [65]

    Wood, Assessing the potential efficacy of marine cloud brightening for cooling Earth using a simple heuristic model

    R. Wood, Assessing the potential efficacy of marine cloud brightening for cooling Earth using a simple heuristic model. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 21, 14507-14533 (2021)

    work page 2021

  66. [66]

    Quaas, O

    J. Quaas, O. Boucher, N. Bellouin, S. Kinne, Satellite-based estimate of the direct and indirect aerosol climate forcing. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 113, (2008). Acknowledgments This work used Bridges-2 at Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center through allocation EES210037 from the Advanced Cyberinfrastructure Coordination Ecosystem: Services ...

    work page 2008